💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-through-the-looking-glass.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:45:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Through the Looking Glass
Author: Anarcho
Date: August 11, 2008
Language: en
Topics: marxism, event, Britain, reportback
Source: Retrieved on 28th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=120
Notes: One anarchist’s account of attending the British SWP’s Marxism 2001 event. Not a very pleasant experience, but it says a lot about the state of the British left and the politics of Leninism.

Anarcho

Through the Looking Glass

Considering the attempts by the SWP to monopolise and colonise the

anti-globalisation movement, I thought that it would be useful to attend

Marxism 2001. After all, given the events of the past few years (J18,

Seattle, May Day, etc.) I thought that it may draw some real people

rather than a bunch of party hacks. Armed with two leaflets and some

copies of Black Flag and Freedom, I headed off to the event.

Day One

My first political discussion (if you can call it that) was with a

Spartacus League member outside the registration building. I was handing

out a leaflet (on why Leninism is most definitely not “Socialism from

Below”) when she asked me what kind of anarchist I was and whether I

thought that revolt by “disorganised individuals” was enough to win a

revolution. I explained that anarchists from Bakunin on supported

workers councils as the means of revolution and asked if she knew that.

She said she did, so I asked why, then, the nonsense about “disorganised

individuals.” She then changed track and asked why I opposed Marxism. I

said that I did not want to change one set of bosses with another.

But you need leadership, she said, and Trotskyists do not aim for the

leaders being new bosses. I then pointed her to numerous quotes in my

leaflet by Lenin and Trotsky on the need for party dictatorship

(including the classic one by Trotsky that “the revolutionary party

(vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to

the counter-revolution” and stressed the “its own” bit). I then started

to discuss the disbanding of soviets with elected non-Bolshevik

majorities in the spring of 1918, at which point she had to go.

After handing out a few more leaflets, I went to Alex Callinicos meeting

on “Equality.” My contribution was simple: There is no equality in a

state and so equality means anarchism. I gave a few examples (no

equality between the Cheka and striking workers, no equality in power

between the party leaders and the workers). I quoted Lenin from

Left-Wing communism (the party “is directed by a Central Committee of

nineteen ... Not a single important issue is decided by any political or

organisational question is decided by any State institution ... without

the guiding instructions of the Central Committee of the Party”). I

indicated Trotsky’s abolition by decree of soldier democracy and Lenin’s

replacement of workers control by one-man management as examples of the

lack of equality under Bolshevism. I argued that state ownership and

private ownership were basically the same, and gave the example of

striking workers in Russia being locked out of the factories by the

Bolsheviks and so subject to the same inequalities of economic power as

in capitalism. This political inequality in power, I noted, soon became

a source of economic inequality.

The near silence that marked by departure from the microphone surprised

even me. The next contributor informed the faithful that what I had said

“was not true,” even though it all was. Nothing like a bit of reality

denial! Comrade Alex, needless to say, misinterpreted my position (no,

comrade, anarchists do not believe that inequalities in political power

is the only source of economic inequality). Nor did he really address my

points (and he claimed that Zed Magazine’s Michael Albert was an

anarchist, which Albert would be as surprised as I was to discover.

However, it does indicate the general level of accuracy at the event).

His major point in reply was that Lenin was not happy about this

domination by 19 people, although of course the quote said nothing of

the kind. It was from Left-Wing Communism where used it as evidence in

Lenin’s argument that the “vanguard of the proletariat” would “seize

power” and that to draw a difference between the dictatorship of the

masses and of leaders was “childish nonsense.” However, the 19 Central

Committee members would appear again…

I wasn’t the only anarchist there, of course. The Anarchist Federation (

www.afed.org.uk

/) had a stall and were handing out their bulletin Resistance and a

special Globalise Resistance spoof leaflet Desist. Other comrades were

handing out leaflets for the anarchist bookfair

(www.anarchistbookfair.org). I had a quick chat with them and they were

kind enough to take some of my leaflets for their stall and come along

to hand stuff outside the SWP’s “Marxism and Anarchism” meeting, the

next one I attended.

