💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rudolf-rocker-anarchy-and-organisation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:43:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchy and organisation Author: Rudolf Rocker Date: January 2003 Language: en Topics: anarchy, organization Source: Retrieved on 2020-06-05 from https://libcom.org/library/anarchy-organization Notes: Translation from Spanish (Castellano) of Rudolf Rocker’s “Anarchism and organisation”, Fourth digital edition, January of 2003, retrieved from Antorcha.net
This edition of Rudolf Rocker’s book fundamentally seeks to:
theory opposes any form of organization;
Anarchism.
We chose this essay because the author’s participation in the German
anarchist movement allows him to treat it with a critical view.
Furthermore his militancy in the international anarchist forum
establishes credibility in his analysis of the organization subject.
As this work was written in the 1920’s, it falls on us to try to
modernize his main ideas, which are:
the classical anarchist authors, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin
and Piotr Kropotkin, don’t establish any anti-organization theory.
lack of anarchist political preparation from certain militant sector
annulled the completed comprehension of the specifically anarchist
objectives giving way to the words anarchism, anarchist and anarchy,
being gradually distanced from their original meaning. Reaching the
extreme of being interpreted in the same way as the bourgeoisie
interprets them.
Schmidt (better known as Max Stirner), the level of inconsistencies that
these incentivized in a sector of both the German and international
anarchist movement, culminated in the absolute denial of any
organizational intentions.
Over the first point there’s a lot to take, but that does not correspond
to the objectives to which we proposed ourselves since the
organizational alternatives provided by the classical and non-classical
writers are numerous.
On the other hand, it’s necessary to raise a critic of Rocker’s analysis
of the disorganization of the German anarchist movement. He exposes the
reality of the views and actions of certain groups who continually
refused to organize themselves in the bosom of the German Anarchist
Federation, but fails to indicate, situate and explain when, where and
why the aforementioned federation originated. That is, he doesn’t
explain which needs it was responding to, if it was effectively an
organism or simply a… cadaver. Of the parties involved in the supposed
conflict, federation and anti-federation groups, he puts to judgment the
attitude of the anti-federation group. But does not tackle, and from
here comes our critic, the theoretical and practical positions of the
members of the federation.
Summarizing, according to Rocker, the responsibility for anarchism not
progressing in the time falls on the hostile attitude of the supposed
anti-organization. When in reality, and if we see this objectively, that
responsibility should be put on the G.A.F., since it was the Federation
who was directly interested in organizing the diverse anarchist groups.
As such the responsibility fell solely to the Federation to seek a way
to achieve this, and not to the anti-organizers.
On the second point, we think that this problem is much more pronounced
now than it was then. Several causes have generated and, in our opinion,
the most important ones are:
alternatives and approaches through books, pamphlets, periodicals,
magazines, comics, etc.
outside which brings about stagnation both at a cultural and political
level, in turn leading to a lack of imagination, investigation,
creation, analysis and opinion. From that the most astonishing monster
of ideology resulted, fanaticism. This is antagonic to the anarchist
plans. Fanaticism and Anarchism are diametrically opposed poles.
work and that of other anarchists, all the while any outside action or
declaration, distant from anarchism by its own actions, is profoundly
commented and discussed by these same anarchists. It seems as if one
searches, maybe unconsciously, (her)himself in that which is outside of
him(her). The few anarchist publications with a periodical character,
mainly survive due to the constant effort of little, sometimes
minuscule, groups of people and not actual support from the anarchist
community in general. There’s no doubt that the origin for such
attitudes is the defeatist sentiment that’s present. That who considers
himself adherent to anarchism ideology and doesn’t intent to do nothing
in favor of the alternatives of the ideology, is bringing with this
attitude future defeat.
consistency in any activity. It starts with an overall enthusiasm and
determination without a match, but after a short amount of time these
dissipate with surprising speed. The fatigue sets in and the little or
big amount of work performed is wasted, not to mention that the time
spent during the process was wasted too, which is lamentable. This
immaturity, this inconsistency, in what is carried out, has been for the
last two decades a common denominator in anarchist circles.
On the third point, the resurgence of Stirnian positions, we think that
this phenomenon has returned, with several causes to it. It’s obvious
that the work of Marx Stirner The Ego and its Own (Der Einzige und sein
Eigentum), is almost a jolt for every young, adolescent almost, reader
that searches diligently the ideological spectrum to justify their
presence in the world. And for this work to find a group of followers
there needs to be an adequate atmosphere, whose bases, in our opinion,
are the following elements:
inter-individual communication;
destroys, the value of each individual, practically reducing them to
nothing;
threat to individual integrity.
While such environmental characteristics exist, the field will be
fertile enough for Stirnian crops to bloom. And if this problem is not
resolved, if we don’t resolve it, there will remain plenty of the
negative characteristics which it leads to. While the atomization of the
individual is the constant, while humongous buildings populate the
cities, while avenues are designed for machines, while collective
transportation is designed for cattle and not human beings,
anti-social/anti-communitarian actions will certainly remain present,
expressed with the bitter angst shown throughout Stirner’s work. They
will keep signaling through their own irrationality the irrationality of
their environment, and that new Frankenstein’s monster, that terrible
Horla will curse his own creator and will be present in his creators
happiest moment – prophetic Shelleynian warning – the flawed and
abhorrent authoritarian way.
Let’s hope that this work is useful, by as little as it may be, to try
to overcome the identified flaws, and that with self-critics and
objective arguments we can find the breadcrumb path that will enable us
to leave this terrible maze in which we apparently find ourselves.
It is not satisfactory that within anarchist circles it hasn’t been
possible to clear this question, due to its importance for the present
anarchist movement and its future development. Here in Germany, is where
the perspectives on the question are the most intricate. Naturally the
special conditions on which modern anarchism has developed here is
largely culpable for the situation of today. A fraction of the
anarchists in Germany refuses, as a principle, any kind of organization
with certain codes of conduct and argues that the existence of such
organisms is in opposition to anarchist ideology. Others recognize the
need for small groups, but refuse any union between them, as thin as it
may be. In, for instance, the German Anarchist Federation’s fusion of
forces they see a restriction upon individual freedom and an
authoritarian tutelage by a few. We argue that these points of view come
from a complete confusion of the origin of the question, a complete lack
of knowledge of what one means by Anarchism.
Even if in Anarchism’s considerations of the diverse social formations
and ideological currents it originates from the individual, it is still
a social theory that has autonomously developed with communities as the
center. Man is above all a social creation, on which the entire species
works, slowly but without interruption, and that constantly takes new
energies celebrating each second of its resurrection. Man is the heir of
social coexistence, not the discoverer. The social instinct was received
from animal ancestors when passing the gateway towards humanity. Without
society Man is inconceivable, since life and struggle has always been
within society. Social coexistence is the precondition and most
essential part of individual existence and it’s also the starting shape
of all organization.
Maybe the strength of traditional relationships that we observe in the
majority of humanity is just a manifestation of this deep social
instinct. As Man lacks the conditions to exactly interpret what is new,
his fantasy is of the dissolution of all human relations and fearing to
drown in the subsequent chaos, he compulsively sustains himself within
the historical traditional molds. It is surely one of the errors of
coexistence, but at the same time it shows us how social impulses are
connected to the life of each individual. That who ignores or doesn’t
accept this irrefutable characteristic will never be able to understand
with clarity the impulsive forces of human evolution.
The forms of human coexistence aren’t always the same. They transform
through-out History, but society remains and works tirelessly over the
lives of individuals. Those who are used to always operating within
abstract representations – towards which German people have a certain
inclination – would eventually extract the individual from these
relationships that tie him to society, the result of this would not be a
human, but a caricature, a pale and fleshless relative that would only
have a spectral life in the nebulous world of the abstract, and that has
never existed in the real world. The result would the same of the
merchant who tried to make his donkey lose the habit of eating and that
when it died yelled with despair: “Such a shame! If he had lived just a
couple more days, we would have managed to live without eating!”
