💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › joe-white-anarchist-organisation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:37:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchist organisation
Author: Joe White
Date: 1990
Language: en
Topics: Socialism from Below, anarchist organization, platformism
Source: Retrieved on 27th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/awg/anar_org_2.html
Notes: This articleis from issue 2 of the Anarchist Workers Group magazine, Socialism from Below, it was published in Spring 1990. Three corrections pointed out in Issue 3 have been made to the text, these are the sections towards the end between [...] Spellings have also been corrected although additional mistakes may have crept in due to scanning errors.

Joe White

Anarchist organisation

One of the most abused words in the political dictionary is

“spontaneity”. It is used to justify disorganisation and mystify the

historical process of revolution. Starting from descriptions of mass

struggle, “spontaneity” has too often been elevated to a general theory

of social change.

“For some time to come the results of all types of resistance and

struggle will be described as spontaneous occurrences, though they are

nothing but the planned actions or accepted activities of men.

Spontaneity is a manner of speech, attesting to our inability to treat

the social phenomena of capitalism In a scientific, empirical way.”[1]

THE LIMITS OF SPONTANEITY.

The worst thing about ‘spontaneism’ is that it has become identified as

a definitive tenet of anarchism. Anarchists, however, have never

rejected organisation itself, only specific types of organisation. The

problem for anarchism has been the scarcity of any systematic attempts

to develop a theory of political organisation. Today’s received ideas

about anarchist organisation are largely derived from historical

accounts of anarchist movements in the past. This ‘theoretical gap’ is

not confined to anarchism. All contemporary Leninist parties model

themselves primarily on the practice of the Bolsheviks. Marx never

elaborated a clear conception of how the revolutionary minority should

organise, whilst Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done. only argues the need for a

centralised party but never details its precise form. Key concepts

identified with Leninism such as ‘the vanguard’ and ‘democratic

centralism. were never systematised by Lenin. Indeed the tendency to

view organisational forms as neutral and the failure to acknowledge any

danger of substitution or bureaucratisation are fundamental inadequacies

of Leninism. Anarchists by contrast have always been accused of being

only capable of negative criticism of bolshevism and failing to provide

a constructive alternative. If anarchists are to become more than the

“conscience of the revolution” it is vital that we develop a theory of

political organisation that guides our practise as revolutionaries

between today and the revolution.

Whilst we must take as our starting point the immense creativity of the

working class in action, we must also recognise the limits of

spontaneity. History has painfully taught us that whilst workers can

create new forms of organisation suited to their needs, and can become

politicised rapidly, it is also true that all manner of political ideas

can gain mass influence. Social democracy, Stalinism and nationalism are

powerful ideological forces which can and have derailed revolutionary

movements in the past and, as such, they cannot merely be wished away.

They must be fought, exposed and defeated by argument and example.

In Britain the main obstacle to working class independence is the Labour

Party, an organisation put to the “test of office” time and again and

consistently proven to be a bosses organisation. Despite it’s anti

working class record the left in Britain continue to function as

recruiting-sergeants for Labourism. It is crucial therefore that an

anti-labourist force is built in Britain today: one that can conduct an

unrelenting battle with the ideas of labourism and its left apologists.

The current resurgence of interest in anarchist ideas creates the

potential for building such an organisation. The Anarchist Workers Group

was set up with this specific objective. We have agreed on a number of

key organisational concepts: the leadership of ideas, the need for a

programme, interventionism and cadre organisation. We will flesh out

these ideas in the second part of the article, but first we will trace

the tradition from which these ideas originate.

Anarchism as a political philosophy of working class revolution found

its first real voice in Bakunin. Although extracting a coherent analysis

of political organisation from Bakunin’s scattered works is a

politically hazardous task, it is clear from what he has written and

from his activities that he did understand the necessity and potential

influence of an organised revolutionary minority. Firstly through the

International Brotherhood and subsequently through the Alliance of

Social Democracy, Bakunin attempted to win ideological hegemony for his

anarchist collectivist views within the nascent workers movement and the

First International.

“For it is indeed enough that one worker out of ten, seriously and with

full knowledge of the cause, join the International, while the nine

remaining outside of this organisation become subject to its invisible

influence, and, when a critical moment arrives they will follow, without

even suspecting it, its directions, in so far as this is necessary for

the salvation of the proletariat”.[2]

Those who object to the concept of an ‘invisible dictatorship’ as

authoritarian misunderstand Bakunin. What he was attempting to express

was that the influence of organised revolutionaries can extend through

‘ideas’ rather than ‘orders’. Again, in an address to Italian

revolutionaries, Bakunin clearly makes a case for this conscious

minority to play a “leadership role”.