This meeting had Pat Stack as main speaker. It was just a repeat of his

recent article from Socialist Review (as I had hoped, to be honest, as

one of my leaflets was a reply to that article). He even decided to add

some more inaccurate assertions to his existing hefty amount. These

included quoting the Marxist Big Bill Haywood to claim that

anarcho-syndicalism rejected insurrection (strange, but you would think

a syndicalist who actually was an anarchist would have been more

appropriate!) and stating that George Sorel was the main theoretician of

revolutionary syndicalism (so ignoring that, firstly, he wrote about an

existing movement, one that had developed before he decided to write

about it as he himself admitted. and, secondly, his impact on this

existing movement was small, and thirdly, as Sorel himself noted,

revolutionary syndicalism effectively started when the anarchists joined

the union, and fourthly, the obvious similarities between Bakunin’s

ideas and syndicalism, as most historians and anarcho-syndicalists

acknowledge).

To give you an idea of what the SWP considers “debate” I will recount

its format. Pat Stack gets to speak for 40–45 minutes on anarchism (with

at least one lie, error or distortion every sentence). The contributors

from the floor get three minutes to make their point. Three whole

minutes to reply (wow, true equality!). Debate the issues? How can you

when you do not have time to correct the lies?

One thing I did get confirmed was my guess that Stack had just based his

account of anarchism on a (very selectively and often incorrectly

quoted) Paul Avrich book, Anarchist Portraits (for example, Stack forgot

to quote Avrich’s comment that Bakunin was a father of syndicalism). He

even had it with him at the meeting and quoted from it. Nothing like

going to the source material to build a case!

Three whole minutes to refute 45 minutes of garbage is difficult of

course. So I concentrated on the most disgraceful slander, namely that

anarchists do not see collective class struggle as the means of social

revolution. As I expected, Stack quoted Bakunin saying that the

“uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate” were the “flower of the

proletariat.” I countered with some historical context (in 1870, over

60% of working people in Spain were illiterate, for example). I then

quoted from the article from which this quote is extracted. In it

Bakunin argues that the International Workingmen’s Association “to be a

real power ... must organise the immense majority of the proletariat of

Europe, of America, of all lands,” that “the international organisation

of economic conflict against capitalism [was] the true aim of this

association” and that it was “necessary to unify the scattered forces of

the proletariat into an International organisation, a revolutionary

power directed against the entrenched power of the bourgeoisie.” This,

of course, made a mockery of Stack’s assertion that Bakunin thought that

“skilled artisans and organised factory workers” were not the “source of

the destruction of capitalism.” This, of course, would soon have been

apparent if he had actually been bothered to read any Bakunin before

spouting off about his ideas.

I also pointed out that far from arguing for an “instinctive” socialism,

as Stack claimed, Bakunin had actually stressed that the class struggle,

particularly strikes, were essential for transforming instinct into

conscious socialist thought. But I suppose that is what you get when you

base yourself on secondary sources.

For Kropotkin, I pointed out Stacks’ examples of what Kropotkin thought

were “mutual aid” were not, in fact, actually in Mutual Aid, but that

strikes and unions were. He had even quoted Avrich, who also made it

clear that they were not examples of mutual aid either (Stack cannot get

even use the secondary source material correctly!). I stressed that for

Kropotkin, mutual aid (i.e.solidarity) was essential in the hostile

environment of capitalism and in the class struggle – as would be clear

from reading his work, which Stack obviously had never done. I then

provided some quotes from Kropotkin on collective class struggle:

“the workers will have to ... take over all social wealth so as to put

it into common ownership. This revolution can only be carried out by the

workers themselves.”

”[ Anarchists] endeavour to promote their ideas directly amongst the

labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle

against capital.”

“The chief aim of anarchism is to awaken the constructive powers of the

labouring masses ... [and] advise taking an active part in those

workers’ organisations which carry on the direct struggle of labour

against capital and its protector, – the State.”

Yes, indeed, Kropotkin did not think collective class struggle was the

means of social revolution, as these and numerous other quotes indicate.

But why let facts get in the way of good rant, comrade Stack?

I did get the pleasure of calling Stack a liar to his face, which was

nice.