The great theoreticians of modern anarchism, Proudhon, Bakunin and
Kropotkin, always highlighted the social base of anarchist theory, using
it as the starting point for their considerations. They battled the
State, not only due to it being the defender of monopoly and social
contrasts, but also because it is the greatest obstacle for all natural
organization that develops in the heart of the people, from below to the
top, and that tends to defend the interests of the whole from the
multitude of aggression carried out against them. The State, the violent
political apparatus of the privileged minority of society, whose mission
is to force on the majority the burden of the employer’s exploitation
and spiritual tutelage, is the worst enemy of all natural relations of
human beings and it will always ensure that such relations will only
happen with the intervention of official representatives. It considers
itself the owner of Humanity and cannot allow foreign forces to meddle
in its profession.
That is why the history of the State is the history of mankind’s
slavery. Only with the existence of the State is the economic
exploitation of the people possible and its only task can be synthesized
to the defense of such exploitation. It’s the mortal enemy of all
natural liberty and solidarity – the two noblest results of social
coexistence and that obviously consist of the same thing – by
attempting, by all kinds of legal methods, to restrict or at least
paralyze all direct initiative of its citizens and all natural fusion of
humans with the goal of the defense of general interests. Proudhon had
already figured it out and in Confession d’un Révolutionnaire made the
following astute observation:
From the Social point of view, Liberty and Solidarity are two identical
concepts. As the liberty of each, is not a barrier to the liberty of
others, as stated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of
1793. It is a support for it, the most free of people is the one that
has the most relations with his fellow man.
Anarchism, the eternal opposite of scientifical, political and social
Monopolies, battles the monopoly protector and ferocious enemy of direct
and indirect human relations, the State, but was never the enemy of
organization. Quite the opposite, one of the greatest accusations
against the State apparatus is that it is the biggest obstacle to
effective organizing based on the equality of interests for all. The
great supporters of the universal anarchist conception, clearly
understood that the more opposed interested exist in the social
structures, the less humans are connected to each other and the bigger
is the level of personal freedom for the individual within the
collectivity of society. That’s why they saw in Anarchism a social state
in which individual desires and the needs of humans surpass their social
sentiments and are more or less identical to them. In mutualism they
will provide an effective stimulus for all social evolution and the
natural expression of general interests. For this reason they refused
the coercive law as a way for relationships and developed the idea of
the free accord as basis for all social forms of organization. The
predominance of laws is always the predominance of the privileged over
the majority that is excluded from the prerogatives and under its mask
of evened out rights it’s a symbol of brutal violence.
People are connected by common interests that create common tendencies,
under which free accords serve them as codes of conduct. A convention
between equals is the moral foundation for all true organization, all
other forms of human grouping are violent and without prerogatives. That
was how Proudhon understood the idea of the social organization of
humanity; he expresses this in his great work Idée générale de la
Révolution du XIX siècle, in the following:
In place of laws, we will use agreements. No more laws voted by a
consenting majority, each citizen, each town, each industrial union,
make their own laws. In place of political powers, we will use economic
forces. In place of the ancient classes of citizens, nobles, bourgeois
and proletarians we will use the general titles and specialization of
their function: Agriculture, Manufacture, Commerce, etc. In place of
public force, there will be collective force. In place of permanent
armies, we will use industrial associations. In place of police, we will
use equality of interests. In place of political centralization, we will
centralize economy. Do you see now how there can be order without
employers, a profound intellectual unity? You, who cannot conceive unity
without a whole apparatus of legislators, prosecutors and
attorneys-general, you have never known what unity is. What you call
unity and centralization is nothing but perpetual chaos, serving as a
pedestal for a real situation that has no other goal than anarchy
(naturally Proudhon is using the word anarchy in its popular and false
interpretation as disorder) of the social forces, of which you made a
base for a despotism which could exist without such anarchy.
A similar ideological notion was developed frequently in Bakunin’s
writings and publications. I only recall his conclusions in the first
Congress of the League of Peace and Liberty in 1867 in Genebra. Of
Kropotkin we will not speak in this piece, as his mains works are well
known by all. We will just point out that the admirable book Mutual Aid,
in which he studies the history of human organizations until the most
remote times proclaiming solidarity, the most wonderful of results of
social coexistence, as the biggest and most important factor of the
evolution of social life.
Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were not amoral, unlike some loud
wishy-washy Nietzsche fans from Germany who call themselves anarchists
and which are quite honest on how they consider themselves super-humans.
They haven’t constructed a lord and slave moral from which all kind of
conclusions can be taken. On the contrary, they have preoccupied
themselves with finding the origin of moral feelings in Man and
subsequently discovered it in social coexistence. Far from giving moral
a religious and metaphysical significance, they saw that moral feelings
are the natural expression of social existence that slowly crystallized
into certain conducts and behaviors and that served as a pedestal for
all forms of organization that come from the people. This was observed
with clarity by Bakunin and even more profoundly by Kropotkin, who
occupied himself until the end of his days with this question and
provided us with the results of his investigations in a special piece,
that so far has only had a few chapters published[1]. Certainly because
they observed the social origin of the moral is why they were such vocal
prophets of a social justice that finds its expression complemented with
the eternal combat of the human being towards individual freedom and
economic equality.
The majority of the countless bourgeois and state socialists that so far
have occupied themselves with the critic of Anarchism, haven’t noted the
deep character of the basic anarchist doctrine – Wilhelm Liebknecht,
Plekanoff and several others did this on purpose – because it’s the only
way to explain the artificial difference between Socialism and
Anarchism, an absurd and unfounded difference, that they seek to show.
For their classification they have mostly based their work on Stirner,
without considering that his genius piece didn’t have the slightest
influence in the origin and evolution of the true anarchist movement and
that at most Stirner can be considered, as the Italian anarchist Luis
Fabbri astutely observed, one of the most distant precursors and
ancestor of Anarchism. Stirner’s piece The Ego and Its Own appeared in
1845 and passed by unnoticed. Ninety nine percent of anarchists hadn’t
ever heard of the German philosopher and his work, until around 1890
when the book was unearthed in Germany and since then translated into
several languages. And still the influence of Stirner’s ideas on the
anarchist movement in Latin countries, where the theories of Proudhon,
Bakunin and Kropotkin have had decisive influence for decades in working
class circles, was miniscule and never increased. In certain French
intellectual circles that at the time played around with anarchism, of
which the majority have for some time now joined the other side of the
barricades, Stirner’s work had a great effect, but the majority of
workers of the time had never any contact with it.
To none of theoreticians of Anarchism did it even occur that the day
would come where they would be denominated as anarcho-socialists. All of
them felt they were socialists, since they were deeply dedicated to the
social character of their theory. For this same reason they did not call
themselves more frequently revolutionaries or anti-authoritarian
socialists, in opposition to state-socialists, only later did the name
Anarchist become natural to them.
