đž Archived View for library.inu.red âş file âş anarchist-communist-federation-in-the-tradition.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:37:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄď¸ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: In The Tradition Author: Anarchist Communist Federation Date: 1996 Language: en Topics: history, anarchist history Source: Retrieved on 2016-11-07 from https://web.archive.org/web/20161107063543/http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue52/roots.html][flag.blackened.net]] and 2020-05-07 from [[https://libcom.org/files/afed_in_the_tradition.pdf][afed_in_the_tradition.pdf]]. Proofread online source [[http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=4853, retrieved on July 10, 2020. Notes: This pamphlet comprises articles in the series âIn the Traditionâ that first appeared in
THE SHIPWRECK OF anarchist communism in the late 70s meant that there
was no anarchist communist organisation, not even a skeletal one, that
could relate to the riots of 1981 and to the miners strike of 1984â5 as
well as to mobilisations like the Stop the City actions of 1984. But in
autumn 1984 two comrades, one a veteran of the ORA/AWA/LCG, had returned
from France where they had been living and working and where they had
been involved in the libertarian communist movement. A decision was made
to set up the Libertarian Communist Discussion Group (LCDG) with the aim
of creating a specific organisation. Copies of the Organisational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists, left over from the AWA/LCG days,
were distributed to bookshops, with a contact address for the
Anarchist-Communist Discussion Group (ACDG). Progress was slow, until
contact with the comrade who produced Virus, a duplicated magazine that
defined itself as âAnarcho-socialistâ. This comrade had broken with the
politics of the SWP and rapidly moved in an anarchist direction. Apart
from its sense of humour, Virus was defined to a certain extent by its
critiques of Leninism and of Marxism-not surprising considering the
comradeâs past experiences. From issue 5 Virus became the mouthpiece of
the LCDG, and there were a series of articles on libertarian
organisation. Other people were attracted to the group, and it
transformed itself into the ACDG, which proclaimed a long-term aim of
setting up a national anarchist-communist organisation. This came much
sooner than expected, with the growth of the group, and a splinter from
the Direct Action Movement, Syndicalist Fight, merging with the group.
In March 1986 the Anarchist Communist Federation was officially founded,
with an agreed set of aims and principles and constitutional structure
that had been developed in the previous six months.
Those anarchists who founded the ACF felt that there was a vacuum in the
movement not filled by either the Direct Action Movement (DAM) or Class
War. The objections to anarcho-syndicalism which would become more
defined in the following years, precluded us joining DAM. Whilst we
welcomed the imaginative approach of Class War, we saw that they lacked
a strategy for the construction of a coherent national organisation and
for the development of theory.
The development of the politics of the ACF is dealt with to a great
extent in the accompanying article on Organise! What should be remarked
upon is the quantum leap that the ACF made in its critique of the
unions. A critique of anarcho-syndicalism was deepened and strengthened.
At the same time the ACF broke with the ideas of rank-and- filism which
had characterised the ORA/AWA/LCG period, as well as any false notions
about national liberation and self-determination. That this was
achieved, and achieved on a collective level, seems to have surprised
some of our critics. For them, any development of politics must involve
vicious infighting and splits, accustomed as they are to Bolshevik ways
of functioning. That this was achieved without such a split points to
the increasing political maturity of the ACF. The overall theoretical
development of the ACF was light years ahead of most articles produced
in the previous period. This is vitally important. For
Anarchist-communism to survive it must develop both its theory and
practice. In this respect the ACF has made important steps forward.
Unlike the previous organisations, the ACF has maintained a certain
stability. It has survived the last ten years in times of great
political inactivity (Despite high points of struggle like the anti-Poll
Tax movement). The number of militants fully committed to the
organisation have increased and the ACF has a much more stable base than
it had at its foundation.
The ACF has also developed its politics through the collective
preparation of a Manifesto and Programme which will be published this
year. The ACF has analysed the changes in capitalism and developed a
strategy which it believes can be of use in helping re-create a
revolutionary movement.
The analyses developed in the pages of Organise! and within the ACF in
general have had their effect on what passes for a revolutionary
movement in Britain. The organisational moves that Class War instigated
(turning itself from a paper group into an organisation) were influenced
to a great extent by the strong arguments for the construction of
revolutionary libertarian organisations within the pages of Virus
Similarly the Aims and Principles of both the Scottish Anarchist
Federation and the Tyneside Anarchist Group were influenced to an extent
by the politics of the ACF.
The ACF has made a strong contribution, along with that of other groups
and organisations, to the re-establishment of class struggle anarchism
in this country. This is part of a long-term process dating back to the
70s, when the struggle began to reclaim the movement from those who
opposed any talk of class analysis, (and for that matter of revolution
itself) and offered various versions of pacifism, liberalism,
individualism, and gradualism. Whilst these elements still exist, those
who call themselves class struggle anarchists has increased
considerably. This of course cannot just be put down to the theoretical
illuminations of one or several groups, but to the stark reality of the
ruling class attack in the last 20 years.
So much for some of the positive points of the ACF experience. What of
the negative points of the ACF balance-sheet?
The ACF remains a comparatively small organisation. Its desire to create
or be the component of a large revolutionary organisation and movement
has failed to happen. Many are put off joining a group where a strong
commitment and a lot of determination are required. Many libertarian
revolutionaries are as yet unconvinced of the need to create a specific
libertarian communist organisation. They remain tied to the ideas of
local groups, or at best regional federations loosely linked, being
adequate for the very difficult tasks of introducing libertarian
revolutionary ideas and practices to the mass of the population. They
remain unconvinced of the need for a unified strategy and practice, for
ideological and tactical unity and collective action as we in the ACF
have insisted upon consistently. Some remain mesmerised by the myths of
nationalism and national liberation, some by illusions in the unions.
They seem to be unconvinced for the need for a publication, distributed
throughout Britain, under the control of its writers and sellers which
could be an effective weapon in the fight to develop the anarchist
movement. Of course some local groups or regional federations produce
some fine publications, and we in the ACF would encourage the
proliferation of all sorts of propaganda and discussion publications,
whether they might be based on a town, a district, a workplace or
industry, or aimed at a particular interest group. But alongside this
must be a publication that addresses itself and responds to the needs
and problems of the working class as a whole on a Britain-wide basis.
As we noted in Virus 9, in late 1986-early 1987 :âThere has been little
sharing of experiences among libertarians in various campaigns and
struggles. Even on something as basic as a demonstration, libertarians
have marched separately and in different parts of the demonstrationâ.
This still remains true today, despite several attempts by the ACF over
the years to encourage coordinations, and even (still) on basic things
like a united contingent on a demo. Libertarians remain within their
separate local groups and organisations. There is little dialogue and
little attempt for united activity, for forums and debates where these
are possible.
And yet not since the pre-World War 1 period and the late 60s has there
been such a potential for the growth of the libertarian revolutionary
movement. The collapse of Stalinism, the changes within
social-democracy-including the British variety of Labourism- with the
end of welfarism, and the effects of both of these on Trotskyism, have
created a space which revolutionary anarchists must fill. That is why we
will continue to argue for a specific, unified libertarian communist
organisation, for coordination and dialogue between libertarian
revolutionaries, for a revolutionary programme. We will continue to
argue for these with determination. One of the points we have always
made is that an Anarchist movement cannot be built overnight, through
bluster, hype or stunts. Steady, consistent work carried out with
patience and dogged determination, unglamourous and not readily
rewarding as it may seem, is what a movement is built on. And we think
that such an approach will eventually pay off.
Our friends, critics and enemies should all take note. We do not intend
to go away. We will continue to work towards the greatest idea humanity
has ever thought and dreamed of. For us the vision of Anarchist
Communism, in which all are free and equal and live in harmony with each
other and with nature, is something worth fighting for. It continues to
be an inspiration for us, a lighthouse in the darkness of the human
night. We will continue to hold aloft proudly the red and black banner
of Anarchist Communism.
Stand with us! Join us!
This article is neither a family tree nor a systematic overview of
revolutionary politics over the last 150 years, but rather an attempt to
give recognition to those who have contributed to our political
understanding. An authentic revolutionary theory is always in a state of
development, building upon what has gone before it and trying to make a
contribution to a core of ideas and practice which remains at the very
centre of any revolutionary project. Theory, our understanding of the
world, hasnât evolved in a straight line, but has rather developed in
fits and starts relative to the class struggle itself. Often lessons
learned appear to be âlostâ and then âfoundâ again years later.
Revolutionaries appear to have sometimes spent time repeatedly
re-inventing the wheel. Events in one country may remain almost unknown
in others for linguistic and other reasons. Groups and individuals may
be approaching similar conclusions from different starting points,
unaware of each otherâs efforts. Ideological animosities often with
barely rational bases may mean such efforts never benefit from the
cross-pollination of ideas.