What happened next is interesting. One SWP member said that the

anarchist literature being handed out was suggesting that Leninists

wanted to impose some horrible dictatorship over the working class, but

“that was not true.” Never mind all those quotes by Lenin and Trotsky on

the need for party dictatorship then! Obviously they were just pulling

our leg when they advocated party dictatorship!

When Stack summed up, he stated that he had never said that anarchists

rejected collective struggle. Funny, then, that he stated that, for

anarchists, “it follows that if class conflict is not the motor of

change, the working class is not the agent and collective struggle not

the means.” Obviously he, like Lenin, was just joking with us – perhaps

the SWP will change its name to the Comical Party?

He also raised that issue of the 19 Central Committee members running

Russia. He said that Lenin did not like it (not that you could tell this

from Left-wing Communism, indeed the opposite is the case, but why let

some facts get in the way? After all, they haven’t before). Stalin, he

informed us, got rid of that and replaced it with one man dictatorship.

But, then again, Lenin did stress the need for one-man management (armed

with dictatorial powers) for the workers. Stalin was just introducing

that “efficient” principal within the central committee. If its good

enough for the proles, why not the vanguard?

And the major difference between Lenin’s regime and Stalin’s? Well,

Lenin introduced lots of things Stack liked, while Stalin did the

opposite. Which, incidentally, just proved the anarchist point. The

slogan was “all power to the Soviets”, not “all power to Lenin.” I also

handed out hundreds of the second leaflet, which exposed the distortions

and lies contained in Stack’s Socialist Review article.

So remember, 45 minutes speeches followed by ten three minute

contributions, followed by 10–15 minutes summing up by the speaker, is

what the SWP thinks is a “debate.” And remember, equality means

following the orders of the Central Committee and the comrade from the

Cheka is your equal (particularly when he is putting you up against the

wall for daring to strike against your equals in the Communist Party who

are exercising their dictatorship over you). And, of course, when Lenin

and Trotsky talked about the inevitable need for party dictatorship (and

implemented it), they just didn’t mean it, honest.

Day Two: the Odyssey continues

I was originally going to go to the meeting “Has the internet replaced

other ways of organising?” simply for a laugh (after all, who actually

argues that?). Instead I decided to go to the Irish SWP’s Kieran Allen’s

“This is what democracy looks like” and I am so glad I did. I managed to

turn this meeting into a de facto anarchism versus Leninism one, much to

the obvious annoyance of the speaker and associated party hacks.

Planning ahead, I knew exactly what my contribution to this debate was

going to be. I was going to compare the rhetoric of Leninism versus its

reality. The speaker said that recall was a fundamental fact of Marxist

politics. I countered with the classic quote by Trotsky that the

“revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship

surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution.” Where is recall and

democracy there?

I stressed that anarchists base their politics on self-managed working

class organisations (Kropotkin pointed to the directly democratic

“sections” of the Great French revolution, Bakunin to self-managed

unions), that we had supported recallable, mandated delegates and

workers’ councils since the 1860s and that real “democracy” means

self-management and that means anarchism.

Then my account of how the Bolsheviks had acted as non-democratically as

the capitalist system the speaker had attacked definitely pissed off a

few people. I talked about the destruction of democracy in the army by

Trotsky’s decree, of workers’ self-management by Lenin’s appointed

one-man managers with dictatorial powers, and the disbanding of soviets

with elected non-Bolshevik majorities. This clearly made them squirm.

And, of course, the following contributors failed to acknowledge my

comment that this had happened before the start of the civil war – it

was ignored by them all! They just don’t listen, do they?

After a few contributions, the chair announced that time was running out

and that we had time for two more people. I asked whether I had the

right to reply – sorry, no, came the reply. Luckily for me, the next

contributor said he just wanted to ask a question and wanted to hear my

comments. He let me have his time. His question was simply that he had

never heard my facts before and he was under the impression that the

Russian Revolution was democratic – significant in itself.

So, armed with three minutes the comrades did not want me to have, I

reminded them that the Bolshevik attacks started before the 22

capitalist armies had invaded (22, or 12, or 14, the number varied all

weekend). I discussed Spain and quoted Trotsky’s recommendation that

“because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves

they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship” (needless to

say, I stressed the “for themselves” bit). I indicated the grim reality

facing the CNT in Catalonia on July 20^(th), 1936 (either implement

libertarian communism and fight the fascists and the republic and

international capitalism or collaborate against Franco), stressing it

was a mistake but an understandable one. I also raised the example of

Aragon as anarchism in action (which, of course, was ignored).