It’s clear that the great defenders of Anarchism and the writers of the
modern anarchist movement, the ones that never got tired of stating the
social character of their ideas, could not be against organization. And
in fact were never so. They fought against the centralized structure for
organization of the State and Church, but all of them recognized the
absolute need for an organized union of forces and found in federalism
the most adequate structure for it. Proudhon’s influence over the French
worker’s associations is widely known. This is not the place to occupy
oneself with the detailed history of that highly interesting movement,
which without a doubt represents one of the most admirable chapters of
the grand struggle of Labor against the exploitation of the Capitalist
regime. Here we’re solely interested in respect to comradely
organizations. Proudhon strongly criticized, in his periodical, the
original idea for the association and attempted to influence it with his
conclusions. With the endless work of his friends inside the
associations, he managed to break State Socialist Luis Blanc’s influence
on the community and to conduct in them a great spiritual
transformation. At all times wherever he was he would incite in his
comrades the struggle against the government, and they stayed by his
side in all of his struggles. With the help of the association the ideas
of the great French thinker beneficially penetrated worker’s circles,
thus acquiring a practical form. His famous project, the Banque du
peuple, was supposed to be the natural means for the coalition between
associations all over the country and at the same time take ground away
from Capital. It is not our intention to make a critic of value and the
significance of that project, born in the specific conditions of the
time. We only intend to point out that Proudhon and his adherents were
strong supporters of organization. The project of the Banque du peuble
was a grand scale operation and Proudhon himself thought that the bank
in its first year would have over two million participants.
We just need to observe the conclusions of Proudhon over the essence and
object of forming organizations, that can be found frequently in all his
works and periodicals he put out, to recognize how deeply and detailed
the French thinker defined the attributes and substance of all social
forms of organization: the principle of Federation and the political
capacity of all the working classes.
The countless admirers that Proudhon captivated among the working class
were all staunch defenders of organization. They were the most important
element for the foundation of the International Workers Association and
the first evolution phases of the great union of workers were completely
under his spiritual influence.
But all these efforts that expressed themselves with the organizations
of the Mutualists, how the adherents to Proudhon’s ideas were called,
can be considered as the precursors and the beginning of the anarchist
movement which initiated in the International’s period, especially since
the influence of Bakunin and his friends is more recognized in the
federations of Latin countries. Bakunin was always a staunch supporter
of the idea of organization and the most important part of his activity
in Europe consisted in his unstoppable desire to organize the
revolutionary and libertarian elements and to prepare them for action.
His activity in Italy, the foundation of his Alliance, his powerful
propaganda in the ranks of the International had always as a goal that
finality. He always defended that position in a series of admirable
articles, that showed up in Geneva’s L’égalité, and that deal specially
with the organization of the International as a co-fusion of economical
federations in opposition to all political parties. In his work On the
Policy of the International Workingmen’s Association, which was
published in the aforementioned periodical, in 1869 in the issues of
August 8^(th) and 28^(th), Bakunin warns the workers against Politics,
under any shape, which fundamentally seeks a sole purpose: sustaining
the domination of the bourgeoisie and at the same time the slavery of
the proletariat. As such one should not attempt the participation in
bourgeois politics, in the hope of managing to improve his situation, as
all attempts would lead to cruel deceptions and would delay the
emancipation of work from Capitalism to a distant future. The only way
to emancipate the proletariat is the union of workers in fighting
economical organizations, as the International. The solitary worker,
even with extraordinary skills and energy, is nothing against the forces
of Capital. Only within organizations the strengths of all are developed
and concentrated towards common goals.
Bakunin was a staunch defender of organization and its necessity until
his last breath. I don’t hesitate to remember once again in his
resignation letter to his Comrades of the Jura Federation, shortly after
the 1873 Geneva Congress. A letter which can be considered a testament
to his friends and collaborators:
This is not the time for ideas, but for action, for deeds. Today, the
essential is the organization of the proletariat forces. But this
organization must be the task of the proletariat itself. If I was still
young, I would live among the workers and share their life of toil, all
the while participating with them in the grand work of proletarian
organization.
At the end of this goodbye letter he summarizes again those two
conclusions that, according to his opinion, are at conditions to by
themselves guarantee the triumph of their work, in the following words:
(1) Adhere firmly to the great and all-embracing principle of the
people’s liberty, in which equality and solidarity are not lies, (2)
Organize ever more strongly the International and the practical
solidarity of the workers of all trades in all countries, and always
remember that even though you’re weak on your own, or in local or
national organizations, you will find a colossal strength and an
irresistible power universal collective.
Bakunin, the great prophet of individual freedom, but that always
conceived it within the marks of the interests of the community, fully
recognized the need for a certain subordination of the individual
towards, voluntarily conceived, resolutions and general lines of
conduct, is at the foundation of the essence of organization. He didn’t
see in that a violation of personal freedom, unlike certain servile
dogmatists drunk in a few banal phrases that never penetrated the real
origin of anarchist ideology, despite always declaring themselves the
true holders of the anarchist principles. As he declares, for example,
in his great work The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution,
written under the influence of the still fresh events of the Paris
Commune:
As hostile as I am to what is called discipline in France, I must
however recognize, that certain non automatic discipline, but voluntary
and reasoned is and always will be necessary where several Man
voluntarily gather for a common struggle or desire a common action to
establish a movement. This discipline is no more than a voluntary
agreement reasoned upon towards a common purpose and the unification of
all individual energies towards a common goal.
In this sense the anarchist of Bakunin’s period conceived the
organization and verified the practical expression of the concept. In
this sense they worked in federations and sections of the International,
enriching it with their ideas. They organized the workers in local
propaganda sections and in groups in accordance to their trade. The
local groups and societies were part of the regional Unions and these
were part of the national organizations, which in turn were connected to
each other in the great union of the International.
If you want to have an exact painting of the extraordinary organizing
activity that anarchists carried out at the time you only have to see
the information presented by the Federación Nacional Española in the
Sixth International Congress in Geneva in 1873. This is especially
important, because the International in Spain had been guided by
anarchist principles since its beginning. Anarchism till today has been
a decisive factor in the Spanish workers movement in general, and was
capable of successfully refusing social-democratic attempts, mainly
because the Spanish anarchists have remained above all else strict to
their primitive principles and methods, despite the horrible
persecutions that they suffered and still suffer today. They never got
affected by the superman ailments and the stupid obsession with the
“Me”, whose unfortunate victims are always submerged in a mute
admiration for themselves. And they never feared that organization would
hurt their insignificant figure. Spanish anarchists were always deeply
rooted in the workers movement, whose spiritual and organizational
efficiency they always attempted to accelerate with all their strength
and in whose struggles they were always in the frontlines.
In the report of the Federación Nacional de España we can read the
following:
The Federación Nacional de España, in the 20^(th) of August 1872 had 65
local federations, with 224 trade associations and 49 mixed trade
sections. Besides that, it had 11 cities with individual adherents. In
the 20^(th) of August 1873 the Federación Nacional de España had 162
local federations, 454 trade sections and 77 mixed trade sections.
By aggregating the aforementioned local federations and the federations
that are forming (that is, the existing sections which are uniting into
federations), one reaches this result: the Federación Nacional de España
had up to the 20^(th) of August 1872, 204, existing and under formation,
local federations, 571 trade sections and 114 mixed trade sections, it
also has 11 cities, where there is no organization, but there are
individual adherents.
The 20^(th) of August of 1873 the Federación Nacional de España had 270
local federations, existing and under formation, 557 trade sections and
117 mixed trade sections.
I could also bring extracts from several reports from the Federazione
Italiana, the Jura Fédération, etc., that refer to their organizing
activities, but I would be overextending myself. All literature in
periodicals and pamphlets of the time is filled with indications on the
need for organization and in the anarchist ranks of the time there was
nobody that represented a tendency in an opposite direction. All stated
the social character of the conception of anarchism and they were all
convinced that social liberation would only be possible through the
education and organization of the masses, and that the organization is
the first condition towards common actions.
The previously mentioned character of the movement transformed gradually
after the Franco-Prussian War and especially after the horrendous fall
of the Paris Commune. The triumph of Germany and the Bismarck policies
originated a new historic achievement from which it couldn’t rid itself.