The ACF emerged in 1985/86 (as the Libertarian Communist Discussion
Group) as an attempt to remedy the lack of coherent class politics and
organisation amongst British anarchists. Beyond that objective the ACF
had to defend an undogmatic approach, whilst rejecting a haphazard
eclecticism which would guarantee political paralysis.
âThe emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class
itselfâ
This motto of the IWMA, probably penned by Karl Marx, defined the
difference between the revolutionaries who viewed the working class to
be the agent of revolutionary change (Marx, Bakunin) and those who saw
the liberation of the working class as the task of other forces (The
Utopian Socialists, Proudhonists and the Blanquists). The division in
the International between the âcommunistsâ (the Marxists) and the
revolutionary socialists (anarchists) created two âwingsâ of socialism.
The vast majority of Marxists (social democrats, Leninists) have paid
lip service to the motto of the First International whilst acting to
negate it in practice. Despite all manners of confusions, tactical
dead-ends and betrayals, the revolutionary anarchists have remained
loyal to it.
No AF bookstall is complete without at least a few of the classics of
what might be termed traditional anarchist communist thought.
Although Bakunin,unable to envisage a communism without the state, had
been a collectivist and had defended a form of exchange economy, by the
1880s the anarchist movement had rejected Proudhonistic economics in
favour of communism. Peter Kropotkin is rightly considered the leading
exponent of anarchist communism either side of the turn of the 19^(th)
Century and his book, The Conquest of bread (1888) is generally regarded
as the most cogent work of insurrectionary, anarchist communism.
Kropotkin argued that any revolution which failed to immediately
communise social relations, expropriate the bourgeoisie and abolish the
wages system was bound to recreate a form of private property based,
exploitative society. The anarchist communists attacked the notion of a
transitional period characterised by the continuation of the money
system, even if cash had been replaced by labour vouchers or other
tokens. Unlike the social democratic movement, for whom the continuation
of wage labour, under state control, was considered a central feature of
âsocialismâ, the anarchist communists argued for a society based upon
the idea of âFrom each according to ability, to each according to needâ.
Anarchist communism had its partisans in most parts of the world. It
would be impossible to list even a fraction of who made an important
contribution to the early theory and movement but notable are Carlo
Cafiero, Sebastien Faure, Ricardo Flores Magon and Kotoku Shusui. Within
the movement there existed various tactical differences. At a deeper
level there were divisions between pro-organisation currents, such as
those around the former social democrat MP Johann Most and Errico
Malatesta and anti-organisation currents, such as those around Luigi
Galleani. On the question of trade unionism and syndicalism there were
also divisions. Although a majority of anarchist communists supported,
critically or otherwise, the syndicalist movement, the early critics of
any identification of anarchism with syndicalism, such as Malatesta, had
a profound influence upon the early ACF as we looked at anarchist
criticisms of trade unionism. Indeed, Malatestaâs pragmatic anarchism
has been important to the AF in many areas.
The domination of reformist social democracy in the labour movement
wasnât only challenged by anarchists. In many countries
anti-parliamentarist oppositions developed and in Britain a section of
the Socialist League, a split from the Social Democratic Federation
defended an anti-statist communist position, rejecting equally the
policy of nationalisation put forward by social democracy. They
condemned âState socialism, by whatever name it is called, whose aim it
would be to make concessions to the working class while leaving the
present system of capital and wages still in operation.â Manifesto of
the Socialist League 1885.
The Anti-statist communists, who included William Morris and Joseph
Lane, were amongst the earliest critics of trade unionism, which they
likened to the grease that oils the âmachine of exploitationâ. In his
âanti-statist communist manifestoâ of 1887 Lane described the trade
unions as âbecoming little better than benefit societiesâŚâ and rejected
the campaign for the 8 hour day as a âpalliative measureâ. For the likes
of Morris, socialism or communism wasnât about shorter working hours,
welfare relief or better wages, but was about creating the conditions in
which people could live differently. The desire to live differently is
central to, for example, our Manifesto for the Millennium.
The Russian Revolutions, February and October 1917, shook the world and
sparked a wave of struggles across the globe. These events were
inspirational to the working class and to anarchists and socialists who
had opposed the slaughter of the âGreat Warâ. The soviets (councils) and
the factory committees, which emerged as organs of working class power
in the workplace and in society as a whole, represented a break with
parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy. The Bolshevik seizure of power,
which had the tacit support of the most active working class militants,
quickly revealed itself as an usurpation of power from the working class
and the âdictatorship of the proletariatâ emerged as actually a
dictatorship over the proletariat as the Bolshevik government developed
capitalism in Russia.
The opposition to the usurpation of power wasnât long in coming from the
workers and from revolutionaries, including some within the Bolshevik
party itself. The factory committees which workers has organised to run
industry co-ordinated resistance and advocated âworkers controlâ against
the introduction of âone-man managementâ. The workers hoped to keep
decision making at the grass-roots level. Whilst not the same as
communisation, these attempts at workers self-management were, at least
examples of self-activity and attempts at establishing autonomous
working class organisation against the state and the imposition of
one-man management as advocated by Lenin.
The Russian anarcho-syndicalists attacked the bureaucratisation of the
revolutionary process begun in February 1917, calling for the âimmediate
abolition of the state capitalist system and its replacement by a
socialist system on anarchist communist linesâ. Considering the trade
unions (which were dominated by Menshevik social democrats and
Bolsheviks) âdead organisationsâ they described the factory committees
as the âfighting organisational form of the entire workersâ movementâ
upon whose shoulders âthe revolution has placed the task of
reconstructing economic life along communist linesâ. Programme of the
Anarcho-Syndicalist Conference, Moscow August 1918.
Earlier that year within the Bolshevik Party, the so-called âLeftâ
communists, criticised the policy of the party which smothered the
initiative of the workers saying âsocialism and the socialist
organisation of work will either be built by the proletariat itself, or
it will not be built at all; but then something else will be erected,
namely state capitalism.â Kommunist No.2, April 1918.
In the Ukraine from 1918â1921 the imposition of state capitalism was
resisted gun in hand by the Makhnovists, the Ukrainian Revolutionary
Insurrectionary Army led by the anarchist communist Nestor Makhno. When
not engaged in combat with the land owners, German adventurers,
Ukrainian nationalists or the âRedâ army, the Makhnovists encouraged the
establishment of voluntary âworkingâ communes of peasants and workers.
Although these, like the factory committees, were expressions of working
class self-activity they were unable to attempt a total communisation of
social relations prior to their destruction by the Bolsheviks. If
socialism in one country is impossible, socialism in one region is
likewise. Nonetheless, the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions remain an
inspiration for us as they show the potentiality of working class
self-organisation.
The German revolution (1918â23) saw repeated attempts by workers to set
up organs of counter-power such as territorial councils and workplace
committees. Communists and anarchists involved themselves in these class
movements, trying to push them as far as they would go. The councils
were, however, dominated in most areas by social democrats whose aim was
to establish a (capitalist) republic and put themselves into power.
Where things got out of control the âsocialistsâ had no hesitation in
using the most reactionary militarist elements to murder the rebels and
crush the incipient revolution.
The experience of the Russian and German councils led some
revolutionaries to view workers councils as the highest expression of
workers self-organisation. Most of these advocates of council revolution
had been on the extreme left of the social democratic parties of Germany
and Holland (people like Otto Ruhle, a former social democrat MP) or in
small groups in opposition to social democracy and to the world war
(such as the International Communists of Germany (IKD)). Originally
defining themselves as left communists, they were loyal to the Bolshevik
revolution and the new Communist international but critical of the
parliamentary and trade union policy of the Leninists. Against
electoralism they pronounced âAll power to the workers councilsâ and
encouraged workers to abandon the trade unions and form âindustrial
organisationsâ that would be explicitly anti-capitalist.
The left communists, despite being in a majority, were expelled from the
fledgling Communist Party in 1920 and founded their own Communist
Workers Party, with around 40,000 members. The new party vowed to be âAs
hard as steel, as clear as glassâ, consisting of only the most resolute
communists. Simultaneously, it rejected the idea of âleadership
politicsâ, called for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the
party, and opposed the idea of âinjectingâ consciousness into the
working class from the outside. All of this earned Leninâs ire and his
âLeft Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorderâ spends much time attacking
the left communistsâ âanarchistâ deviations.
Some left communists, who after a definitive break with the Communist
International, became known as council communists, rejected the idea of
separate political and economic organisations and created a âunitaryâ
industrial organisation to parallel that of the Communist Workers Party.
Others rejected anything but the loosest form of organisation and ended
up being little more than individualists.