The last contributor agreed with Trotsky on the dictatorship of the CNT

leaders – because they “represented the workers.” How easy it is for a

Bolshevik to advocate party dictatorship! So much for “workers power.”

In response to my comment that at least the CNT did not impose a party

dictatorship, Franco’s dictatorship was raised. Yes, Franco was so much

worse than Stalin! It also seems strange to raise the question of

Franco’s dictatorship as this was precisely the reason why the CNT

collaborated in the first place – but never mind logic!

Instead of summing up on “What democracy looks like”, we were subjected

to a diatribe on anarchism – or, more correctly, what the speaker

thought anarchism was. He asserted that we opposed organisation (wrong

comrade), class power and struggle (wrong again, comrade) and that we

had no idea that we needed to defend a revolution (again, wrong

comrade). Indeed, all his inventions were refuted in black and white on

the leaflet I was handing out! Our Irish comrade argued that we cannot

dismiss Bolshevism by pointing to historical events or by quoting Lenin

(although he did urge us to read “State and Revolution” – as my leaflet

said, “while the Leninists ask you to judge them by their manifesto,

anarchists say judge them by their record!”). Perhaps the Irish

anarchists of the Workers Solidarity Movement could talk to Mr. Allen

and actually let him know what anarchism really stands for? He is

obviously in need for some education…

The Irish comrade claimed that anarchists just randomly selected quotes

and events and used them to attack Leninism. Of course, in three minutes

you can hardly present a fully referenced and comprehensive account of

the failures of the Russian Revolution, but that time limitation was

hardly my fault! What I had to do was select events and quotes which

summarised the problems with Bolshevism and that is what I did.

Concentrating on the events prior to the Civil War was necessary as it

showed that the authoritarian actions of the Bolsheviks were not driven

exclusively by the White forces. Similarly, the lessons Lenin and

Trotsky drew from their experiences were so diametrically opposed to

their pre-October rhetoric that it is essential to raise it. If, as the

speaker argued, Leninism had a fundamental basis in workers democracy,

how could Lenin and Trotsky argue for party dictatorship and how did

this relate to their claims in 1917?

You also get an idea of the priorities of the SWP by the speaker’s

comments on anarchism. He claimed that if he were critiquing anarchism

he would not quote the sexist views of Proudhon (I will ignore the fact

that the SWP has done and does do precisely this). Rather, he said, he

would present a full socio-historic analysis of anarchism and not base

his case on Proudhon’s sexism. Interesting that he equates Proudhon’s

sexism with Lenin’s and Trotsky’s advocating of party dictatorship! It

appears that arguing for (and implementing) a party dictatorship is

equal in the scale of things as being sexist. I won’t insult the

intelligence of the reader by explaining why this shows that the SWP has

a decidedly screwed up idea of what is important. Not that I am denying

the importance of fighting sexism, I stress, but one person’s sexism is

dwarfed by an ideological commitment to party dictatorship. I’m

mentioning this so that the SWP cannot claim I’m “soft” on sexism or I

am sexist. Sexism is an evil that we must fight and abolish (and

Proudhon was full of shit on this issue).

Presenting a socio-historic analysis of Leninism, including an account

of the Russian Revolution, in three minutes would have been somewhat

difficult. I tried my best, but obviously I had to be somewhat

selective. For example, I had mentioned that Trotsky had tried to ban

the soviet congresses that the Makhnovists tried to hold – it seems

strange that the “soviet power” was banning soviet democracy, to say the

least. And if the Makhnovists could organise congresses, then why could

the Bolsheviks not do so? Clearly because they did not want to (as

Trotsky’s banning order showed). Is this cherry-picking events and

quotes? Hardly, it is an example of the autocratic tendencies of

Bolshevism in practice and it clearly shows that “objective

circumstances” cannot totally explain their actions.

In summary, it seems strange that one anarchist, armed with the facts,

could have such an impact. The meeting almost became a real debate (real

debate at Marxism 2001 shock!). And that was only due to the generous

action of a fellow worker!