The emergence of a military-bureaucratic State in the center of Europe
equipped with all the tools of power, inevitably had influence in the
development of a general reaction of raised heads everywhere. Actually,
that was the cause too. The center of the European worker’s movement was
thrown from France to Germany, there contributing to the development of
the social-democratic movement, which in its development decisively
influenced, with a few exceptions, the other countries. Thus on one hand
the unfortunate period in which Europe was gradually falling victim to
the militarization that was occurring in Germany was born, while on the
other hand the worker’s movement, under the growing influence of the
German social-democracy, was sinking into a desperate posibilitism.
In the Latin countries where the libertarian wing of the International
had the strongest influence in the beginning of the seventh decade (of
the XIXth century) there was a savage reaction. In France, where the
best and brightest elements of the worker’s movement died in the
horrendous fall of the Commune, or where exiled to Nouvelle-Calédonie,
if they didn’t manage to escape abroad and carry out the restless life
of a refugee, all workers’ organizations were repressed by the
government and the revolutionary press was forbidden. This was repeating
itself in Spain two years later, after the bloody repression of the
Cantonalista movement and the capitulation of the Cartagena Commune. All
workers’ movements were suppressed and spreading news of the
revolutionary movement in public was impossible for years. In Italy the
members of the International were provoked as if they were savage
beasts, and public propaganda was made so difficult as to force them to
resort to secret organizations, to which their comrades from abroad were
more accustomed due to their old traditions with the secret societies of
the Carbonari and the Mazzinians.
As a result of the atrocious persecutions that the anarchist movement
endured, for several years, it disappeared from the public in Latin
countries, as it was forced to create a refuge in secret societies. As
the period of reaction lasted longer than what the majority believed it
would, the movement slowly gained a new psychology that was
fundamentally different from its previous one. Secret movements are
certainly capable of developing, in their limited circle, a superior
level of willingness to sacrifice and physical suffering in their
individuals for the good of the revolution, but they lack the wide
contact with the popular masses, the only thing they can achieve is
improving their efficiency and to conserve them fresh and excited for
long periods of time. That’s why the members of that sort of movements
lose, without realizing, the exact notion of the real events of life and
their desire converts into the creator of their thoughts. They slowly
lose the sense of constructive activity and their evolutionary thought
takes a purely negative direction. Summarizing, they unconsciously lose
the conception of popular movement. That evolutionary process occurs
surprisingly fast, in few years it gives a very different character to
the movement, when the exterior circumstances, blind persecutions by the
government, favor the development of secret organizations.
It’s understandable that, in time of general reaction, when government
prevents all possibility of public life from a movement the secret
organization is the only possible method to conserve the movement, but,
by recognizing this, we should not remain blind to the unavoidable
defects of such organizations and glorify their importance. A secret
organization can always be considered as just a method, which the danger
of the moment justifies, but that can never successfully propel, or
start, a social revolution. In the atmosphere of secret meetings the
individual easily forgets this irrefutable fact. The magical influence
that those organizations exert over young elements, romantically
willing, is a powerful obstacle to a clear observation of propaganda and
blinds many to the truth. All is seen through a dream, not as it really
is but as one wants it to be.
The secret organizations of the old Russian revolutionaries had a huge
contribution, but despite that they had to slowly bloody themselves and
their ideas never managed to reach the masses. The movement has recently
made itself invincible when with the development of the Russian
industry, the great masses of the proletariat, and the peasants to some
degree, adhered to socialist ideas.
Besides, a clandestine movement is intertwined with a series of serious
defects that inevitably occur from its existence. Above all they are in
a continuous struggle with the guardians of State order, that are always
spying everywhere for plots and if needed create them themselves. That
struggle forces the conspirator to always be seeking new security
procedures, which generates, besides a huge waste of energies, a
permanent morbid suspicion of all, the kind that converts itself into a
second nature. Suspicion introduces itself everywhere and permanently
destroys countless lives. I only need to remember the Poucquart affair,
which not only was the tragedy of his life but for a long time divided
the movement, thus paralyzing its force. It’s also obvious that personal
issues in such movements have a fatal effect, the more limited is the
circle of its activities the more serious is its effect. Remember the
bitter fights between Barbès and Barqui, in the secret societies during
the government of Louis-Philippe, which for a long time paralyzed the
activities of their organizations.
All these events place on clandestine movements a certain character and
have a powerful influence over the spiritual structure of their own
members. They hurt the spiritual developments of the movements and their
creative aptitudes, because they are always obliged to impose their
destructive efficiency.
In such a period of reaction and secret connections the anarchist
movement entered the last decade of the past century and naturally
hasn’t managed to rid itself of the influence of the new atmosphere.
With the passing of the years the anarchist ranks got used to
considering clandestine activity as normal. The new elements that joined
the movement, during the conspiracy period, had a special inclination to
consider the secret organization and its activity as a logical
consequence of the anarchist movement and that it should be placed
before any public activity. A concept in that sense was defended by the
Italian Committee for Social Revolution in its lengthy letter to the
7^(th) Congress of the International, November 1874 in Brussels. In the
aforementioned manifest all public activity is renounced by the
revolutionaries as dangerous. They say:
The mass repressions carried out by the governments, obligated us to
secret plotting as our sole activity. As that form of organization is
vastly superior we congratulate ourselves, because the persecutions
ended the public International. We will continue with the path of
secrecy, we have elected it as the only way to reach our goal: Social
Revolution.
This was the situation of the movement when several radical German
social-democrats abroad got acquainted with it. The big ideological
struggles in the center of the International passed on to the German
proletariat almost without a mark. One could only distinguish the
influence of the grand Workers Alliance in Germany. The old contacts of
the precursors of Anarchism in Germany had long been forgotten, while
the German workers started to organize themselves autonomously. The
writings of Karl GrĂĽn, Moses Hess, Wilhelm Marr, etc. were completely
ignored by them, as were the valuable lessons of Proudhon, which by the
fourth and fifth decades (of the XIXth century) had been published in
Germany. The whole movement was thus under the influence of the
social-democrats.
The horrendous persecutions to the anarchist movement in the Latin
countries chased away a big quantity of refugees to the French
Switzerland. There French, Italians and Spanish met. That circle got
bigger when in Germany a law against socialists was implemented; many
Germans had to seek refuge abroad due to the persecutions. The Jura
Federation, which had a big influence in Switzerland in the past decade,
carried out lively propaganda in which the refugees participated. In
those circles, German workers such as Emilio Werner, Eisenhauer and
August Reinsdorf got acquainted with Anarchism. It was exactly that
evolutionary phase of the movement, that we’ve talked about, which they
met and that had a special mark on their evolution. In the spirit of the
time there was the Arbeiter-Zeitung which was founded in July 1876 in
Berna, the first anarchist periodical in German. When the Reichstag
adopted, two years later, the law against all socialists and the whole
socialist movement was declared illegal, it naturally contributed a
great deal to the new tendency heading towards extremism.
Besides, one needs to add a new factor of extreme importance. In Russia
the terrible campaign of the Narodnaya Volya, against the
representatives of the tsarist absolutism, ignited a never before seen
passion in Europe. The actions of the Russian revolutionaries had a
magical influence over the socialist movement in Europe, especially
where the movement was persecuted by the government. There’s nothing
that contributes as much to awaken the violent instincts in humans as
the thirst for revenge and the incessant abuse of their dignity. You
have to live in a period like that to understand its fatal influence.
The eternal persecutions of the police, the trickery that you’re exposed
to everyday, the economic conditions and the provocation from all
parties, can break down the most peaceful of persons. When this happens
to a person of great personal value, like August Reinsdorf, who was
truly chased from city to city like a wild beast, it’s understandable
that the spirit eventually overflows with vengeful thoughts which will
have a decisive influence over everything they do, including their
propaganda. The more victims are sacrificed, the more rooted the thirst
for vengeance gets.
One can understand that in such a state of stimulation there’s little
comprehension for the development of ideas and acts. The spiritual
communication with the popular masses gradually disappears and in an
even worse manner when the extreme aspects of revolutionaries occur.