Most of the Council Communists considered themselves Marxists and many
shared a common contempt for anarchism, considering it a
âpetit-bourgeoisâ ideology. The German class struggle anarchists at this
time were very strong, though often divided. After 1925, sections of the
Council Communist movement worked together with the anarchists in
âanti-authoritarian blocsâ.
The positive legacy of the left /Council Communists must be their
theoretical breakthroughs in their analysis of the Trade Unions and
parliamentary democracy and in their understanding of the centrality of
working class self-organisation in the revolutionary project. Their
negative legacy can be summed up in the fetishisation of the council
form, at the expense of its actual content at any given time. This led
to the ideology of âcouncilismâ, which tended to see the councils as the
answer to all problems, a mirror image of the Leninist fetishisation of
the Party form. Despite their failings, the experience of the workersâ
councils and of Council Communist theory are very important for the
subsequent development of revolutionary politics.
The âBritishâ contribution to the council communist tradition is mainly
the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF), which from 1921
until the mid-1940s defended similar politics to those described above.
The APCF, however, described itself as âanarcho-marxianâ and attempted
to utilise what it saw as the best in both âtraditionsâ.
During the inter-war years it was the most consistent amongst a small
number of groups and individuals who defended a libertarian communist
politics and was one of the few currents to oppose World War Two on
revolutionary internationalist grounds, describing all the belligerent
states, including the Soviet Union, as imperialist.
âThere is no single humanity, there is a humanity, of classes, slaves
and mastersâ. The 1926 Organisational Platform of the Libertarian
Communists was without doubt the most remarkable contribution to
anarchist politics and practice for perhaps a quarter of a century.
Written by Piotr Arshinov, Nestor Makhno, Ida Mett and other
revolutionary refugees from the Bolshevik regime, the Platform was
uncompromising, coherent and tightly argued. It constituted a turning
point in anarchism, a break with the anti-organisational tendencies,
which had plagued the movement like a âyellow feverâ. The Platform
argued that the anarchists had to be organised in order to carry out
their task as the âorganised vanguardâ of the working class! Whilst the
AF has never described itself as a Platformist organisation, the
Platform has served to inoculate us from the âyellow feverâ and we
endorse its call for theoretical and tactical unity.
âThere can be absolutely no common ground between exploiters and
exploited which shall prevail, only battle can decide. Bourgeoisie or
workers. Certainly not both of them at onceâ. The Friends of Durruti,
Barcelona, 1938.
The Spanish Civil War and revolution illuminated two facts. One, that
apolitical anarchism is bound to fail. Two, that anti-fascism is used by
part of the ruling class to unite the working class in defence of
democratic capitalism.
The state of âdual powerâ which existed following the early part of the
Civil War between the revolutionary working class and peasantry and the
Popular Front government in the Republic zone, inevitably gave way to
the domination of the Republican-Stalinist-Social Democrat bourgeoisie.
The opportunity to crush the republican and nationalist bourgeoisie was
a real one for armed workers and peasants but the power of the state
remained intact and the initiatives of the anarchists rapidly
undermined. The last attempt to re-assert the interests of the working
masses took place during the Maydays of 1937. The CNT and FAI, with its
âanarchistâ ministers to the fore, called off the escalating class war
and the Spanish revolution was dead. The dissident CNT-FAI militants,
the Friends of Durutti, summed it up saying that âdemocracy defeated the
Spanish people, not fascismâ. Antifascist Spain had destroyed the
Spanish revolution and paved the way for World War II.
et Rouge, leading up to May â68
FEW ORGANISED POLITICAL groups opposed the Second World War from a class
position. Those minorities who did included the anarchists, council
communist (the remnants of the revolutionary workers movement of the
1920s in Germany, Holland and elsewhere) and left communists such as the
Bordigists (Italian communists in exile who supported the positions of
the first leader of the Italian Communist Party). In occupied Europe
these groups were isolated and faced great dangers in trying to continue
any political intervention. During the war years theoretÂŹical
devvelopments were understandably limited, militants were too busy
dodging bullets, the draft etc. Following the thesis of their deceased
leader, the Trotskvists predicted the inevitable collapse of the
post-war Soviet Union to barbarism capitalism or the political
revolution (read change ofâ leadership) which would put Russia back on
the road to socialism.
Optimism about possibilities for revolutionary change immediately
following the war was shared by many on the left, anarchists and
libertarian communists included. Memories of the wave of revolution at
the end of the first world war remained. Howver, the way the pre-war
revolutionary movement in Germany had been smashed, and the dominance of
those âheroes of the resistanceâ, the Communist Parties in France and
Italy. meant that upheaval was limited to strike movements rather than
insurrections. Benefiting from the economic boom brought by post-war
restructuring, a social democratic consensus prevailed in Europe. In
Eastern Europe once powerful workersâ movements were now under the
Stalinist jackboot, having been âliberatedâ by the Red Army. So. many
revolutionaries felt the need to reassess the socialist project in light
of the developments over the past 30 years. In 1946. a dissident faction
developed within the French section of the Trotskyist Fourth
International, whose leading lights included Cornelius Castoriadis.
Claude Lefort and François Lyotard. Their movement away from Trotskyist
orthodoxy led them to leave the Fourth International and, in 1945. to
launch a journal, Socialisme ou Barbarie (Socialism or Barbarism) which
rejected the Trotskyist idea that the USSR was a âdegenerated workers
stateâ. Rather, SoB argued that the Soviet Uiion was a form of state
capitalism. In itself, this was hardly a revelation, after all the
Soviet Union had been characterised as such, by anarchists and left
communists, as early as 1921, What was innovative was the idea developed
by SoB of the bureaucratisation of society as a universal phenomenon. of
which the Soviet Union was a particular variation (âtotalitarianâ as
opposed to âfragmentedâ as in the West). This theory of
bureaucratisation had consequences for the subsequent development of
SoBâs politics. Early meetings of SoB were attended by â amongst others
â French Bordigists, Fontenis and fellow comrades, and by the people who
would later set up the Situationist International. The meetings must
have been very interesting!
Other than analysing the nature of the Soviet Union, the group also
focussed on the importance of workersâ autonomous struggles against
their official ârepresentationâ, such as the Labour and Communist
Parties. but particularly against the trade unions. Castoriadis made no
attempt to hide the influence of the Council Communist Anton Pannekoek,
in his understanding of socialism as something the working class does.
rather than something that is done to it or is forced upon it by
objective circumstance. The post war boom which showed little sign of
abating led some within SoB, particularly but not only Castoriadis, to
believe that capitalism had overcome its tendency to fall into periodic
crisis and that, consequently, the existence of social struggle pointed
to a different crisis, namely that of the organisation of social life
under bureaucratic capitalism. For Castoriadis. the struggle between the
owners of the means of production and the workers had been superseded by
the struggle between the order-givers and order-takers, between the
bureaucracy and those who carry out the orders of the bureaucrats. The
struggle, therefore, had come down to the struggle over who manages
production, the producers themselves or another strata. In terms of
approach to organisational concerns. SoB started off from a partyist
perspective hut became more spontaneist until its demise in 1966.
Castoriadis himself dropped out of political life to become a
professional intellectual (a critical psychologist no less!). Soon
after, François Lyotard found well-paid work defending class society and
theoretical cretinism as a guru of post-modernism. In 1963, SoB split
and a group known as Pouvoir Ouvrier (Workersâ Power. not to be confused
with the British Trot group) emerged, critical of the ânewâ class
analysis, arguing for a more âtraditionalâ class analysis and the need
for a vanguard-type organisation not so far removed from that of the
Trotskyists. This group showed how a political current can get it half
right!
The influence the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Comniunists
(see âIn the tradition: part oneâ) was felt particularly strongly in
France and the debate between Platformists and Svnthesists raged in
France throughout the 1930s, The Second World War put these arguments on
ice for a time but they immediately resurfaced with the coming of
âpeaceâ. The French Anarchist Federation became, for a time, dominated
by Platformists. changing its name to the Libertarian Communist
Federation (FCL) and excluding those who opposed the changes. The FCL
emphasised engagement in the day-to-day struggles of the exploited and
oppressed and an opposition to philosophical navel-gazing.
In 1953. Georges Fontenis of the FCL published the Manifesto of
Libetarian Communism. The Manifesto, which remained untranslated into
English until almost 35 years later, remains probably the most coherent
example of Platformist writing available. In it, Fontenis powerfully
argues that anarchism is a product of social and class struggle and not
an âabstract philosophyâ or âindividualist ethicâ. Rather, he states,
âIt was born in and out ofâ the social and it had to wait for a given
historic period and a given state of class antagonism for anarchist
communist aspirations that Socialisme ou Barbarie and Noir et Rouge to
show themselves clearly for the phenomenon or revolt to result in a
coherent and completely revolutionary conception.â The Manifesto like
the Platform before it, defended theoretical unity; tactical unity;
collective responsibilitv and a collective method of action, organised
through a specific organisation. Whilst it rejected the notion of the
âDictatorship of the Proletariatâ as a term too open to interpretation
to be of use, the Manifesto was viewed by some to lean too much towards
a Leninism sans Lenin.