“Three men united in an organisation already form, in my opinion, a

serious beginning of power... what will happen when you succeed in

organising several hundred of your followers throughout the country?...

several hundred well intentioned young men, when organised apart from

the people, of course do not constitute an adequate revolutionary

force... but those several hundreds are sufficient to organise the

revolutionary power of the people.”[3]

We need not agree on Bakunin’s numerical estimate to appreciate the

point: revolutionaries are many times more effective if they organise

themselves. Bakunin clearly dismisses the authoritarian idea that

revolutionaries act “apart from” or instead of the class.

SYNDICALISM.

Following the collapse of the First International and Bakunin’s death in

1876 anarchism turned to the terrorist methods of ‘propaganda-by-deed’

and simultaneously became separated from the workers movement. It was

involvement in the syndicalist union movement at the turn of the century

which won anarchism a mass working class base. Syndicalism was an

attempt to bridge the gap between day to day economic struggles and the

political goal of socialism by means of a revolutionary union. The

problem with syndicalism is that in order to be effective unions need to

organise all workers at the point of production regardless of their

political allegiances. Unions are only as revolutionary as the workers

within them and if the mass of workers are not revolutionary, unions

will tend inevitably towards accommodation with the system rather than

revolution. It is consciousness which defines workers as revolutionary,

not whether they carry a union card, however radical the union

constitution may be. The problem of consciousness is not resolved purely

by organisational means (industrial unions, direct democracy, limited

tenure of office etc.) but by way of political struggle, a struggle of

ideas.

The Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union, the CNT was formally committed to

the principles of libertarian communism, which was due to the strength

of the conscious anarchist minority within its ranks. It did not happen

naturally or spontaneously but was the product of:

“tenacious propaganda... carried out for long years in some of the

peasant villages and the constancy and strong conviction of the

agitators.”[4]

In France the syndicalist union, the CGT fell under the influence of

social democracy and Stalinism, while in Spain the anarchists found it

necessary to organise on an independent political basis within the CNT

to ensure the dominance of anarchist ideas.

Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists knew that reformism was gestating

within the organisation. This together with the government pressure and

the resulting disorganisation and demoralisation of the unions, and the

never ending manoeuvres of the tiny communist organisation gradually led

to the historic birth of the FAI in July 1927.[5]

The primary purpose of the Federation of Iberian Anarchists (FAI) was to

keep the CNT free from non-anarchist influences. The form it adopted was

the free federation of ‘autonomous affinity groups’. Each group was

“free to carry on whatever activities they wished” (Cases p109) and

while it succeeded in keeping anarchism dominant in the CNT, it proved

itself unequal to the historic questions which confronted it in July

1936. The most important attempt to answer these questions and develop a

theory of political organisation which unified theory and practice was

the Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists. This

document drawn up by exiled veterans of the Russian Revolution in 1926

had already become the centre of international anarchist controversy in

most countries, except it appears Spain. The founding conference of the

FAI had the ‘Platform’ as an agenda item, but remitted discussion

because it was not available in a Spanish translation. Apart from this

technical reason there were more important political reasons for the

platform’s lack of impression in Spain. It was written in the aftermath

of the failed Russian Revolution and addressed to an anarchist movement

which had largely lost its working class influence and which was as the

platform described, in a state of “chronic general disorganisation”.

This was not the case in Spain. The anarchists enjoyed primary influence

within a mass syndicalist movement, and obviously felt in no need of

lessons in political organisation. The case which the platform made for

strong organisation was, nonetheless, to prove particularly relevant to

Spain when anarcho-syndicalism was put to the test of revolution in

1936.

THE PLATFORM EXAMINED.

The Platform recognised the need for the anarchist minority to organise

independently from the economic organisations of the class (trade

unions, factory committees etc.). It pointed to the need for an

organisation which worked both inside and outside the labour movement to

win the hegemony of anarchist ideas.

“Without restricting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we

must seek to exercise our theoretical influence on all trade unions, and

in all its forms.”[6]

The Platform analysed the failure of the Russian Revolution in a far

more scientific way than other anarchist authors such as Voline, Maximov

and Berkman who tended on the whole to rhetorical denunciations of the

‘power crazed’ Bolsheviks. The authors of the Platform such as Makhno,

the Ukrainian insurgent leader who had narrowly escaped Trotsky’s

assassination squads, had just as much reason to detest the Bolsheviks.