Despite that, he is convinced that it’s the way to get closer to the
people, when in reality the opposite happens. It’s impossible to
understand the special psychology of a person while we don’t know the
atmosphere of the sphere in which he acts. And that was the cause for
its great acceptance. The way for a great organizing activity, with its
basis on the people, completing itself with new ideas and then soaking
itself with the practical life of the people, a mutual and effective
exchange without which a true popular movement is incomprehensible. This
way, it loses itself little by little and all kinds of hallucinations
that aren’t even close to reality start taking place. But it can’t be in
any other way since all activity, no matter how big it is, at the margin
of the masses is a result of the State of Emergency. The grand
blossoming thinking of organizing masses, as represented with the
International, little by little is left behind. The organization becomes
a small circle of conspirators, all the while believing it has a certain
importance, and naturally it can have a very limited influence. With
this in mind Reinsdorf conceived the organization about which in July
1880 he stated in FreĂheit Most the following thoughts:
When we consider the terror against the German socialist workers by a
small fraction of Reichstag employees and journalists, that culminated
in the expulsion of the Hasselman and Most parties, the taunting of
social-revolutionary workers and the despise for all revolutionary
activity, we reach the conclusion that the cause for that lamentable
event lies with the same German workers that with their centralized
organization created that fetishist party, which places itself against
all individual action and boycotts all that may make room for any doubt
over its infallibility. The great lesson that one should take from those
achievements of the German socialists is to in the future maintain their
individual self-determination against all that is titled as leader. Each
individual must have the right to adjust their revolutionary action; in
accordance to their idea each independent group must have the right to
employ, in their social ground, as a method for liberation poison,
daggers, dynamite… without being declared as irresponsible or at the
service of the police. Each group must also have the right to unite for
certain common actions with one or more distinct groups without being
accused of plotting against the party tactics and other artificial
considerations and words that, so far, only have the object of the
creation of privileges. Freedom of revolutionary action for each
individual and each group, freedom for each group and individual of
coalition and, as a result, the acceleration of initiatives and the
confidence in the individual’s own force as a benefit for the cause by
means of actions and what’s more important: the liberation from the huge
weight that are the incompetent bosses to an action, that’s the result
of an anti-authoritarian organization of socialist revolutionary
character.
In issue 39 of FreĂheit (1880) Reinsdorf once again talks about
anarchist organization, saying:
What’s the current state of anarchist organization? You don’t hear much
about large congresses, speeches and resolutions; without being guilty
of disobedience against the discipline of the party (the word sounds
very militarist) each group and even each member works in their own way
towards the revolution, assured of the solidarity agreement of their
comrades, regarding acts of propaganda. But a sudden lightning in Neva,
a quick glow in Deniester, a peasant conspiracy in Romania, an armed
assault on the tax collectors in the Sierra Nevada vales, a colossal
demonstration in the world city near the Sena or a scuffle with the
police in the republican coasts of Aar, are the vital signs that from
time to time demonstrate that they always have the goal in their sights:
the destruction of the current society.
As it’s easy to observe, Reinsdorf conceives organization almost
exclusively under the principles of conspiracy and terrorist actions.
All anarchists of the time were around this same point of view. The
natural essence of Anarchism was not known to them or known very
superficially without any perfection and the majority of them confused a
circumstantial necessity for the movement with the essential of
anarchist propaganda. That’s why Reinsdorf got lost in purely Blanquist
ideals, without realizing he was being influenced by extremely
authoritarian ideas. For instance, in September 1880 in correspondence
on FreĂheit he incentivizes the German workers to study thoroughly the
Catéchisme révolutionnaire, which he mistakenly claims to be – like many
others did – of the revolutionary Bakunin, when in fact they were
written by Netschaiev and it was exactly this document that excited in
him the denial of all personal feelings, of all personality in general.
But that didn’t just happen to Reinsdorf. The so called Executive
Revolutionary Committee of New York about which John Most talked about a
lot in the 80’s (of the XIXth century), but that most likely existed
more in their imagination than in reality, was most definitely not the
result of anarchist ideas. In such periods of general reaction when the
revolutionary movements can only exist clandestinely, those confusions
are inevitable. It’s an atmosphere of errors from which nobody can
completely rid themselves of.
The anarchists of that period exaggerated the significance of conspiracy
organizations and, as time went on, they also exaggerated the importance
of individual acts. These last ones reaching big proportions as many of
them even got to the point of considering the so called propaganda by
the deed the essential of the movement. Individual terrorist acts of a
passionate character are comprehensible and explainable in times of wild
reaction and atrocious persecutions. These methods weren’t just used by
the anarchists. One can even say, with certainty, that in comparison
with the reactionary adherents to individual terrorism, anarchists were
just simple innocent creatures. Anyway, it is well established that
these acts by themselves have nothing to do with anarchists. As human
beings, just like everyone, certain conditions incited some anarchists
to carry out certain acts, just like it could happen with people of very
different ideological tendencies. Only due to the horrendous
persecutions of which anarchists are a target of in several countries,
can one explain why the importance of these acts was exaggerated in the
anarchist circles of the period.
Individual actions can never serve as the foundations for a social
movement and they are in no way capable of transforming the social
system. They can only, in certain periods, frighten some supporters of
the system, but they never actually influence the system itself. That
was also said by the anarchists. Only certain individuals can be enticed
by terrorist actions, and this fact alone is the best proof that a
movement can’t be built with individuals as the base. Social
transformations are only possible by movements of the masses. This was
understood by the anarchists of the first period and that is why they
dedicated themselves mainly to propaganda for the masses and they sought
to connect them in economic unions and social studies centers. Later,
when the growing reactions ended that activity and the anarchist
movement was chased by the authorities, the tendency that we discussed
previously was developed.
In Germany, under the domination of the anti-socialists law, the
anarchist movement developed underground activity that limited itself to
the clandestine distribution of periodicals and pamphlets published
abroad. Anarchist elements such as FreĂheit de Most and Warheitque also
appeared in New York and Autonomy of London was introduced to Germany
through the Belgium and Dutch borders. The distribution of such
literature resulted in numerous victims and the comrades that fell into
the hands of the authorities were almost always punished with prison.
The movement was never very strong, as it always had to fight against
countless problems and not only did it have to endure all kinds of
persecutions carried out by the government, but it also had to endure
hateful and intolerable behavior from the social-democratic leaders, who
were masters in all kinds of vilifications. Wilhelm Liebknecht slandered
August Reinsdorf, accusing him of being working with the police, when he
had already been condemned to death.
There were groups in Berlin, Hamburg, Hannover, Magdeburg, Frankfurt,
Mainz, Manheim and several other cities in the lower Rhein, Saxony and
South of Germany. The majority of the members, especially after the law
against socialists, were young enthusiasts, who conceived their
Anarchism more with feelings than with reason. But that’s not odd at
all, since there wasn’t much anarchist literature in German. Besides
Bakunin’s God and the State there were some pamphlets by Kropotkin, Most
and Poucquart. This was all there was. We also can’t forget that Most’s
words of substance had more influence over us, the youth, than the
simple explanations of Kropotkin. Psychologically it’s easy to
understand this, in a country where free speech was forbidden, one
interprets that the most radical actions should have the most success,
even if those actions weren’t thoroughly studied.
With the fall of the law against socialists in 1890 there was a
significant change in the horizon of Anarchism in Germany, one of
considerable proportions even when it was operating slowly. The
opposition within the social-democracy, that was already quite
noticeable during the time of the law, spoke out publicly, causing
disgust to the old party leaders. The old tried all kind of tactics to
conform themselves to the young and when they didn’t succeed; they
openly declared themselves in favor of a rupture, reaching the extreme
of, during the 1891 convention in Erfurt, throwing out the orators from
the opposition. The expelled then founded a new organization, the
Association of Independent Socialists, with a periodical in Berlin, Der
Sozialist.