In 1955, the Revolutionary Anarchist Action Groups (GAAR) split from the
Federation Communiste Libertaire (FCL), unhappy with all direction the
FCL was taking (including flirtations with ârevolutionaryâ
electoralism!),but wishing to continue to defend Platformism. The group
launched a magazine Noir et Rouge (Black and Red) in 1956, which
continued until 1970. The group changed its name to Noir et Rouge in
1961 and a year later some of those involved rejoined the French
Anarchist Federation. Noir et Rouge had as their initial aim to âPrepare
the basis of a rejuvenated anarchism and in order to do this the group
attempted a reappraisal of the revolutionary experiences of the 20^(th)
century, particularly the experiences of workerâsâ councils in Russia
and the collectivisations in the Spanish Revolution but also those of
Hungary 1956 and the more recent attempts at âself-managementâ in
Yugoslavia and Algeria. This led the group, particularly after 1961, to
criticise all âtraditionalâ revolutionary politics. including
Platformism. It would appear were converging from very different
backgrounds during the 1950s and early 1960s. Unlike the majority of the
GAAR, the magazine group turned awav from a stress on organisation
towards a more spontaneous approach. Unlike Socialisme ou Barbarie
however. little of their writing was published in the English language
and so their pioneering attempts to ârejuvenateâ anarchism are almost
unknown outside France. Perhaps the most infamous associate of Noir et
Rouge was Daniel CohnâBendit. âDanny the Redâ. who would play a role as
spokesperson for the May events in France. Noir et Rouge, like SoB, and
the Situationists (see below) had an important influence on the build-up
to May 68 and the events themselves, despite the limited circulation of
their ideas and publications. Something worth remembering when plodding
on with our activities and propaganda.
In post-war Italy, anarchists influenced by the Platformist tradition
and by the critical Marxism of the German communist Karl Korsch emerged.
They opposed the direction of the large synthesist organisation, the
Italian Anarchist Federation (FAI), which was beginning to reject class
analysis in favour of a vague humanistic version of anarchism. Unlike
the French Platformists, the Italians decided to split off from the FAI
and form their own organisation. The Anarchist Groups of Proletarian
Action (GAAP) in 1949/50. They emphaÂŹsised the need for a rigorous
political approach, an engagement with Marxism, and defended the class
basis of anarchism. Much of their energy was engaged in the struggle
against Stalinism, in the shape of the massive Italian Communist Party.
On an international level they called for the opening of a revolutionary
âThird Frontâ against American anc Soviet imperialism and were part of
the short-lived Libertarian Communist International alongside comrades
in France and Spain. Isolated from traditional anarchism and ultimately
marginalised by Stalinism in a period of low class struggle, the GAAP
eventually merged with Azione Comunista, a confederation of dissident
Trotskvist, Bordigist and former Communist Party militants, from which
they were after a short time effectively expelled. This led to the
groupâs disintegration.
The Hungarian uprising of 1956 came as a breath of fresh air against the
stink of Stalinism and had repercussions world-wide, inspiring many
socialists of the post-war generation to question not only the validity
of âactually existing socialismâ but to ask âwhat is the content ofâ
socialism?â The thesis of Socialisme ou Barbarie concerning the
anti-bureaucratic nature of authentic socialism seemed acutely relevant.
The group itself took the view that: â... over the coining years, all
significant questions will be condensed into one: are you for or against
the action and the program of the Hungarian workers?â So what exactly
was the Hungarian Resolution and why was it such a turning point?
Hungary in 1956 was under the government of Imre Nagy, a watered-down
Stalinist entrusted by Moscow to âliberaliseâ Hungary to put a secure
lid on social discontent. Despite his âreformsâ, the system of
exploitation in the name of socialism continued to engender opposition.
On 23^(rd) October 1956, following a mobilisation in the capital,
Budapest, by students demanding moderate reform, some of a 200,000 crowd
of demonstrators attacked the state radio station and so began the
Hungarian revolt, If students and intellectuals had provided the spark,
it was the working class who carried the flame and made sure that the
arrival of Soviet tanks was met with fierce resistance. Over the next
few days a wave of insurrectionary fervour enveloped Hungary as workers
left their factories and offices to take part in assaults upon the
headquarters of the local âred bourgeoisieâ and their secret police.
Workersâ councils emerged in every industrial centre, effectively taking
power at all levels. These councils coordinated at a local and regional
level and attempted to realise a form of workersâ control in the
workplaces. The âprogrammeâ ofâ the workersâ councils varied from area
to area but nowhere did they call for the reintroduction of free market
capitalism. The limitations of their form of workersâ control never had
time to show themselves as the Hungarian revolution, failing to spread
beyond its national borders, essentially succumbed to the military might
of the Soviet army. The experience of the councils, which developed
spontaneously. without the leadership of any vanguard party and which
within a matter of days took responsibility for production, distribution
and communication on a national level had an enormous impact on those in
the revolutionary movement willing to see past Stalinist lies about an
attempted âcapitalist restorationâ by ânationalistsâ. Whatever the
limitations of the councils programme, the fact that the working class
had once more shown its capacity for autonomous action was an
inspiration for those fighting for working class self-organisation.
Three years later in Britain, a current developed, under the influence
of Socialisme ou Barbarie, which broke with Trotskyism (in this case the
Socialist Labour League led by Gerry Healy). Originally called Socialism
Reaffirmed, the group would become known as Solidarity and exist in one
form or another for almost 30 years. Although initially seeing itself as
a Marxist group critical of the Bolshevik heritage, it soon developed
its own character as a ânational organisationâ of libertarian
socialists. In 1961 it published an English translation of the key
statement of the Socialisme ou Barbarie group and consequentlv published
much of the writing of Castoriadis (under the pen name Paul Cardan),
including his post-1964 work. Like Castoriadis, Solidarity defended the
need for workersâ self-management of production and of society, but not
all those involved in the organisation fully accepted his notion of the
new revoluntionary âsubjectâ being âorder takersâ rather than
proletarians. The Situationist International (see below) suggested that,
thanks to Solidarityâs translator. the group received Castoriadisâ work
â... like the light that arrives on Earth from stars that have already
long burned outâ and were unaware that the founder of Socialisme ou
Barbarie had long since died, politically speaking. Although the
Anarchist Federation generallv rejects the term âself-managementâ with
all its ambiguity. it is obvious that many people within Solidarity
interpreted the term as meaning the end of production for sale or
exchange. Whatever Solidarityâs weaknesses (not least their fairly lax
attitude to maintaining an international organisation and their lack of
political direction after they effectively split around 1980).
Solidarity was involved in important revolutionary activity and
publishing for at least 20 of its 30 years, producing a wealth of
literature defending a coherent vision of libertarian socialism that was
unavailable elsewhere. Compared to many of the âclass struggleâ
anarchists in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s, they developed a
consistent body of politics that recognised the need for working class
self-organisation outside social democratic and Leninist models.
The Situationist International was formed in 1957, from the unification
of three avant-garde artistic/cultural groups. For the first five years
of its existence, its main theoretical focus was on developing a
critique of art, culture, town planning and anvthing else that they
considered worth critiquing. Only in 1962. did the group â which,
although numerically small. was geographically spread across Europe
(based mainlv in France) â really develop a political perspective based
on salvaging what was authentically revolutionary from the history and
practice of the workersâ movement. Much of their early political
orientation was influenced by Socialisme ou Barbarie, and, like that
group. their ambition was to help in the creation of a ânew
revolutionary movementâ based upon the proletariat of the âindustrial
advanced countriesâ. By the time the situationists had formulated their
positions, Socialisme ou Barbarie had, however, lost hope in the
proletariat and had lost any dynamic presence in revolutionary political
life (see above). One major problem with any appraisal of the
Situationist International is the legacy left by some of their followers
and intepreters (known sometimes as Pro-Situs). which leaves them
looking like disgruntled, destructive intellectuals with very little
positive contribution to make. Actually, judged on their own writings
and record of activity, they were far from the âarty misfitsâ their
opponents would like to paint them. The situationists took Marxâs
conception of alienation and applied it to society as a whole rather
than just to the world of work. They argued that alienated labour was
central to existence in all aspects of daily life, as proletarians were
confronted by their own alienation at every turn ahout. ln culture,
sport, sexuality, education, pseudo-rebellion, everything that could be
turned into a commoditv had been. This society of mediated images. of
âspectacleâ could only be swept away by a proletarian revolution and the
realisation of âgeneralised self-managementâ, which for the
situationists meant the abolition of wage labour and the state: âThe
only reason the situationists do not call themselves communists is so as
not to be confused with the cadres of pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese
anti-worker bureaucracies.â [Italian section of the SI, 1969] So, by
their actions should they be judged. In the May 1968 events in Paris the
situationists. their comrades and allies were faced with a real-life
revolutionary situation. Did they cut the mustard? Find out next time.