Yet they also lay some of the blame at the feet of the anarchist

movement for failing to have been sufficiently well organised to counter

the Bolsheviks politically.

“The absence of a general organisation led many active anarchist

militants into the ranks of the Bolsheviks.”[7]

The most controversial section of the Platform, however concerned the

proposals for a General Union of Anarchists. The “Organisational

Section’ proposed four core organisational principles:

Theoretical Unity.

Tactical Unity.

Collective Responsibility.

Federalism.

The first two principles express the need for an agreed political

programme based on a shared understanding of both the goal and the

method of revolutionary anarchism. The requirement of collective

responsibility was simply a recognition that democratic membership

rights carried with them the responsibility of abiding by collective

decisions: “there can be no decisions without their execution”. The

Italian anarchist Malatesta was sharply critical of the ‘democratic’

standpoint of the Platform.

“It is known that the anarchists do not accept majority government

(democracy) just as they do not accept government by a few... The

anarchists have made innumerable criticisms of so-called majority

government, which moreover, in practice always leads to the domination

of a small minority”.[8]

It is a remarkable leap of logic to say that democracy automatically

leads to autocracy. It is also politically incorrect to say that

anarchists oppose democracy. Anarchists are against parliamentary

democracy because it is a sham which masks the real domination of

capital over labour which lies outside parliament. Anarchists have

always, in its place, counterpoised the real democracy of worker’s

councils to the circus of parliament. Malatesta’s criticisms,

furthermore, demonstrate a serious lack of faith in the possibility of a

society where mass decision making IS necessary to organise production

on a world wide scale. Democracy is the only way that production can be

‘consciously’ regulated such that it meets human needs. Malatesta’s

position is therefore not communist, but ‘ collectivist’. The only way

society’s labour time can be regulated through the free inter-action of

collectives without democratic planning, is the mechanism of a market.

Some of Malatesta’s criticisms do, however, need to be answered.

Although the Platform rejects a ‘false interpretation’ of federalism

which “has to often been understood as the right, above all, to manifest

one’s ego”, it does not clearly explain how disagreement and dissent can

be resolved. When Bakunin outlined the federal principles for his

proposed United States of Europe, he said:

“Because a certain country constitutes a part of some state, even if it

joined that state of its own free will, it does not follow that it is

under obligation to remain forever attached to that state... The right

of free reunion as well as the right of secession, is the first and

foremost of all political rights.”

The Platform effectively defines federalism ‘one-sidedly’ as simply

‘free association’, whereas federalism has always meant the ‘right to

secede’ as well. It is this aspect that the Platform fails to explicitly

accept or reject. In this article we are not going to deal with the

principles governing the revolutionary re-originisation of society, we

will concentrate on the constitution of a specifically political

organisation. The AWG has clarified its position on the question of

federal rights within such a political organisation. Strictly speaking

the right to secede within a political group can only mean the right to

ignore majority decisions. We therefore reject the unconditional right

to secede whilst still retaining membership. A political organisation is

a voluntary association and, as such individuals who strongly disagree

with majority decisions are free to resign.

The AWG instead employs a conception of the ‘right to dissent’ or, in

other words ‘faction rights’. Dissent can either be dealt with

bureaucratically by suppression or expulsion, or else by allowing the

‘dissenting minority’ the right to continue to argue its case as a

faction within the organisation. As libertarians we allow factions

guaranteed access to our internal bulletin and to our journal but they

are bound by the requirement of tactical unity to carry out majority

decisions. Unless both tactical unity and the right to dissent are

guaranteed within a political organisation then there is inevitable

tendency to lapse into chaos on the one hand, or authoritarianism on the

other.

Despite the Platform’s lack of attention to the mechanics of libertarian

democracy, its value lies in its clear understanding of the need for an

anarchist political organisation, based on an agreed programme, which

can provide answers to all the problems and concerns of the masses.

“from the moment when anarchists declare a conception of the revolution

and the structure of society, they are obliged to give all these

questions a clear response.”

THE SPANISH REVOLUTION.