These events helped the anarchists to come out publicly with their
ideas, with Berlin as the city where the first anarchist conferences
where held. Two years later they even tried to start their own anarchist
periodical in Germany, but Arbeiter Zeitung, which titled itself the
periodical of the German anarchists and was due to come out on November
1893, was immediately confiscated by the government. All editions of the
first issue, with the exception of a few copies, fell into the hands of
the police. Meanwhile Der Sozialist was evolving into the direction of
Anarchism, finally under the editorial guidance of Gustav Landauer there
was a rupture with the Independent Socialists and the majority declared
themselves in favor of Anarchism. Since then, Der Sozialist has been
purely anarchist.
As such one can say that in the first half of the new decade, it would
have been possible to organize the several anarchist groups in Germany
and subsequently establish the foundations for a healthy and vigorous
movement. A part of the anarchists wanted to do just that, but at that
time internal disagreements, that would for years affect the young
movement, started. A flood of different currents engulfed the new
anarchist movement, which led to an incredible confusion of spirits. Had
the movement had the opportunity to publicly develop and spiritually
strengthen itself for a few years without any setbacks, many thoughts
that they would acquire would have helped to accelerate and spread their
spiritual evolution. Unfortunately they weren’t in that kind of a
situation. The majority of its adherents at the time lacked the
spiritual maturity that could have enabled them to prove and critically
value all the new thoughts that were being introduced at its bosom.
Ninety nine percent of anarchists in Germany at the time didn’t have any
idea of the origin and aspirations of the anarchist movement. With
foreign anarchist periodicals and pamphlets they got to know
superficially a certain phase of the struggle, but the circumstances
that determined the shape of this phase of the movement remained unknown
to them. The comrades that got to know the period of conspiracy of the
anarchist movement in Germany were all, without exceptions,
Anarcho-Communists. Other tendencies hadn’t even been heard of. In 1891,
in Munich, the famous novel by John Henry Mackay Die Anarchisten
appeared. This book caused a lot of talk in German anarchist circles,
despite its weak theoretical base. In the group meetings and the night
dissertations discussions on the question “Anarcho-Communism or
Individualist Anarchism?” rambled on forever. The ones that reached the
conclusion that so called Individualism represented the true ideological
framework of Anarchism weren’t few. Some of them, after Mackay, went so
far as to seriously question the right of the adherents to the Communist
tendency to title themselves as anarchists. It’s remarkable how the most
fanatical proselytes of freedom are exactly those who wish to limit it
the most.
A year later there was a new edition of Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own in
Reclam’s Universal Library, a piece that had been completely forgotten
(The second edition, 1852, wasn’t very distributed and within anarchist
circle it was practically unknown). The reappearance of that weird piece
is an important event for the German anarchist movement. Only a small
percentage had any idea of the time and circumstances of Stirner’s
piece. The great ideological struggles of before 1848 had long been
forgotten and consequently many of the ones that avidly studied The Ego,
had no idea about them or if they did know about them, it was a very
lacking knowledge with no way to interpret the polemical attacks in the
book. It’s easy to assume so, since that period left us no traces of
literature presenting the opposing values of those remote times. As a
result Stirner’s works became for many a new Manifest, a kind of
ultimate truth that could not be beaten. Paradoxically, this classical
work of rejections, without a match in literature, was converted by many
anarchists into a new Bible, which itself was very commented and
interpreted, and unfortunately there was no lack of writers. I think
it’s a tragedy that of all the great spirits, or maybe spirit in
general, it’s always the most obtuse and tasteless charlatans that are
always ready to take the role of the apostles. Stirner, Nietzsche and
beyond, didn’t deserved better than what they got. In many anarchist
groups there were Stirnian writers that were always ready to comment on
the egoistic – that, one should mention, they didn’t understand – and
preventing any other reasonable writings. That meant that in each group
there could only be one of those spirits, because when there was another
spirit in the group rupture was unavoidable and it lead to the immediate
formation of a new group. Those Germans fought especially against all
organizing activity, looking down on the flock with a certain derogatory
pride. They even forgot that Stirner himself puts a relative value on
organization when he talks about the egotistic societies. I had the
opportunity to study some of those who follow their own path, the ones
that are always ready with empty phrases, brain-dead herd, and the
idiotism of masses and experience has always shown me that the majority
of those weird saints were always at the same height of the simple Man
of the people and that for many of them the epithet at the margin of the
masses was predictable. The same occurred with their authoritarian
hierarchy. They sought to fall under any authority and then reduce it to
ashes, but they were always the most intolerable and they had a
stubbornness and sickening opposition that made it impossible to work
with them during any amount of time.
But they weren’t the only influences over the young movement, though
they were the most effectively prejudicial to it. In 1892 Dr. Benedict
Friedlaender’s work Libertarian Socialism in opposition to the State
slavery of the Marxists (Der freiheitliche Sozialismus im Gegensatz zum
Staatsknechtsthum der Marxisten) was distributed, a book that is worthy
of being read, it reminded anarchist of the vital work of Eugen DĂĽhring,
which was also unknown to most young people. This lead many anarchists
to study Dühring’s Works, exactly when the new tendency was beginning to
edit in 1894 their own periodical Der Moderne Volkergeist (The Modern
Spirit), which would enable a more intensive propagation of their ideas.
Furthermore there was the movement that favored the “freeland” advocated
by Theodor Hertzka, which had such a powerful influence in the anarchist
movement that it’s impossible to assess it. His works Freeland, A Trip
to Freeland, etc. were read in the German anarchist circles and
frequently commented on in Der Sozialist.
In 1894, Dr. Bruno Wille published his work Philosophie der Befreiung
durch das reine Mittel (Philosophy of the emancipation by a pure way),
which also caused big differences of opinion, since it once again
brought to the spotlight the question on the use of violence as a tactic
for struggle, a tactic that Wille rejected. One could talk about a few
other things that also had influence over the development of the
anarchist movement in Germany, but it’s only necessary to take notice of
the more important currents. We again repeat that all of those new ideas
and goals around the young movement could have useful and advantageous,
had there been enough time to spiritually strengthen oneself and to
establish bases for their activity. But sadly that wasn’t the case; all
these new tendencies functioned as gunpowder on the young movement,
gradually destroying it from the inside. The editorial team of Der
Sozialist, which had in Gustav Landauer an admirable representative,
committed itself to uniting and educating the movement from the inside,
but this was no easy task as the atrocious persecutions and taunting
from the police that the movement had to endure made it gradually
harder. The plots from Ravachol, Vaillant, Henry, Pallás and others that
occurred in France and Spain drove the German police mad and led it to
chase down anarchists ferociously. The persecutions fell over the
movement like hail and were directed especially against the editors of
Der Sozialist, which they intended to destroy at all costs. In its short
existence, from November 1891 to January 1895, seventeen editors were
accused and, with the exception of those that managed to escape abroad,
all of them were condemned. When this had no further results, they even
broke the law, with the goal of destroying the periodical, until they
finally succeeded.
The editors of Der Sozialist considered publishing it abroad, but after
a seven month stand-still they managed to publish it in Berlin again.
But the style and content of the writing changed. The new Sozialist lost
the tone from its first years of a brave youth; it now dealt exclusively
with purely theoretical questions. It highly contributed to these
questions; I remember for instance its admirable studies of Marxism and,
especially, its critical analysis of Historical Materialism, which were
widely studied.