This is part three of In The Tradition, a roughly chronological outline
of the various political events, movements and ideas which have
influenced the development of the Anarchist Federation.
We left off last time having looked at currents which emerged during the
1960s, particularly the British-based Solidarity and the Situationist
International (see Organise! #53). Both of these groups were to see in
the events in France of May-June 1968, confirmation of their argument
that a modern revolution would be one which would develop through the
autonomous activity of millions of âordinaryâ people and a revolution
against the official ârepresentativesâ of the working class; the unions,
labour and communist parties.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the bourgeois media, âMay â68â has
been reduced to a âstudent revoltâ centred entirely on Paris and in
particular the occupied Sorbonne University, which involved some
barricade building, some fighting with the police and a load of hot air.
The modern media enjoys pointing to the subsequent political
trajectories of various participants, notably the âspokespersonâ Daniel
Cohn-Bendit, then a libertarian communist, now a NATO supporting Green
MP, as proof that the events had no long lasting effect, were just an
outburst of youthful exuberance by the children of the bourgeoisie etc.
The reality of the events of May-June, âthe greatest revolutionary
movement in France since the Paris Communeâ (International
Situationniste, September 1969) is very different. Although the actions
of the students provided a detonator, the actual social explosion was
manifested in the largest wildcat strike in history, the occupation of
workplaces across the country and the proof, if proof were needed, that
the spectre of social revolution continues to haunt capitalism.
Superficially, the insurgence of May 1968 appears to have come out of
nowhere. In France and in Europe generally, class struggle was at a
low-ebb; there appeared a massive depoliticisation, particularly amongst
young people and prospects for any movement for revolutionary change
seemed particularly remote.
However, amongst large sectors of the working class existed a
long-standing bitterness born of long-neglected grievances concerning
wage claims and simmering resentments over conditions of work. Amongst
young workers particularly there existed a sense that the misery of the
previous generation wasnât for them. It was amongst this part of the
working class, including the âblousons noirâ, the members of street
gangs, that the revolutionary spark ignited and they were usually the
first to join the students on the streets, in order to âhave a goâ at
the police.
In the Universities, the high-schools and In many workplaces there were
also various revolutionary groups and individuals who had been agitating
for years, some of whom were or had been involved in various libertarian
socialist currents outlined in part 2 of In The Tradition. Prior to the
May-June events these groups had enjoyed a growth, but one that could
not be described as large or rapid. However, revolutionary ideas had a
small but growing audience amongst significant sections of students and
workers.
The original agitation had its origins in the Nanterre campus of the
University of Paris, a new ultra-modern nightmare of glass and steel
stuck in the middle of a mainly Algerian immigrant working class area.
In April 1967 some male students set up camp outside the female
dormitories in protest against sexual segregation, setting a ball of
dissent rolling which culminated in a student boycott of lectures in
November.
On March 22^(nd) 1968 a group of students occupied the university
administrative building in protest against the arrest of members of the
National Vietnam Committee (anti-Vietnam war protests were taking place
across the globe). This was the birth of the March 22^(nd) Movement
(M22), an affinity-type group of the amorphous New Left, but which
included anarchists and people influenced by Situationist ideas. The M22
âspokesmanâ Daniel Cohn-Bendit was associated with the Noir et Rouge
group of libertarian communists (see In the Tradition part 2) and,
thanks to the media, his face became the face of the movement. Also
amongst the student agitation were the Enrages, by no means all students
themselves, but rather a group of troublemakers close to the
Situationist International. From the student side these groups attempted
to push the movement as far as it could go, against the forces of
Stalinism and âmodernismâ which attempted to keep the struggle a
sectional one confined to improving the conditions of the monkeys in the
University zoo.
The May events began with the call for a demonstration by the M22 for
Monday, May 6^(th), in order to coincide with a disciplinary hearing
involving M22 members at the Sorbonne and the official day for beginning
exams. The academic authorities, hoping to crush the militant minority,
closed the Sorbonne and called in the riot police, the CRS on Friday
3^(rd) May. Violent clashes occurred in the Latin Quarter (the area
around the University) whilst the cops attempted to pick up the
troublemakers and generally intimidate the student population. The
official student union (UNEF) and the lecturers union called an
immediate strike in protest. This continued over the weekend as an
emergency court jailed six student âagitatorsâ and the authorities
banned the planned Monday demonstration. The march went ahead and was
the biggest seen in Paris since the Algerian war. Between the Monday and
the following Friday the momentum increased with ever larger numbers in
the streets, talking, planning, organising. On the Friday the first
barricades went up and the situation took a semi-insurrectionary turn
following a 30,000 strong march where the University students were
joined by large numbers of high school students and local workers. The
police response was brutal in the extreme but the situation was changing
from a âstudentâ protest isolated in Paris to something which would
engulf millions throughout France, that is a class movement.
On May 13^(th), realising that a grassroots revolt was gathering
momentum, the trade unions, led by the Stalinist CGT, called a one-day
protest strike in order to let off a little steam and to maintain some
sort of leadership role. The demonstration of at least 200,00 (some
estimate a far higher figure) contained workers from every industry and
workplace. At the âofficialâ end of the march the CGT stewards, of which
there were at least 10,000, managed to get most of the crowd to
disperse, although they needed to physically intimidate many non-party
activists in order maintain control. Thousands still managed to converge
on the Champ de Mars at the foot of the Eiffel tower to discuss just
where the struggle was going.
On the 13^(th) also, the Sorbonne was vacated by the CRS and
subsequently occupied by students and others. In an atmosphere which has
been described as âeuphoricâ the university buildings were transformed
into a vast arena of revolutionary discussion and action, 24 hours a
day. The original occupiers were soon joined by delegations from other
educational institutes, from the high schools (where the Jeunesse
Anarchiste Communiste (Anarchist Communist Youth) organisations played a
significant role in forming Action Committees) and from factories and
offices. Various committees developed with responsibilities for the
occupation, propaganda, liaison committees with the workers and other
students. Leninist groups argued with each other over the historical
significance of it all and who would be providing the correct
leadership. Funnily enough, none of them were required to do so. Those
who really wanted to develop the movement as far it would go attempted
to deepen the break with bourgeois society and to encourage the working
class to take things into its own hands (and out of those of the parties
and unions).
The occupation of factories and other workplaces began on May 14^(th)
when the Sud Aviation plant at Nantes was occupied by its workers. The
next day the Renault factories at Cleon and Flins were occupied and over
the next couple of days the wildcat strike wave was spread all over
France. Few major workplaces were not affected, even in small rural
towns. Action Committees were set up in numberless factories and offices
and red (and sometimes black!) flags were hoisted over building sites,
railway stations, schools and pitheads. By Monday May 20^(th) the whole
of France was paralysed. Students were talking with workers and workers
were talking amongst themselves, the main question being âhow far are we
going to take this?â. Back in the Sorbonne, revolutionary elements
within the Occupation Committee issued a call for âthe immediate
occupation of all the factories in France and the formation of workers
councilsâ. For a period it looked as if a revolution which would go far
beyond merely getting rid of the Gaullist government was a distinct
possibility. When the majority of the Occupation Committee prevaricated,
the revolutionary elements, situationists and members of the Enrages
group formed a Committee for Maintaining the Occupations on May 19^(th),
which continued to call for the creation of workers councils. This call
was echoed by various groups involved in the struggle in different parts
of France, whilst increasing numbers of workers joined the strike
movement. By the end of the week 10 million were on strike.
But the dead hand of Stalinism and of social democracy still lay heavily
upon the working class. On the 24^(th) the CGT called a mass
demonstration of its members in Paris. The March 22^(nd) Movement and
the Action Committees called for a demonstration around the slogans âNo
to parliamentary solutions! No to negotiations which only prop up
capitalism! Workers! Peasants! Students! Workers! Teachers! Schoolboys!