Ten years after the Platform was published the Spanish anarchist

movement failed to meet the requirement outlined in the Platform the

requirement of leadership. This failure contributed to the defeat of the

Spanish Revolution. When dual power existed in Catalonia the anarcho

syndicalists refused to destroy the bourgeois state. This first fatal

flaw led the anarchist movement on a path of compromise which ended in

the ultimate fiasco of anarchists entering a popular front government.

Solidaridad Obero, the CNT paper, announced the entry of CNT members

into the Government by declaring that:

“the government in this hour, as a regulating instrument, has ceased to

be an oppressive force against the working class, just as the state no

longer represents the organism which divides society into classes.”[9]

The state of course, does not divide society into classes. Capitalism

creates the division between owners and producers, whilst the state is

the instrument which protects class rule. Thus not only had the

anarchist movement lost its faith in the working class as agency of

social change, but at the most vital moment their analysis of the state

collapsed into confused apologetics for collaboration. The Friends of

Durutti, a small grouping of CNT militants opposed to collaboration

were, in contrast, quite clear that this failure was due to lack of

theory and programme.

“The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a

concrete programme. We did not know where we were going. We had lyricism

aplenty; but when all is said and done we did not know what to do with

our masses of workers”[10]

Not only was the CNT in disarray but the specific anarchist

organisation, the FAI, reflected the deep rooted confusion. As far as

they were concerned the only two alternatives were a ‘libertarian

dictatorship’ or collaboration. Ricardo Sanz, a member of the Nosostros

group of the FAI expressed the dilemma thus:

“From the moment the movement took over responsibility for everything,

everyone would have to do as we ordered. What is that if not

dictatorship?”[11]

The decision to collaborate was far more than ‘historic stage fright’.

It was a theoretical failure to distinguish between leadership and

dictatorship. Collaboration was never an alternative to the

establishment of working class power. In fact the Friends of Durutti

drew out the counter -revolutionary implications of the CNT’s actions.

“It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of the state when

the state was crumbling on all sides... it breathed a lungful of oxygen

into an anaemic, terror stricken bourgeoisie”[12]

Understanding the need for a programme which the Friends of Durutti

speak of, is not to deny that both the CNT and FAI did have agreed

policies and principles which in effect constituted programmes. Nor was

it simply a case of anarchists ignoring their own programmes. What is

crucial is that those ‘programmes’ failed to address the problems of

dual power, civil war, foreign intervention; and certainly did not

inform and guide the actual practice of local branches of the movement

both before and during the revolution.

In 1933 an FAI national plenum had agreed to draught a ‘report’ on

libertarian communism which was to cover basic anarchist principles,

analysis of capitalism, re-organisation of production, defence of the

revolution amongst its questions. After the discussion and amendment the

report would be voted on and,

“was to be printed and distributed to every community in Iberia so that

the goals become understood and discussed.”[13]

However according to Casas:

“The report was never written. The atmosphere warned of grave and

foreboding developments, and men of action concerned themselves more

with revolutionary strategy than the goals.”[14]

The opposition of theory to practice is a false one. The subordination

of theory to the immediate tasks of the movement are symptomatic of the

weakness of the FAI. Strategy can only be effective if it is based on a

clear understanding of how society works in order to change it. Because

the syndicalist movement was primarily concerned with economic and trade

union issues, it was clear that the consciously anarchist section of

that movement should have a clear idea of what to do in a revolutionary

situation. It is tragically clear that a general understanding of these

tasks and problems was lacking throughout the ranks of the FAI. The

lesson of the Spanish experience is that an organisation comprised of

brave street fighters and militant trade unionists is not necessarily a

good revolutionary organisation.

ORGANISATIONAL PRINCIPLES.

As we have seen, anarchism’s most advanced theoretical expressions were

based on the experience of the class struggle and in particular the

revolutionary upheavals in Russia and Spain. For anarchists today it is

essential to advance our understanding further given half a century’s

accumulated experience since the Spanish Revolution. At the same time we

need to give anarchism a contemporary application which can start to

have a resonance in the working class movement. The AWG has identified a

number of concepts which we believe must serve as cornerstones in the

building of a mass anarchist organisation. We will now look at these

concepts systematically.

THE LEADERSHIP OF IDEAS.

Leadership is a term which tends to elicit a knee-jerk response from

many anarchists. However as we have seen, [anarchists have,

historically, employed] a concept of leadership, and have played a

leadership role in workers struggles. As the authors of the Platform

acknowledged;

“More than any other concept, anarchism should become the leading

concept of the revolution, for it is only on the theoretical base of

anarchism that the social revolution can succeed in the complete

emancipation of labour.”[15]

In doing so they recognised the crucial role that ideas play in the

revolutionary process. The Platform is equally lucid in explaining that

their conception of leadership is entirely confined to the sphere of

ideas, and is not a call for political specialisation.