I started handing out leaflets at the end of the meeting – simply so I

could counter the inaccurate nonsense spouting from the obviously

flustered speaker. I was politely informed that I could not sell papers.

So I asked if I could hand out leaflets. Sorry, no. My attempts to

explain that the speaker was lying about anarchism and so the leaflet

was essential fell on deaf ears. The SWP team member explained that this

rule applied even to Socialist Worker paper sellers (as if that was a

great concession as the speakers would hardly be misrepresenting those

politics!). Outside the room, people were selling Bookmarks books, so I

joined them – only to be informed to stop and that the no selling rule

did not apply to them. True equality in action!

Over all, an interesting experience. I discovered that you can not quote

Lenin or Trotsky, or mention their actions, unless you have nice things

to say about them. If you stress “objective circumstances” then any

action becomes justifiable (unless, of course, you are the CNT-FAI). Not

much hope, then, for the future as every revolution will face difficult

objective circumstances… So Bolshevism would have been fine if it wasn’t

for those meddling capitalists…

The next meeting I attended was the one on “Anarchism and the Spanish

revolution.” Actually, it wasn’t too bad (I know, SWP standards are

dropping!). Needless to say, there were mistakes and distortions but far

fewer than I expected (indeed, they had lots of nice things to say about

the CNT and even suggested it had an organisational structure and spirit

which had a lot to teach us!). Needless to say, the crux of the critique

was the old “the CNT opposed the state, that is why they collaborated”

line. Equally predictable, they trotted out the appropriate Garcia

Oliver quote to provide evidence (without indicating it was from one

year later, when the CNT had changed considerably).

There was so much to reply to of course. I could have pointed out that

Trotsky had abolished democracy in the Red Army, making Trotskyist

support for the CNT militias deeply ironic. I would have mentioned that

Lenin had undermined the workers self-management the speaker had praised

the Spanish anarchists for introducing (again, somewhat ironic). I could

have indicated that the “workers’ state” in Russia was not, in fact, run

nor controlled by the workers and that Lenin had argued for party

dictatorship. I could have corrected some the charges of sectarianism

levelled against the CNT (no mention that the UGT “Workers’ Alliances”

were designed for socialist control, for example). I could have said

that the reason why union halls were closed in Catalonia in the 1934

rising was due to state repression by those leading the revolt, but all

that would have been essentially trivia.

So I went for the key error of his account – the difference between

Catalonia and Aragon. His great error was to maintain, like so many

Trotskyists that the CNT had “made their revolution” in Catalonia by

seizing the means of production and ignoring the state (an error due to

Felix Morrow’s inaccurate assertions in Revolution and

Counter-Revolution in Spain). That, of course, was simply false – as I

went on to explain.

I started by arguing that anarchists agree with Bakunin that the

revolution meant that the state had to be destroyed (and that the CNT

had not done this). I summarised the anarchist revolution by quoting

Bakunin: “the federative Alliance of all working men’s associations…

will constitute the Commune.” The “Revolutionary Communal Council” will

be composed of delegates “vested with plenary but accountable and

removable mandates.” These communes will send delegates “vested with

similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations,

communes and provinces… to organise a revolutionary force capable of

defeating reaction… the expansion and organisation of the revolution for

the purpose of self-defence… will bring about the triumph of the

revolution.”

Then I argued that the CNT refused to do this – and I explained why by

quoting from the 1937 report to the AIT (the CNT had a “difficult

alternative: to completely destroy the state, to declare war against the

Rebels, the government, foreign capitalists ... or collaborating”). That

was the reality facing the CNT – not the speakers a-historic pondering

of Garcia Oliver quotes!

I then contrasted Catalonia to Aragon – same organisation, same

politics, different results. How could the CNT politics be blamed for

the mess in Catalonia when it had applied them in Aragon? That position

could not be logically argued (and, unsurprisingly, my argument was

essentially ignored). I stressed the continuity of what happened in

Aragon and the Friends of Durruti’s politics with the 1936 Zaragoza

Resolution on Libertarian Communism. Again, this was ignored.