The articles of Dr. Eugene Smith, Ladislauer, Gumplowicz, Benedict
Fried-lander, Bruno Wille, Ommerborn, Brude, etc., despite all their
kindness, could not answer the needs of the anarchist workers that
weren’t instructed enough to appreciate their intellectual
idealizations. Logically this led to a deep confusion within the Berlin
movement and it later extended into other localities. The editors of Der
Sozialist realized that something needed to be done to attempt to smooth
out the contradictions that kept getting more significant. So, in 1896,
they founded the Annen Konrad (The poor Conrad). It was a sort of
popular supplement to the Sozialist. This new periodical, also under the
guidance of Albert Weidner, was also well designed, but its format was
too small to occupy the existing void. Meanwhile the divergences caused
by Der Sozialist’s nature deepened. Even though with a bit of good will,
a compromise that would have been favorable and reasonable for the whole
movement could have been reached that was not the case as in Germany
these disputes dated back to a time with a much more hostile character,
more hostile than anywhere else.
That’s why in 1897 some of the elements that were unhappy with Der
Sozialist formed a new anarchist periodical, Neues Leben (New Life). But
the new periodical didn’t generate any particular honor for its
promising title, despite their editors’ good motives they lacked the
capacity that is needed to publish a well edited and formatted
periodical. Despite all of this it managed to outlive Der Sozialist,
which, in 1899, after long and difficult financial struggles stopped
being published.
Obviously this wasn’t a good sign for the spiritual strength of the
movement that a paper like the Neues Leben managed to muscle out an
excellent and restrained paper such as Der Sozialist. But such events
have to be judged from another point of view as well. There’s no doubt
that at the time, among German anarchists there were some elements that
were more disillusioned socialist than they were anarchists. That
element still hasn’t disappeared from all of Germany.
It is easy to understand that Der Sozialist wasn’t a periodical that
they found appropriate for them, but there was another cause that took
an important part in the disputes among anarchists that may have had a
decisive importance. Some of the anarchist workers instinctively felt
that the positions taken by Der Sozialist were getting farther and
farther away from those of the working class, this was due to the fact
that a considerable part of its writers got stuck in ideals and
completely lost touch with the daily struggles faced in life. One could
feel that the internal contact with the worker’s movement in general was
getting weaker day by day, and that there would an accident that would
hurt the development of the movement.
These things are, generally, better understood and felt by the simple
worker than by the intellectual, despite sometimes not having the same
ease to express such feelings. The majority of German comrades wanted an
anarchist worker’s movement and they instinctively felt that overly
unilateral accentuation of purely abstract theories over the unlimited
sovereignty of the individual and other analogous things from which one
can conclude everything that is possible and impossible, would remove
the masses from the movement and convert it to a fossilized sect. This
led many to have a firm attitude against Der Sozialist and to take other
paths. The bitter injustice to people like Gustav Landauer that resulted
from this is truly a shame, both from the Humanitarian point of view and
of the interests of the movement. A quick look at his excellent Manifest
to Socialism is enough to recognize that Landauer was one of the few in
Germany that deeply understood the social side of Anarchism. But it
would also be unfair to attribute everything, in those disputes, to
clashes of personality and spiritual restrictions, even though they are
unfortunate occurrences that accompanied the events.
Common sense led a lot of anarchist workers to desire a more powerful
root for the union between Anarchism and the worker’s movement. For many
it was probably more due to instinct than knowledge. One could feel the
internal necessity, but there wasn’t any certainty over the right path
to take. The period of the Neues Leben wasn’t even an actual path,
though to some it accelerated their internal understandings, despite its
strong influence from events abroad. The young syndicalist movement in
France developed with an astonishing speed and many active anarchists
committed all their energies to it, participating in numerous struggles.
The mass movement rose after years of hibernation during the time of the
State of Exception. The grandiose idea of a General Strike started to
get supporters among the masses in the Latin countries and under the
direct influence of the worker’s struggles that during the present
century affected Spain, France, Italy, French Switzerland, Netherlands,
Hungary and other countries the anarchist movement started a new
evolutionary phase, that brought it closer to its founders.
In January 1904 the Der Freie Arbeiter (The Free Worker) started being
published in Berlin, its editors put themselves entirely in the field of
the revolutionary movement of the masses, and it defended direct action
and the general strike. A strong case for those tactics had already been
made by Rudolf Lange and other comrades, which is why they published the
Anarchist. But, at the time to place oneself in the mass revolutionary
movement, the subject of organization came up once again and, in fact,
Lange was one of the strongest supporters of large scale anarchist
organization, and his staunch defense of this position frequently
stirred up opposition among his German comrades. When the German
Anarchist Federation’s Manheim Conference (1907) established lines of
conduct in that regard, it, as expected, caused several people to
protest against it, in these complaints the autocratic absolute autonomy
of the individual played a big role.
Events of the sort happened basically everywhere, that is to say, they
were matters that should have the same effect everywhere. The famous
Dutch anarchist, reported on it detailly in his interesting study, The
Evolution of Anarchism (Ueber die Evolution des Anarchismus), where he
states the following opinion:
In several modern countries Anarchism has presented itself as a
practical path for opposition to the centralization and discipline of
social-democracy. But said opposition, as usually occurs in opposition
movements, quickly went to the other extreme. The influence of the
libertarian and artist elements greatly contributed to Individualism,
lending it some support, as a theory and even causing disorganization
all over the movement. Especially at the beginning of the 9^(th) decade
of the past century, when individual action was responsible for several
bomb attempts. The Individualist critic in Italy, Germany, Netherlands,
Bohemia, etc., firstly attacked the form of organization and later the
organization itself. In the Unions the individualist spirit of
disorganization appeared and many of the recently founded organizations
put forward the preliminary question of what statutes and
representatives bring with them the seeds for new domination. Not
satisfied with criticizing the abuses of the organizations and the using
all methods possible to avoid the presidents of the Unions from having
too much power, since they are simply the mandataries of the associates,
the individualists quickly started to fight the organizations
themselves, as they always saw new tyrants where there was a simple
regulation of the simplest of Union procedures. In these cases, like
others, words like dictatorship of the majority over the minority and
repression of individual freedom were used. But, the individualist
critic was unable to notice that a worker’s organization not having
regulations there is a greater ease for personal authority and the
dictatorship of individual action, just like in the old associations.
Individualism had a greater effect than the Unions, in the time of
transition of which we are talking about, in groups and centers of study
and agitation that sought to place themselves directly against
social-democracy. Not too long ago several countries discussed problems
like: Is it not against individual freedom to vote and establish
resolutions in revolutionary groups? Is one authorized to nominate a
chairman to take notes of those that ask to speak, a secretary or,
especially, a treasurer, since they are all responsible towards the
members and this would establish a new domination as that of the
social-democrats? Besides, in regards to responsibility, the sovereign
individual owes himself responsibility. Don’t think that this is
exaggerated. Every time the International Revolutionary Congress of
London, in 1896, tried to approve a resolution there would be a Stirnian
protesting: What a resolution? I don’t want any resolutions! I didn’t
come here to make pacts! I want to be MYSELF! But at the time, the
communist current had the supremacy and responded: You could have done
that at home! Don’t come here just to bother us.
I quoted Cornelissen in such a detailed manner because he hit it out of
the park with his considerations and what he talked about still exists
to this day. Unfortunately, the spirit of the time hasn’t yet completely
disappeared from the anarchist movement in Germany and continues to
drift between people that easily get drunk on hollow sentences and that
have no ability to delve into the substance of the concepts. These
people are attached to the exterior aspects of things, because they
suffer from an incurable fetishism that makes them see the product of
their imagination as reality. I only need to remember the pamphlet that
the Bolsa de Obreros Mozos conveniently decided to publish at the time
of the last syndicalist congress in Dusseldorf. The authoritarian
hierarchies remained intact with the passing of time. Only one thing
changed, the little paper was called Der Vorgeschobene, and that was
new. In a society so concentrated on the sovereign individual, there
were still herds; something nobody ever thought would be possible. Apart
from that, they were just ghosts of the past returning in the dark of
the evening, before the brightness of dawn.