“This theoretical driving force should not be confused with the

political leadership of the statist parties which leads finally to State

power.”[16]

It is more precise therefore to talk about a “leadership of ideas’ to

avoid confusion with the Leninist conception of leadership. The reason

we want our ideas to lead is quite simple. As far as we are concerned

our ideas are better than all rival schools of thought. Decades of

Stalinist counter-revolution are testimony to the fact that working

class power must be based on the most far reaching workers’ democracy

and liberty in order for the revolutionary project to survive.

The most common accusation levelled against the ‘leadership of ideas’ is

that it is, in fact the same as the Leninist concept of the vanguard

party. The final line of the Platform is usually cited as proof of

latent bolshevism because it states that the anarchist organisation “can

become the organised vanguard of their emancipating process”. Rejection

of the term ‘vanguard’ as a political concept must, however be based on

more than just the ‘guilt by association’ method whereby anyone who

shares the same vocabulary as the Leninists is, ipso facto, a Leninist.

We recognise, as a fact, that different levels of consciousness exist

within the working class, ranging from revolutionary to reformist and

through to downright reactionary. It is therefore possible to say that a

‘vanguard’ or ‘advanced’ section of workers does exist. A minority of

workers do have a clearer understanding about the role of the state and

the nature of capitalism, and by virtue of this fact these workers are

in the forefront of class struggle and play a leading role in that

struggle. This minority constitutes a vanguard.

We have no hesitation in identifying anarchists as part of the

‘vanguard’. Our anti-capitalist ideas are better than reformist ideas,

our opposition to oppression is better than bigotry, and our libertarian

methods are better than bureaucratic ones. The recognition that we are

in ideological advance of the class does not however imply that

anarchists actually constitute or are capable of constituting the

vanguard as a whole.

This is where we differ from bolshevism. We understand that different

revolutionary currents will inevitably exist within the working class

and thus the vanguard. It is clear from the writings of Lenin that he

saw no significant difference between the party and the vanguard. The

party, in Lenin’s conception was the most advanced expression of

proletarian interests. In other words it was the organisational

embodiment of the vanguard. Herein lies the theoretical substitution of

party for class which consequently sees all rival ideas as either

backward (an infantile disorder) or non-proletarian (petit-bourgeois).

The actual substitution of party rule for class power in the Soviet

Union was the logical outcome.

For us as anarchists, the only consistently socialist method of

resolving the inevitable differences of opinion within the revolutionary

working class is through the fullest and most rigorous worker’s

democracy. Thus we always put class before ‘party’ and insist that the

vanguard has no political rights over and above the rest of the working

class. We recognise that the ‘vanguard’ can act as a fetter on struggle,

just as much as it can lead, and can be outflanked by the working class

in action. Throughout much of 1917 the leaders of the Bolshevik party

tail ended the activity of the class. In May 1937 the rank and file of

the CNT fought the Stalinists on the streets of Barcelona whilst the CNT

leaders appealed through radio broadcasts for them to lay down their

arms.

The conclusion we can draw from this is that there is a qualitative

difference between the ‘leadership of ideas’ and ‘vanguardism’. It is

the substitution of the Leninist schema which constitutes the difference

between the anarchist and Leninist conceptions of leadership. Anarchists

are aware of the contradiction between the advanced minority and the

rest of the class, and therefore of the attendant danger of

substitution. This gives us a theoretical advantage over the Leninists

who either choose to ignore or fail to see the problem.

THEORETICAL AND TACTICAL UNITY: THE NEED FOR A PROGRAMME.

“The only method leading to the solution of the problem of general

organisation is, in our view, to rally active anarchist militants to a

base of precise positions: theoretical, tactical and organisational,

i.e. the more or less perfect base of a homogenous programme.”[17]

As we have seen the advocates of an anarchist programme have been a

minority within the movement. Accusations of bolshevism usually greet

any such proposals. Thus it is necessary, in the interests of critical

enquiry as opposed to prejudice, to examine what is meant by theoretical

and tactical unity.

The most common objection is that this two concepts amount to conformity

to a monolithic party line. This however is a wilful misunderstanding.