So how could anarchism have “failed” when it was ignored in Catalonia

(for fear of fascism) and applied in Aragon? Quite a bombshell – and not

remotely addressed by the speakers that came next (how could it be?). It

also gave the SWP a problem – how could they downplay objective

circumstances in Spain when that is their only defence of Leninism in

Russia? Indeed, the speaker admitted that the membership of the CNT

generally was in favour of anti-fascist unity (Franco was, of course,

considered the main threat). Admitting that meant that their case

against anarchism fell apart — how could they turn round and say the

threat of fascism played no role in the CNT’s decision (as originally

implied). And how could they say it was anarchist politics when those

very same politics had formed the Council of Aragon?

So instead of addressing the points I raised, we were subjected to the

same old nonsense about needing “centralised state power” and the

blindingly obvious fact that Aragon was crushed because it was isolated

(as the CNT in Catalonia had feared would happen to them if they had

went the whole hog). The old myth that anarchists just want to seize the

means of production and ignore the state was raised again (obviously,

for the SWP, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true). Never

mind that it was never an anarchist or CNT position and that the seizing

of the factories came about after the CNT leadership had decided to put

off introducing libertarian communism until after Franco was defeated.

The SWP confuse this event with the programme of the CNT while, in fact,

it was only part of it (and done independently, even against, the wishes

of the leadership). The other part was destruction of the state by a

federation of workers councils and free communes (as happened in

Aragon).

When I asked for the chance to reply, it was denied to me (time

considerations, of course). Simply put, the SWP wanted to control the

debate and ensure that those with opposing perspectives are not given a

real chance to respond to the comments by their members – needless to

say, if I could reply to a few of their straw men arguments would have

been set alight and we cannot have that…

Ironically, after stressing that the SWP supported the

“anarcho-syndicalist” wing of the CNT against the “insurrectionist”

wing, the speaker ended by quoting those famous words of that

insurrectionist anarcho-syndicalist Durruti. Yes, anarchists do have a

new world in our hearts and it is growing every minute — that’s why the

SWP distort our ideas at their meetings.

Concluding thoughts

Was it worth going to? This is easy to answer – yes, it was. This is for

two reasons, one personal, one political.

The personal one wasn’t calling Pat Stack a liar (although that was

fun). It was simply that going drove home how fundamentally undemocratic

the SWP actually is. No real debate was possible due to the set-up of

the meetings. Having three minutes to reply to a 45 minute diatribe is a

joke. If they wanted a real debate about anarchism, for example, they

would have had 15 minutes for a party member and 15 minutes for an

anarchist, followed by 30 minutes of discussion and 5 minutes each to

sum up. That was not done, for obvious reasons – it is easier to control

the debate by the methods used.

Politically, it was good to go as anarchist ideas did get to people who

normally may not have heard them. If an anarchist gets up and calls the

speaker a liar, perhaps that will get the listener thinking. Combined

with leaflets explaining why they are a lair, then that has a potential

impact far greater than just three minutes of summarising a lengthier

case.

The most frequently used straw man argument was that anarchists do not

see that the working class is politically divided (“uneven development”)

and so we are utopian. Of course, anarchists are aware of this fact

(just as we are aware of other facts like the sun rises in the East). We

are aware of the need for political organisation and anarchist

propaganda, to take part in and influence the class struggle, the need

to win people to our ideas (if we did not, then why were there

anarchists at Marxism 2001 in the first place?).

So why this particular straw man? Simply because it contains the

rationale for party power/dictatorship (as argued by Lenin and Trotsky).

The working class is politically divided, the vanguard contains all the

“best” elements and so they should take power. Indeed, one comrade

informed us that the revolution will see the workers’ state repressing

the “backward” elements of the working class (it is refreshing to see

that admitted, although it is hard to combine with Lenin’s claim that

the transition to communism meant “the suppression of the exploiting

minority by the exploited majority”). Needless to say, we have the

political position that justifies party dictatorship as any worker who

disagrees with the vanguard is, by definition, “backward.”

Yes, political differences exist and the revolution will see the working

class split – but there is a clear difference in acknowledging uneven

political development while supporting workers’ self-management and

acknowledging it and using it to justify party power (and ultimately

dictatorship). Easier to just distort the anarchist position than

actually address the issues it raises.