(sic) Let us organise and co-ordinate our struggle: For the abolition of
Bosses! All power to the Workers!â The CGT assembled, in an effort to
demobilise, around 200,00 workers, the revolutionary demonstration being
around 100,000 strong. During the latter demonstration the Stock
Exchange was burnt down and various government ministries were saved not
by the numbers of riot cops but the success of the Trotskyists Young
âRevolutionaryâ âCommunistsâ and the social democrats of the official
student union in turning the demonstrators back into the âsecurityâ of
the Latin Quarter. On the same day in Bordeaux, demonstrators attempted
to storm the municipal buildings and that night street fighting occurred
in Paris, Lyons, Nantes and other cities.
The struggle had reached a critical point and the power which appeared
for the taking began to look like it was slipping from the grasp of the
would-be revolutionaries. The May 27^(th) CGT demonstration of perhaps
half a million workers passed off with little or no incident. Three days
later President De Gaulle
announced an election within 40 days and supporters of the General and
of the maintenance of capitalism generally suddenly sensed that the
movement had stalled. A reactionary mobilisation took place with
hundreds of thousands of Franceâs bourgeoisie and their petit-bourgeois
hangers on swamping Paris, calling for order, support for the police and
a violent death for the Jew, Cohn-Bendit. The revolutionary initiative
had been lost and it only remained for the trade unions to step in and
mediate towards an orderly return to normality.
Not all workers (and certainly not all students) went back to
ânormalityâ so compliantly. The strikes in the important sectors such as
the railway, post and in the mines continued into the first week of
June. The car workers at Renault, Peugeot and Citroen continued to
occupy. But as the CGT and the other unions organised a return to work
nationally, the most intransigent sections of the working class found
themselves increasingly isolated and subject to state repression. On
June 7^(th) the Renault works at Flins was subject to a pre-dawn raid
and the occupying workers expelled at gunpoint. Sporadic fighting in the
countryside around the plant continued for three days. In various parts
of France pickets refused to budge and were having to be battered out of
the plants and back to normality.
In the Peugeot works in Sochaux an attack by the CRS was repulsed by
volleys of bolts and other metal objects. In response the police opened
fire on the workers, killing two. After a 36 hour battle, Sochaux was
finally ânormalisedâ. Most car workers voted to return by the 17^(th),
the striking radio and TV workers were the last to return, holding out
until the second week of July. As for the students, the Sorbonne was
cleared by the CRS on the 16^(th), others held out for a few more weeks.
Militants insisted âthe struggle continues â, as indeed it does, but the
revolutionary potential in France was petering out. The struggle was to
continue, but elsewhere. Solidarity, in the eyewitness account Paris may
1968
concluded that the events pointed to the need for:
...the creation of a new kind of revolutionary movement...strong enough
to outwit the bureaucratic manoeuvres, alert enough day by day to expose
the duplicity of the âleft leaderships, deeply enough implanted to
explain the to the workers the real meaning of the studentsâ struggle,
to propagate the idea of autonomous strike committees (linking up union
and non-union members), of workers management and workers councils.
âMay 1968â was followed by the Italian âHot Summerâ of 1969 (which
actually began in Autumn 1968), where a wave of strikes and factory
occupations, often outside and against the union structures spread over
industrial Italy. Mass strike meetings were opened up to âoutsidersâ â
local people, students and revolutionary militants. Particularly
combative car worker strikes broke out in Alfa Romeo and Fiat plants and
there were street confrontations with the cops throughout the year.
University, but particularly high school, students were involved in
struggles which echoed those of the French students mobilisations.
This wave of struggle gave birth to many organisations, both at the
level of the factories and in the broader social milieu, the most
notable being Lotta Continua (The Continuing Struggle) and Autonomia
Operaia (Workers Autonomy). The anti-union nature of the struggles also
gave rise to what became the theory and activity of âworkers autonomyâ
(not synonymous with the organisation of the same name), which the new
organisations attempted to relate to. Workers were taking their
struggles on to the streets, using imaginative direct actions.
Occupations of city centres and sieges of municipal buildings continued
throughout the 1970s.
Struggles in Italy also took place around the prisons, which from the
early 1970s were increasingly home to revolutionary militants, often
culminating in massive demonstrations and prison riots. The period of
heightened class struggles heralded in 1968 underwent a transformation
as a new employers offensive, based upon the desire to avoid the
emerging economic crisis, involved a technological restructuring of
industry and the end of the âworkers fortressesâ of the massive plants.
On a political level, the Communist Party was increasingly integrated
into the state structures in return for its complicity in this
restructuring. This integration of the Communist Party was in part
responsible for the emergence of urban armed struggle in the mid-70s.
Indeed, in Italy, the 1970s were defined by two aspects. Firstly, a
level of militancy amongst a large number of workers both employed and
unemployed which manifested itself in autonomous struggle both in the
factories and on a territorial basis and which arguably reached its high
point in the âmovement of â77â. Secondly, the âarmed struggle for
communismâ carried out by several Leninist groups which, when not
actually state sponsored contributed nothing to the actual class
struggles which they claimed to somehow âleadâ. The activities of the
latter, which left the working class as spectators to their own
âliberationâ, tend to overshadow the actual content of the class
struggles that took place and any revolutionary potential.
The strikes and occupations were echoed in the proletarian insurgency in
Poland in 1970â1, when workers responded to âsocialistâ austerity
measures with their very own May â68 (only in December and January!)
burning down the ruling Stalinist party headquarters to the tune of the
Internationale. In areas of the country the working class was
effectively master of the situation. As in France, and indeed Italy, the
working class balked at âgoing the whole hogâ but exhibited a need and
desire to, if only temporarily, go beyond all forms of representation
and to develop an autonomous activity. And all this without the
leadership of the self-proclaimed vanguards....
The May-June events in France were the clearest confirmation that only a
mass social revolution which stretched to every sector of exploited
humanity could end the chaos of capitalism.
This, the fourth part of our look at the political theories and
movements which have influenced our development, takes in the last 35
years. It has been a period of great worldwide change and a period where
new ideas have emerged and old ones, seemingly eclipsed, have been
rediscovered.
The âNew Leftâ which emerged in the 1960s attempted to distinguish
itself from the old left of the established Communist parties, social
democracy, Labourism and Stalinised socialism in general. It embraced
the so-called âSecond waveâ of feminism, sexual liberation and
homosexual equality. Alongside antiracism, all these ideas seem
mainstream today but to the old left even 40 years ago they were new and
startling ideas. Certainly the notion of womenâsâ liberation and of
racial equality had been present since the birth of socialism, but
rarely were they seen as central to the revolutionary project.
Superficially, much of the New Left appeared genuinely libertarian,
genuinely interested in a truly social revolution. In reality, much of
the New Left was tied closely to either Leninism (quite often Maoist or
Trotskyist) or to more openly reformist currents of thought. The New
Left may have rejected the worst excesses of Stalinism but generally
fell short of making any critique of top-down versions of socialism and
in many ways copied the failed politics of the past, not least in their
willingness to support anything that moved including every ânational
liberationâ racket that emerged.
It is of little surprise then that many of the leading lights of the New
Left were to re- appear in the last 35 years as thoroughly establishment
figures, academics and media-gurus.
So, a balance sheet of the effect of the New Left shows that although it
managed to bring up crucial questions, about what liberation must
involve, which had remained marginal for many years, it was unable to
give any answers.
The events in France in 1968 (see In the Tradition pt.3) had given
anarchist and other revolutionary movements both a big surprise and a
great deal of attention. In the period of the early 1970s anarchist,
libertarian Marxist, council and left communist group emerged across
Europe in a wave of interest amongst young workers and students for
methods of understanding and changing the world around them. The
anarchist movement at this time had been at a particularly low ebb,
having never recovered from the eclipse of the movement during the
1930s- 1940s. Certainly small currents still existed (see In the
Tradition pt. 3) and some of these had attempted to renovate and bring
forward new ideas. However, much of what passed for a movement was
firmly embedded in a happier past and found it difficult to relate to
the âyouth revolt��� of the late 60s. In the French events of â68 the
âofficialâ anarchists had played an essentially marginal role.
So, much re-inventing of the wheel took place in the early 1970s.
1970 saw Britainâs first Platformist group, with the forming of the
Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists (ORA). Although this
organisation signified a break with the chaotic synthesist approach to
anarchism hitherto employed in post- war Britain, much of its politics
seemed to echo the Trotskyist left. Eventually a large part of the
organisation ended up joining the Trotskyist camp itself. Subsequent
Platformist-orientated anarcho-communist groups, such as the Anarchist
Workers Association (AWA) and the short-lived Libertarian Communist
Group also displayed Leninist and reformist tendencies that would
eventually see their abandoning libertarian politics. But the legacy of
these groups was important for two reasons. One, they had, prior to
their degeneration, established a bridgehead against the dominant
tendencies within British anarchism, notably individualism and
anti-organisationalism. And secondly they showed later militants how not
to create consistently revolutionary organisations (a lesson
unfortunately lost upon the Anarchist Workers Group of the 1980s/90s.).