Let us look at theoretical unity first. Unity of different currents with

a different world view is not really unity at all. As the French

libertarian, Fontenis, said of this ‘synthesis’ form of organisation:

“the ‘synthesis’, or rather the conglomeration of ill matched ideas

which only agree on what isn’t of any importance, can only cause

confusion and can’t stop itself being destroyed by the differences that

are crucial...” [18]

Theoretical unity does not preclude differences of opinion within the

anarchist organisation. Where unity at the level of ideas must be forged

is over fundamental tenets: analysis of capitalism, the working class as

revolutionary subject, the role of trade unions, the nature of

oppression, the role of the political organisation etc. The only real

test of whether theoretical differences are fundamental or not is when

the ideas are put to the test of practice, for theory and practice are

integral to one another. If the theoretical disagreements are too great,

then unity of action will largely be impossible and the organisation

will disintegrate or exist purely as a debating society. Why then is

unified or collective practice of any importance?

“it removes the disastrous effect of several tactics in opposition to

one another, it concentrates all the forces of the movement, gives them

a common direction leading to a fixed objective.” [19]

The actual implementation of tactical unity is more problematic. General

tactical positions must of course be decided by the whole membership

through national conferences. However, general positions can not

anticipate all the questions that the class struggle throws up. Such

questions will often require swift answers and decisive action which

precludes full membership consultation. An organisation may decide to,

for example, agree on the necessity for an insurrection but national

conference cannot possibly predict the optimum time to launch such an

insurrection. The authors of the Platform recognised this problem and

therefore proposed the creation of an ‘ executive committee of the union

which was to be charged with a number of functions which included:

“the theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of

isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and

general tactical line of the Union” [20]

Thus the executive committee would not simply serve an administrative

role but would be delegated with responsibility of deciding tactics in

between conferences. It would not be able to depart from national

conference decisions but would clearly have a political function. It was

this aspect of the Platform which classical anarchists have found most

difficult to swallow. Malatesta denounced the idea as “a government and

a church” declared:

“the Executive Committee, must supervise the activities of individual

members and order them what and what not to do;... no one would be able

to do anything before obtaining the approval and consent of the

committee.” [21]

Such rhetoric is not only a spurious caricature but does not remove the

necessity of urgent decision-making. Spain is good example of how, in

the absence of a mechanism for emergency decision-making, such decisions

will be inevitably be made informally by elites. The various higher

bodies of the CNT were supposed to have been purely administrative

bodies. However the evidence we have suggests that the crucial decisions

made in the name of the CNT during the Spanish Revolution

(collaboration, war before revolution, entry into the government) were

made without consulting the rank and file at all. It would appear that

all these decisions were made t on behalf of the movement by

‘influential militants’ on the higher committees.

For example, according to Vernon Richards, the decision to have four CNT

ministers in the government was the result of negotiations between the

Prime Minister Caballero and CNT national secretary Horacio Prieto. The

four anarchists accepted their ministries without consulting the CNT at

any level whatsoever. In the light of Spain the proposal for an

executive committee within the constraints of national conference

decisions is not as sinister and Machiavellian as Malatesta would wish

to make out. In order to ensure maximum democratic control over such a

committee a number of conditions must be satisfied;

Firstly the programme must be as fully developed and detailed as

possible addressing itself to all issues of concern to the working class

and giving a clear and unambiguous guide to action in all foreseeable

circumstances, before, during, and after a revolutionary situation. The

programme can not simply be a series of vague statements but must unite

the most advanced understanding of social dynamics with the most

effective daily practice. Such a programme, which is itself the product

of accumulated practice, is not immutable but must be constantly tested

and modified through its practical application.

Secondly, the ‘executive committee’ must be constrained by full

libertarian democracy. The delegates to this committee must be fully

accountable and subject to immediate recall. This requires free access

to information within the organisation through a regular internal

bulletin. The greatest possible discussion must be prioritised in the

daily internal life of the organisation so as to allow for informed

decision making. The membership must be consulted immediately any

emergency decisions are made through an obligatory ratification system.

Finally, and most crucially the only way to ensure that formal rights of

recall will be exercised is to have a politically conscious, critically

minded membership.

INTERVENTION.