Which shows the importance of leafleting these things. It is a lot

harder for the Leninists to slander anarchism when you are handing out

leaflets that explicitly deny their assertions. This “uneven political

development” was raised so many times that it is clearly the next big

SWP argument against anarchism – comrades beware!

Other straw men were the usual ones. Listen, Leninist, anarchists favour

organisation, class struggle, workers direct action, solidarity,

self-organisation and collective management of society. Deal with these

facts and move on. Repeatedly denying them will convince only party

hacks who no longer can think. Similarly, anarchists argue that the

revolution needs to organise to co-ordinate struggle and defence of the

revolution. We’ve been arguing that since Bakunin. Please change the

record and debate whether our ideas are applicable rather than deny our

basic position!

The other trend for the future I identified was the SWP line on the

“anti-capitalist” movement. They raised numerous times that the Black

Block was “undemocratic” and that a “democratic” leadership was

essential. They are really pushing this “democratic” leadership line

against anarchism (and have done so since at least May Day last year).

They clearly think this is the best way to gain influence (and

ultimately control), particularly in the “liberal” wing of that

movement.

Basically, the Black Block was “undemocratic” because it did its own

thing (which is good coming from a party that did its own thing in

Prague!). What to make of this? Hypocrisy of course, but we must stress

that the Bolshevik “solution” to this means placing power at the top of

the movement, in the hands of leaders, which is far more undemocratic

than Black Block anarchists (who have been communicating and

co-ordinating with other protestors more and more). Ironically, some of

the SWP argued that the best thing about the anti-globalisation movement

is that it is open! Yes, it respects the kind of diversity the SWP want

to abolish! We need to discuss this issue – and the WSM have just

printed an article discussing this in issue no. 65 of their paper

Workers’ Solidarity. Maybe that could be the basis of the discussion,

because the SWP will be pushing this line more and more as time goes on

– they obviously thinks its the why to colonise the anti-globalisation

movement.

Talking of which, I was talking to a recent recruit to the SWP who was

seriously pissed off with them (he said they were far too arrogant,

which is true). However, he attended a national internal meeting and

Chris Bambery (I think it was) said that the SWP’s aim was to shape the

anti-globalisation movement into a mirror of their organisational

structure (hence the leadership arguments, I would think). This guy was

quite rightly disgusted with this (he thought that the movement should

shape itself). No big surprise there, but its nice to have our guesses

convinced. I gave him leaflets and a copy of Black Flag. Hopefully he,

and others, will find out more about anarchism.

Another issue seems to be related to the Socialist Alliance. One

contributor compared the anarchist “don’t vote” campaigns in the last

election with the SA (and, no, he didn’t admit that we were more

successful!). He claimed that the SA got lots of contacts from their

activities and implied that the anarchists did not (not really sure how

he knew that, but never mind). However, I think that this will be one of

the lines of engagement the SWP will use in the future.

As such, when we are discussing the futility of electioneering we should

always best our arguments on clear class struggle analysis –

electioneering corrupts the parties involved, generates reformism and

bureaucratic tendencies within the party and hinders the creation of

self-managed working class organisations. It is not just an ethical

position – it is backed up a clear class analysis and an understanding

of history. The fate of the German Social Democracy and Green Party

should be stressed. Ironically, the quote from the FAI paper on why you

should abstain got a rousing cheer at the Spanish Revolution meeting,

suggesting that the SA approach has its critics in the SWP (and

elsewhere). Simply put, if we can present a clear, coherent, class

struggle based argument for anti-parliamentarianism, one based upon

historical understanding and examples, with a clear alternative (i.e.

direct action, solidarity, self-management) then anarchist ideas can be

seen to be relevant, practical and the best way forward.