Around the same period of the mid to late 1970s other tendencies also
began to emerge, notably from an unlikely source the Socialist Party of
Great Britain (SPGB). This party, celebrating its centenary in 2004,
defends a particular, and indeed consistent, version of Marxism that
refuses any compromise with âreformismâ or struggles around bread and
butter issues, instead organising to âmake socialistsâ through
propaganda and to contest elections. Some younger members within the
SPGB had begun to question the timeless orthodoxies of the party. These
critical elements began to come together in a discussion circle which
quickly realised that the way forward did not lie within the monolithic
atmosphere of the party.
In the mid seventies this faction found itself outside the party.
Calling itself âLibertarian Communismâ it attempted to re-assess much of
the politics outlined in "In The Tradition" parts 1â3 whilst remaining
in the framework of a Marxist analysis. After changing itâs name to
Social Revolution this group joined the libertarian socialist group
Solidarity (see In the tradition pt.2), before embracing an unorthodox
councilism in the early 1980s as the group Wildcat. Wildcat, based
mainly in the North West of England, was amongst a very few currents
that actually attempted to creatively advance communist political theory
in the 1980s.
People involved with Wildcat and Workers Playtime, a left communist
journal in London, amongst others, were involved in discussions on the
nature of democracy and the fetishization of decision-making processes.
Of course, communists have always rejected representative democracy in
its classical liberal democratic-parliamentarian form, but now the
content, not just the form of democracy was being questioned. Sometimes
this took a consciously vanguardist tone, but besides the rhetoric there
were serious questions raised about the need for working class militants
to push ahead with action, regardless of the outcome of ballots, shows
of hands etc. These questions were, partially at least, emerging because
of the practical struggles that were taking place in the British
coalfields during the 1984â85 miners strike. The capitalist media and
sections of the left and far left were insisting that the National Union
of Mineworkers should have held a ballot in order to have brought into
the strike thousands of scabbing Nottinghamshire miners.
Communists began to talk of a need for the revolutionary minorities of
the working class to, when necessary, to ignore âmajorityâ decisions and
to find ways of organising in an egalitarian way without fetishising the
atomising nature of democratic decision-making. These ideas were really
a reflection of how workers in struggle (particularly the Hit Squads of
the Miners Strike) have to operate in order to be effective.
The serial is concluded next issue with developments in international
libertarian thought & struggle over the last 20 years or so.
This, the final part of the In the Tradition series, looks at
developments in international libertarian thought and struggle over the
last 20 or so years.
We finished part Four with a brief look at the Miners Strike of
1984â1985 and the impact this brutal struggle had upon the revolutionary
movement. The strike showed the combatitivity, the fierce intelligence
and the practical capability of an historic section of the working
class, the mineworkers and their friends and families. It also showed
the severe limitations of trade unionism and of the left and the
weakness of the revolutionary libertarian movement.
The leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers repeatedly called
for solidarity action from other union leaderships, to, inevitably, no
avail.
Sections of the Leninist left either called for increases in mass
picketing (SWP) or for the Trades Union Congress to call a General
Strike (Militant, WRP). The former âtacticâ was shown to be, on its own,
a dead end at Orgreave where the massed miners were battered and
dispersed in cossack style by mounted police. The second tactic was
merely reflective of the bankruptcy of Trotskyism, most of whose
partisans could think no further than calling upon the bureaucrats to
show a lead, or to workers to âcome through the experienceâ of demanding
the impossible from that bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, rank and file NUM members, their families, friends and
supporters were organising Hit Squads to target scabs and their
supporters and to defend their communities. The traditions of Trade
Union practice still held most miners back from attempting to reach out
to other sectors of the working class directly, not via the
bureaucracies of the official union structures. This widening of the
struggle would not have guaranteed victory, but its failure to emerge
condemned the struggle to defeat.
The anarchist and libertarian communist movement responded to the strike
in fractured way, reflecting the fractured nature of that movement.
Although libertarians added to the numbers on picket lines, at
demonstrations and in general support work, there was little co-
ordinated activity and a very limited amount of serious analysis. Small
collectives such as the London Workers Group (an open group of
councillists, anarchists, autonomists etc.) the Wildcat group in
Manchester and Careless Talk group in Staffordshire were amongst a
minority who attempted to address the issues (such as the need to
criticise the NUM and the need for the struggle to be spread by workers
themselves) that were being ignored elsewhere.
One group, which emerged during the Miners Strike, and which was to
subsequently have a considerable impact upon the libertarian movement in
Britain and beyond, was Class War. The Class War group and its eponymous
tabloid-style newspaper had its origin amongst working class anarchists
living in South Wales and London. Annoyed and frustrated with what they
saw as the clear lack of dynamism and general irrelevance of the
anarchist âsceneâ in Britain at the period, they adopted a populist and
highly activist approach. The emergence of this group, which developed a
nominally national federal structure in 1986, sent a shock wave through
the anarchist âsceneâ, which at that time, with rare exception, was
under the influence of pacifism, moralistic exclusivist lifestyle
âpoliticsâ and/or individualism.
Class War, not surprisingly, emphasised a populist version of class
struggle anarchism, promoting working class combativity, focussing on
community rather than workplace struggles. Their practical activity in
the first years of their existence, other than the production and
distribution of the newspaper, involved headline-grabbing heckling and
public harassment of various (highly deserving)left figures. After a
period of inventive, but inevitably less than successful âstuntsâ such
as the âBash the Richâ events, the new federation looked more seriously
at their political development.
This period of intense discussion culminated in the production of a book
titled âUnfinished Business: the politics of Class Warâ (1992) which
attempted to outline a new and distinct politics that distanced itself
if not from the anarchist tradition, then at least from the present
anarchist milieu. Simultaneously the book, somewhat unconvincingly,
embraced a libertarian take on Marxism. Although a considerable section
of Class War rejected much of the Unfinished Business thesis, the book
itself was at least a serious attempt to both renovate libertarian
thought and to address the issue of class at the end of the 20^(th)
century. In doing so it borrowed heavily from the politics of the
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (see part 2 of In
the Tradition).
Regardless of the book, the actual Class War Federation, however,
continued to be a synthesis of Platformist anarchism, autonomist
Marxism, council communism and various other tendencies, all painted in
populist colours. This created an ongoing tension in the organisation,
which, though it contained a certain dynamic, inevitably led to an
inconsistency in political line with regard to fundamentals such as the
nature of the trade unions and national liberation struggles.
After a decade of trying to extricate itself from what it described as
the âanarchist ghettoâ the Class War Federation eventually dissolved
itself after a final edition of the paper styled âAn open letter to the
revolutionary movementâ where they stated that âAfter almost 15 years of
sometimes intense and frantic activity, Class War is still tiny in
number and, as far as many in the organisation are concerned, going
nowhereâ. A small rump of militants continued the organisation, which
decided to describe itself as explicitly anarchist communist, though
maintaining a populist and increasingly counter-cultural perspective.
But no discussion of international libertarian thought in the last 20
years can ignore the legacy of Class War. Class War, which in part at
least was inspired by the experience of punk in the 1970s, breathed new
life into the anarchist body-politic and brought a fresh, fiercely
combative vision of revolutionary politics. This vision, which burned
brightly for a short time, influenced many young working class
militants, new to politics. Their irreverent approach shook up a
complacent libertarian milieu. And, if nothing else, their emphasis on
an antagonistic and emphatically class politics being central to
libertarian revolution, helped return anarchism to its working class
roots.
If a group like Class War distinguished itself in its emphasis on class,
then other libertarian currents were developing ideas which appeared to
be moving in a different direction, that of prioritising the struggle
against the environmental destruction of the planet.
Although libertarians such as Peter Kropotkin, Edward Carpenter and
William Morris, were amongst the first people anywhere to address issues
of environment and human scale economics, much of the productivism and
technophilia of capitalist ideology was shared by early socialists,
anarchists included.
This failure to address the alienating and environment destroying nature
of unfettered economic âprogressâ was evident in the brutal
industrialisation of the so- called socialist nations. The supporters of
the Soviet Union and its satellites sang the praises of the latest
super-dam or the newest tractor production figures. But it was
reflective of the lack of environmental awareness generally, that many
of those who saw the âexisting socialistâ nations for what they were,
namely state capitalist dictatorships, failed to recognise the grotesque
nature of the productivist ideology they reflected.