The political organisation should not be a purely propagandist body. If

it were to spend its time abstractly counterpoising the desirability of

anarchism to the immediate concerns of workers then it will remain a

sect. The organisation must actually take part in the day to day

struggles of the class in order to make its ideas relevant. In doing so

it should not simply participate in a ‘supportive’ or purely ‘trade

unionist’ role but participate as anarchists and attempt to politicise

these struggles. Therefore we would define such an organisation as

‘interventionist’. As opposed to the purely theoretical or purely

activist organisation, an interventionist organisation puts its ideas to

the test by seeking to influence the course of the class struggle. This

consequently requires that the political organisation creates industrial

groupings, develops policies for each industry and thereby starts to

develop the basis of an anarchist workers movement. Furthermore the

political organisation must intervene in all struggles which affect the

working class not just those arising in the workplace and break down the

sectionalism of the traditional labour movement. It must take the fight

against oppression into the workplace and open strike committees to

tenants, unwaged workers etc.

An interventionist organisation can not just be declared, it must be

forged by developing a clear understanding of ‘how’ we intervene. If we

are to intervene as anarchists as opposed to good militants we must seek

out and unearth the ‘libertarian content’ implicit in all struggles.

What does this mean in concrete terms?

Firstly we should advocate libertarian forms of struggle: direct action,

rank and file control, elected and recallable strike committees, refusal

to use the courts or arbitration bodies and so on.

Secondly we should advocate that the political content or goals of

struggle be based on the needs of the working class as a whole,

independently of the requirements of capitalism (profitability, cost

efficiency, productivity, national interest etc.). By fighting for what

our class needs as opposed to what capitalism can afford we can begin to

demonstrate in a concrete way the desirability of a society which can

satisfy those needs i.e. communism. In each struggle we need to look for

the ‘points of politicisation’ by asking ourselves ‘what do we as

anarchists have to say?’ Only by constantly asking and finding answers

to this question can we develop an anarchist practice and re-establish

anarchism’s influence in the working class movement.

CADRE ORGANISATION.

As we have argued, the political organisation requires that its members

are politically conscious and independently minded, that they are not

simply academics or shop stewards but anarchist workers capable of

winning influence for anarchist ideas. We use the term ‘cadre

organisation’ to define this concept. This is because it specifies the

way in which such an organisation must be built. The term ‘cadre’ means

the core or nucleus of an organisation. In the context of a political

organisation the cadre is the layer of skilled agitators on which the

growth of the organisation depends. It is undeniable that an anarchist

cadre was the decisive determinant in ensuring the mass influence of

Spanish anarcho-syndicalism.

“ Militants and agitators form all parts of Spain... carried on their

teaching continuously... They stayed in the villages for long periods of

time, teaching the rebels and strengthening their convictions. The

agitator made few personal demands. When he reached a village he stayed

at the house of a worker and lived as the worker did. He held

conferences and addressed meetings, generally without compensation. The

workers federation paid the expenses of the propaganda trip... “ [22]

Likewise the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) relied upon

‘soapboxers” and travelling agitators to unionise new sectors of the

American labour force. Every trade union today recognises the need for a

cadre of stewards and accordingly arranges ‘stewards schools’ and

education courses. Our advocacy of a ‘cadre-organisation’ is based on

the understanding that a mass anarchist organisation can only be built

on a solid foundation of activists who have the skills necessary to

‘educate, agitate and organise’. We also recognise that a serious

political organisation needs to develop step by step. The first task is

to develop and clarify its political ideas, to elaborate its programme

and to build an educated cadre. Thus the initial phase is characterised

by ‘qualitative’ development rather than quantitative growth.

Political development requires self education which in turn is a vital

precondition of internal democracy . We want to build an organisation

which can conduct the ‘ battle of ideas ‘ against all rival ideologies

whether sophisticated or crude. Thus in order to prevent the dominance

of a few ‘ experts’ there should be a comprehensive internal education

programme. Such a programme is necessary to facilitate informed decision

making and participation in the policy making process. There will

inevitably exist a contradiction between experienced and inexperienced

members. What is important is that this contradiction is consciously

minimised by the political organisation taking responsibility for the

education of its membership. Political [education] is not a formal

scholastic exercise but a continuous process which requires that the

organisation is geared towards political debate at all levels. A sure

way of guaranteeing stagnation is through meetings being dominated by

business i.e. organising jumble sales and fly posting rotas or

allocating the tasks of buying stamps and licking envelopes. Political

understanding is not simply gained by ploughing through academic texts

but by dynamic internal discussion, by engaging in debate with our

political rivals and through interventionist dialogue with the rest of

our class.