Another strange contradiction was the SWP’s attempts to both build and

burn bridges to anarchists. On the one hand, they stressed in

contributions how anarchism and Marxism had a lot in common. One SWP

member even said “we are all individuals” (although I managed to resist

shouting out “I’m not” in true Monty Python style). On the other, they

inflict Pat Stack’s speech on us where he argued that they most

definitely did not have anything in common. I got the impression they

wanted us all to be one big happy family in the anti-gobalisation

movement (with them as Big Brother?). Which, of course, explains their

distorted diatribes against anarchism in their publications! I’m sure

they think we are being sectarian when we reply to those attacks (and so

expose them for the nonsense they are) and when we produce leaflets

exposing the less attractive side of Bolshevism. As Kropotkin once put

it, “basically the words ‘Let us not discuss these theoretical

questions’ come down to this: — Do not discuss our theory, but help us

put it into effect.” Hence their calls for “unity” and for being

“non-sectarian” — it is useful for them to be “apolitical” in this case

as they have a lot to hide. As such we have to always discuss our/their

ideas, our/their history and our differences, in order to ensure that we

do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

They, as usual, patronisingly differentiated between the “best of the

anarchists” who joined or worked with the Bolsheviks and the rest (who

ended up having a group hug with their equals the Cheka). However, I

prefer to remember the actual events of 1917 and 1918. The Russian

anarchists worked with the Bolsheviks during the summer of 1917 and

helped them during the October revolution (“unity against the common

enemy, comrades!”). Once in power, the Bolsheviks attacked the

anarchists in April 1918 (six weeks before the start of the Civil War).

Of course, they did not arrest “real” anarchists and this attack had no

effect on the state of the movement. The same system of pacts and

betrayals was inflicted on the Makhnovists by the Bolsheviks in the

Ukraine. Yes, we are against the same thing, but we obviously are not

for the same thing. The anti-globalisation movement should remember this

and start to be explicitly positive – unless we clarify what we want,

the likes of the SWP will use the lack of clear pro ideas to try and

take it over.

Its also good to be in a position of handing out leaflets which

explicitly refute common Trotskyist straw men. It makes them look bad.

The most common ones seem to be:

Anarchists are against organisation

Anarchists are against class struggle

Anarchists think the ruling class will disappear (i.e. defence of the

revolution)

Anarchists don’t recognise differences in political development in the

working class

Spain (Catalonia, don’t mention Aragon!) showed that anarchism does

not work

Anarchists quote Lenin and Trotsky out of context (!)

I’m sure there are more (feel free to add any I missed out!). so bear

those in mind, and prepare to answer them – as I admit I did in my

leaflet (to blow my own trumpet for once). Basically, after a while you

know exactly what they are doing to say (they are that repetitive and

clone like).

What would I suggest for anarchists attending similar events in the

future. Firstly, get organised before hand. Get leaflets produced (the

WSM have good ones at their webpage in pdf format). We need more of

these. They are an essential resource and should be encouraged! Also,

plan what meetings to go to and what to say — going to the right meeting

with the right quotes can mean you determine the debate (as proved by

the “what democracy looks like” meeting and the 19 Central Committee

members quote). If one anarchist can have such an impact, think about

the possibilities of a collective presence at the meetings (the

Anarchist Federation —

www.afed.org.uk

/ — stall and leaflets outside were great and show the benefits of group

activity, but inside it can have an equal impact). But no surprise there

– solidarity is strength!

Also, I think it would be wise to organise your own meeting at the same

time and leaflet the event. If the SWP do a meeting on anarchism on 2pm

on Saturday, have a meeting nearby after it on the same subject – that

way you have a positive alternative and show what a real debate looks

like. I was thinking you could use one of their rooms (during the hour

lunch break, although that may cause more hassle that it may be worth).

That way you do not let them determine the agenda and show that there is

an alternative – namely a revolutionary working class anarchist movement

(with its various national federations, local groups and publications).

It is clear that my and other anarchist’s leaflets (and my

contributions) had an impact (can I expect something in Socialist

Review? Maybe, or maybe they may think its best to ignore the whole

thing. Who can tell? If they do do something, they just draw more

attention to the fact one anarchist had such an impact). That is good,

but we need to build on it. The SWP say they want a debate, so lets give

it to them. We have the politics and they will be exposed as the

authoritarians they are – the worse thing we could do is just ignore

them and hope they go away. They will not and the only way we can

finally defeat them is when we provide a better alternative to them (and

don’t forget a lot of people join them because they don’t see anything

better).

Hopefully my (and the comrades from the Anarchist Federation) work will

have paid off and got a few people thinking.