A revolutionary anti-capitalist understanding of green politics was slow
in developing. âEcologyâ was equated with the âconservationismâ of the
past which more often than not, hankered after a pre- industrial golden
age and hid a reactionary agenda. It was not until the work of Murray
Bookchin, and his book âOur Synthetic Environmentâ (1962) that a social
ecology would begin to emerge based upon a revolutionary humanism. This
perspective was most forcefully argued in the 1982 work âThe Ecology of
Freedomâ.
At the centre of social ecology was the realisation that the
productivist nature of capitalism was wrapped up in hierarchical social
relations as much as in the need for capital to constantly expand. So
this productivism and the desire to dominate the earth are contained
also within socialist ideologies, particularly Marxism which also defend
hierarchical social relations. Even before the emergence of Primitivism
or Deep Ecology, Bookchin realised the danger of an ecological
understanding that was based upon a misanthropic, anti- humanist
ideology.
âIn utopia man no more returns to his ancestral immediacy with nature
than anarcho-communism returns to primitive communism. Whether now or in
the future, human relationships with nature are mediated by science,
technology and knowledge. But whether science, technology and knowledge
will improve nature to its own benefit will depend upon manâs ability to
improve his social condition. Either revolution will create an
ecological society, with new ecotechnologies and ecocommunities, or
humanity and the natural world as we know it today will perish.â
(Post-scarcity anarchism, 1970).
Bookchinâs vision of a massively decentralised, stateless and classless
society which rationally utilises technology in order to both save the
planet and to save humanity remains a minority current within mainstream
green thought and organisation. On the on hand, reformist green parties
and pressure groups remain entirely within the camp of a kinder, gentler
capitalism, whilst on the other Primitivist and post-primitivist groups
prefer to rage against civilisation itself whilst following an equally
reformist trajectory.
There is much to criticise in Bookchinâs arguments. His rejection of the
working class as motor force of revolutionary transformation, his
support for a âlibertarian municipalismâ which tends to equate to
electoralism etc. But his arguments on the need for a liberatory
technology and an anti-hierarchical praxis have certainly influenced the
Anarchist Federation and even some of his ostensible critics in the
ecological resistance.
In the early 1990s, much of the cross fertilization between libertarian
communist and green thought found organisational form in Britain with
the journal Green Revolution: a revolutionary newspaper working for
ecological survival, human liberation and direct action. Though
short-lived, Green Revolution attempted an eclectic, but coherent
approach, embracing â...an unbroken tradition of struggleâ. This
tradition included the Diggers of the English Civil War, William Morris
and the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. It called for a âGreen and libertarian
critique of Marxismâ and understood that âThe war against the planet is
a class warâ. Green Revolution was caught revolutionary potential in
social ecology.
The end of âexisting socialismâ with the death of the Soviet Union and
the other state capitalist dictatorships was welcomed by libertarian
communists, not least those few who lived in those countries. Hopes were
artificially high that the possibility of a new working class movement
for a self- managed socialism would emerge, somehow, from the wreckage
of these societies. But, although a blossoming of libertarian and
anti-capitalist groups, newspapers etc. was almost immediate, the
reality was that, instability, ethnic conflict and massive attacks upon
working class living conditions were the norm across the former
âSocialistâ states as private capitalism arrived.
For the Stalinist left across the world the âcollapse of communismâ
created crisis and deepened schisms. But the Trotskyist left also felt
the effects. The Workers States, however degenerated or deformed, were
for them still examples of non-capitalist societies. Their collapse left
them in an awkward situation.
For those who considered these so-called Workers States as variants of
capitalist societies, however, their demise also had a strangely
negative impact. Certainly we had no illusion that our God had failed,
but the relentless trumpeting of the âEnd of Communismâ and by
extension, of all collective solutions to the problems posed by
capitalism, by the bourgeoisie was demoralising. âLook at what happens
when you have a revolution. Dictatorship and unfreedom inevitably
follows!â harped the ruling class, âGive up now!â. As no wave of
resistance to the new reign of free market economics seemed to be
forthcoming from the working class of the former Soviet Bloc, the early
nineties looked bleak.
The defeat of the miners strike was an enormous blow to working class
confidence. The subsequent unsuccessful struggles in British industry
such as those of the print workers at Warrington and Wapping, along with
the general run-down of manufacturing, left many feeling despondent. The
community based struggle against the Poll Tax in the late 1980s-early
1990s, whilst inspiring, did not signal the beginnings of a new working
class combativity. By 1996, the Liverpool Dockersâ fight appeared like a
struggle from another era. And, despite the efforts o the Dockers to
internationalise the struggle and to seek new allies in the direct
action oriented movements such as Reclaim the Streets, the dead hand of
the Transport and General Workers Union ensured defeat.
In parts of Europe during the period of 1986 until the mid-nineties, new
developments in the class struggle were taking place. As everywhere,
working class living conditions were under attack and as everywhere, the
Trade Unions were desperately trying to maintain their negotiating
positions and to control any autonomous struggle.
In Italy, self-organised co-ordinations of workers began to emerge
during 1985, particularly amongst teachers, railway workers and
metalworkers. These co- ordinations were outside the existing union and,
where the traditional unions existed, quickly entered into conflict with
them. Although different names were used in different industries and
regions, the movement became known as the COBAS movement (from
Committees of the Base) and used mass assemblies, recallable delegates
and militant tactics to conduct their struggles. The political
complexion of the movement was diverse and included various elements
from the old Workers Autonomy movement of the 1970s, as well as
Trotskyists, anarchists and others. Mostly its strength lay in
mobilising those workers who were fed-up with the response of the
established unions to attacks upon their sectors.
Although the COBAS movement was a positive example of self-organisation,
it suffered from sectionalism and the desire o some of its activists to
become a new trade union, a little more left and a little less
bureaucratic than the traditional ones. In February 1991 the COBAS,
alongside the anarcho-syndicalist union, the USI, organised a
self-managed general strike against the Gulf War, which involved 200,000
people. This initiative brought more people out far more than the
combined membership of the committees and USI put together.
A year later a formal organisation, the CUB (United rank and file
confederation) was established, uniting workers across various sectors.
This âalternativeâ union is today one of several in Italy, including the
UniCobas, which has an explicitly libertarian perspective. These
organisations have developed their own bureaucratic practices and
operate somewhere between a political group, a trade union and their
original role as a tool of liaison and co- ordinated struggle.
In France during the early 1990s a similar development took place as
workers in the health service, transport workers, posties, workers in
the car industry, the airports and elsewhere began to self-organise.
They established independent Liaison Committees which attempted to
co-ordinate activity in their sectors. These Committees were constantly
having to out manoeuvre the various established trade unions, themselves
competing for recognition and advantage. Wildcat strikes involving lorry
drivers, nurses and care workers, brought thousands of self-organised
workers out. When these struggles died down, some following more success
than others, the independent Committees tended not to establish
themselves, as in Italy, as permanent structures. Many of those involved
in these strikes in 1990â1992 were subsequently involved in the mass
strike wave of the Hot Autumn of 1995. Public sector workers responded
to proposed attacks upon social security, pensions and the public budget
with a series of strikes, mass demonstrations and occupations. With
echoes of 1968 (see In The Tradition part 3), at times this took on an
almost insurrectional character with pitched battles between coal miners
and police, the occupation of public buildings and barricades rising in
towns and cities across the country. Eventually, with union help, the
most active groups of workers, such as the rail workers, were isolated
and the struggles petered out.
What such events point to is that even in a period where the ruling
class seems to have extinguished the spirit of revolt and any vision of
a better world, the basic contradictions of capitalism create
resistance. Likewise, the stranglehold of bureaucrats and officials is
challenged by the innate creativity of the mass of working people, time
and time again.
The In the Tradition series has attempted to draw the very briefest
outline of the ideas, people and events that have influenced the
development of the modern libertarian communist movement. Most of the
events have allowed us insights into how people attempt to practically
solve the problems of organisation and struggle. Many have been
inspirational and we have learned most from the activity of
(extra)ordinary people trying to understand and change their world.
The Anarchist Federation accepts no guru, no theoretical God or master.
We think no libertarian group or individual should. But we reject
anti-intellectualism and ahistorical approaches, both of which are far
too common amongst anarchists. Neither do we favour an eclecticism that
simply borrows from here and there without critical appreciation. We
hope that readers will seek out for themselves the thinkers, groups and
movements that we have talked about. We hope that readers will take the
time to contact us, demanding to know why we havenât covered x, y and z!
So many important events and theories havenât made it into the parts,
perhaps we should have started work on a book several years ago!
But, in a period such as our own, when libertarian revolutionary
movements are growing in areas where they had never existed until the
last 20 years, then the need for an engagement with where we have been
is central to any understanding of where we are going in the future. We
hope that In the Tradition has made a small contribution to making that
engagement possible.
THE END (for now!).