Another aspect of cadre-building involves equipping members with

[organisational and educational skills] no one is born with these skills

which is why the political organisation must be responsible for

developing them. In order to influence the class struggle an anarchist

organisation needs public speakers, workplace organisers, political

journalists etc. Therefore it needs to organise schools for public

speaking, organising at work, leaflet and article writing, etc.

Schools however are only one part of the equation, experience is the

other. The class struggle itself is the best form of education, and for

acquiring activist skills. Thus membership of a cadre organisation must

entail active involvement in all spheres of political life: as trade

unionists, in student unions, unwaged groups and in all political

campaigns which concern our class. The organisation must therefore

encourage, facilitate and co-ordinate the activities of its members in

order to make the most of the experience of struggle. Obviously a new

and fledgling organisation must carefully select and prioritise its

activities in order to make the best of its limited resources. The

important point nonetheless is that the activism of the membership takes

on an organised character.

A cadre organisation is not an organisation of the whole class like

trade unions, but of a political minority of anarchists. We reject the

concept of recruitment on the basis of minimal agreement with the ‘idea’

of anarchism. Such an ‘open door’ policy inevitably leads to major

political differences arising at some point with the consequence of

splits and constant instability. Recruitment to a cadre organisation

must be based on higher criteria. It must depend on broad agreement

with, understanding of, and commitment to the programme of the

organisation. Recruits must be aware of the responsibilities to the

membership: regular attendance of branch meetings, payment of dues,

execution of collective decisions. While the level of activity is

democratically determined by the whole membership, it would equally be

unacceptable to reproduce the active minority / passive majority duality

which characterises non — cadre organisations like the Labour Party.

There will inevitably be those anarchists who don’t like the sound of

the word ‘cadre’, likening it to the Leninist concept of the

‘professional revolutionary’. In ‘What Is To Be Done’ Lenin asserted:

“that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation

of leaders that maintains continuity ..... that such an organisation

must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary

engaged in revolutionary activity ...”

(Peking edition p. 54)[22]

Our use of the term cadre is quite different and has an explicitly anti

elitist trajectory. We advocate an internal education programme to

ensure maximum internal democracy. Only an active critical membership

can prevent the emergence off a division between leaders and led which

is a feature of Leninist organisations. Our ‘cadre’ is not a core of

‘readers’ within a chain of command but of skilled activists. An

anarchist cadre is not an embryonic bureaucracy or commissariat, it is

an instrument for building a qualitatively different political movement

where everyone is a leader and no-one has any privileges or political

rights over anyone else.

TOWARDS AN ANARCHIST WORKERS MOVEMENT

In Britain today there is no anarchist organisation which meets the

criteria we have outlined. Nor does the AWG claim to be such an

organisation. We are, however, unapologetic in declaring this to be our

objective. We want a movement of revolutionaries who can win the

arguments in all working class forums, who can think and act without

being told what to do by a central committee, who know how democracy

works and who can democratise struggles accordingly. We want anarchists

to be able to decisively influence the course of the class struggle in a

libertarian and anti capitalist direction. Ultimately such an organised

anarchist must be able to play its part in the working class destruction

of the capitalist state, and in preventing opportunists from hijacking a

successful workers revolution.

Capitalism today can no more satisfy human needs than it could in

Bakunin’s day. We appeal to all those who are serious about consigning

capitalism to history: join us in building an anarchist movement which

can arm the working class with the politics necessary to accomplish this

task.

[1] Paul Matlich: Spontaneity and Organissation 1949 from Anti-

Bolshevik Communism 1978

[2] Bakunin The Polltical Philosophy of Bakunin, Macmillan 1953 p 317

[3] Ibid p 380.

[4] Juan Gomez Casas: Anarchist organisation: the History of the FAI,

Black Rose 1986 p 53

[5] Ibid p.100.

[6] The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, WSM

edition

[7] Ibid

[8] Malatesta: Reply to the Platform, reprinted in Cienfugos Press

Anarchist Review 5

[9] V Richards: Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, Freedom Press.

[10] Friends of Durruti: Towards a Fresh Revolution, Drowned Rat

publications.

[11] quoted in R Fraser: Blood oft Soaln 1979.

[12] as 10.

[13] as 4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] The Platform.

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid.

[18] Manitesto of Libertarian Communism, ACF translation.

[19] The Platform.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid 22 as 4

[22] Lenin: What is to be done Peking edition p 154