Just when the anarchist movement was returning to the organization of
the masses, as their antecessors did in the time of the International,
the problem of organization came, naturally, back to surface and it was
the main reason for the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam
(1907) and for the creation of the Anarchist International. The French
comrade Dunois started the defense of Anarchism and organization with a
small connection, in which he noted the social character of the
Anarchist ideals and declared Anarchism not as Individualist, but as
Federalist in all subjects. In the discussion all comrades, with the
exception of the Dutch Individualist Croiset, defended the need for
organization. Errico Malatesta, the eternal champion of organization,
did so particularly well.
Malatesta said that we shouldn’t fall into the false conception, that
the lack of organization is a guaranty of freedom; past events have
shown us the contrary of this statement. An example: there are
periodicals in France that don’t depend on any organization, but that
are closed to all whose ideas, style and attitude aren’t what the editor
wants. This results in a situation where a few individuals possess the
power to limit the freedom of expression of others, unlike a periodical
that is edited by an organization. Authority and authoritarianism are
frequently spoken of. Let’s make it clear, once and for all, what one
means by it. There’s no doubt that we rebel, and will always rebel,
against the authority from the State, which only seeks to maintain
society’s economic slavery, but no anarchist, without exceptions, would
refuse to respect the purely moral authority that results from
experience, intelligence and talent. It’s a serious error to accuse the
adherents of organization, the Federalists, of authoritarianism and it’s
a big error to believe that the so called enemies of organization,
Individualists, voluntarily doomed themselves to complete isolation. I’m
of the opinion that the conflict between Individualists and adherents to
organization, consists mostly of phrases which are void of any value in
practical situations. In Italy, it’s frequent for Individualists to not
realize that they are against organization, them being better organized
than the defenders of organization, which are always defending the
necessity for organization, but never implement it. Also, frequently in
groups where individual freedom is so advocated that there’s more
authoritarianism than in societies that are called, by them,
authoritarian only because they have a Chairman and pass resolutions.
Enough of empty words, let’s dedicate ourselves better on practical
actions. Words separate, actions unite. It’s about time that we organize
our forces to obtain decisive influence over social events.
With that in mind, the Congress took several decisions, subsequently
creating an International Bureau in order to ease the relationships
between the different national organizations. The second congress of the
Anarchist International, which was supposed to happen in the summer of
1914 in London and of which the delegates of 21 European and American
countries had been notified, was interrupted by the World War. The war
broke out just when it was most needed for the congress to occur and the
five members of the Bureau were later on dispersed in several countries.
The first part of the gigantic catastrophe was now behind us and it
would be impossible to predict what would come with the second part. We
can only make vague assumptions. We have numerous problems awaiting
solutions. The anarchist movement suffered the consequences of war and
comrades everywhere should do everything they can to unite and
reinvigorate our dispersed forces back into the action. It’s now known
that the anarchist movement need an organizing base in order to obtain
effective results in the great struggles that are ahead of us and so
that the State Socialists, of one current or another, to reap the fruits
of the seeds of our activity and sacrifice. Russia gave us a great
example in that sense, there the anarchist movement, despite its huge
influence on the people and sacrifices of anarchists for the revolution,
ended as a victim of its own internal scatter and disorganization. It
helped the Bolsheviks climb to power and now our comrades feel the
bitter result. The same will happen everywhere while we fail to unite
with certain lines of conduct and unite our forces into organizations.
In France our comrades united in the Union Anarchiste and have been
carrying out satisfactory activity. In Italy the Union Anarquista is one
of the most important and influential organizations in the Italian
worker’s movement. In Spain, where anarchists have always concentrated
their propaganda and organizing activities in the revolutionary
syndicalist movement, right after the war the ConfederaciĂłn del Trabajo
was marvelously developed. After a whole string of struggles it was in a
way dispossessed of their publicity by the reaction that once again
occurred there, during the last couple of years, but despite these
persecutions that it suffered and still suffers it has not disappeared.
Thanks to their unbreakable organizing activity, our Spanish comrades
managed to resist the violent attacks of the reaction and to reaffirm
the stability of the movement. In Portugal and South America, where the
movements are similar to the Spanish one, our comrades have greatly
contributes in the fields of organization and they hold the best of
hopes for the future.
In Germany Anarchism has gained some solid ground, from the revolution,
due to the strong development of the anarcho-syndicalist movement which
includes all elements of the anarchist worker’s movement. In my opinion
this is the most significant event in the evolution of Anarchism in
Germany, despite it not being valued enough by the comrades who
supposedly should form the base of the worker’s movement and
organization. The person who values the whole odyssey of said
development will conclude that those comrades that are no longer new to
the movement should be particularly interested in accelerating it as
much as possible, since a big divisionism as we see today with most
extremist organizations would mean a collapse of the anarchist movement
from which it would not be able to piece itself back together.
We don’t want there to be any confusion. Our strong defense of
organization doesn’t mean that we claim that it’s a medicine for all
diseases. We know well that first and foremost is the spirit that
invigorates and inspires a movement; when there’s a lack of such a
spirit, organization is of no use. You can’t bring the dead back to life
by organizing them. What we do think is that wherever the spirit and
necessary forces exist, the organization of forces through a federalist
foundation is the best method to reach great results. In organizing
there’s a field of activity for all. The close cooperation of the
individuals for a common cause is a powerful path for the surge of moral
force and solidarity in each member. It’s absolutely false to state that
one loses individuality and personal sentiments in an organization,
thanks to the constant contact with equals the best qualities of the
personality come to surface. If by Individualism one understands nothing
more than the constant polishing of the “Me” and the ridiculous notion
that in all close contact with others there is a danger for the person
itself, then (s)he’s forgetting that the greatest obstacle to the
development of individuality is exactly that. The closer one is
connected to his/her fellow Man and the more profoundly feels joys and
pains, the deeper and richer is his/her personal feelings and the
greater is the individuality. Personal feelings and developed as a
direct result of social sentiments.
As such Anarchism is not opposed to organization, on the contrary,
Anarchism is its strongest supporter, this assuming that it’s a natural
organization on every level that resulted from the common relationships
of people and that finds its expression in a federative cooperation of
forces. As a result it opposes all imposition of cooperation from the
top over the rest of the people, because it destroys natural
relationships between them, which is the base for all real organization
and it coverts each individual into a part of a machine that works for
the interests of the privileged.
One can, like Malatesta, rest the whole weight on the organizations of
anarchist groups and their federative union. Or one can, like Kropotkin,
defend that anarchists should remain with their small groups and rest
the whole weight of their activities in the syndicalist organizations.
One can even take the point of view of James Guillaume, the great
comrade of Bakunin, that one shouldn’t even talk of anarchist
organizations, since one should work exclusively in revolutionary unions
to propagate the evolution and deepening of libertarian socialism. These
are differences stances that should be discussed, but in all of them the
need for organization is stated.
Now, before the storm comes, that need is all the more urgent. The
social contradictions have become more palpable in all countries and
huge masses of the proletariat are still dominated by the belief that
the use of State violence by this same proletariat puts it under
conditions to solve the social problem. Not even the frightening
collapse of the East can cure the majority from that conceitedness. It’s
absurd to think that State Socialism lost its power over the masses.
Quite the opposite, over it and all other kinds of slavery one has to
place the IDEAL OF FREEDOM AND SOCIALISM. A struggle, a struggle without
mercy of any force of tyranny and any worshiper of power and domination,
no matter what mask they use. The luck of our next agreement is on the
hands of history. As such all forces have to unite into a great alliance
and open the doors to a free future.
[1] Ethics: Origin and Development