💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rudolf-rocker-anarchism-and-political-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:43:31. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and political action Author: Rudolf Rocker Date: October 1958 Language: en Topics: Parliament; elections Source: "Views and Comments" №31
The question of political action has been repeatedly discussed in
anarchist circles. Nevertheless, we must continually deal with
misunderstandings and false interpretations of our position on this
point. In reality the anarchists were never opposed to political
activity. Since their ideal, anarchism, is a political doctrine. Their
criticism has been directed only against a particular kind of political
activity. In order to arrive at a clearer conception, itis necessary to
define what we mean by political action. We have no objection to
“politics” if it is understood in its original, etymological derivation.
The Greek word ‘‘polis” means city, community, association. A
“politicus” is anyone who is concerned with the public affairs of the
“polis.” Although a strike is an economic act, it has at the same time a
political character because it concerns and influences the life of the
“polis”. With the development of parliamentarianism and above all
parliamentary tactics in the socialist movement, the meaning of
“politics” has been limited so that most people think of politics as
being only parliamentary action. But parliamentary action is only a
particular form of general political action. It is only against this
form that the anarchist directs his criticism. Our modern political
parties have constricted the whole of political life within the narrow
limits of parliaments. It is precisely parliamentary action that Comrade
Maryson regards as the most important propaganda tactic for anarchism.
Maryson tries to prove that parliamentary action is only a method, a way
to reach a certain objective, which has nothing to do with the
principles of anarchism. This is an unwarranted assumption. Principles
and tactics are interwoven. We can easily understand why
social-democrats participate in parliamentary action. There is an
organic harmony between them and all other political parties. The
social-democrat recognizes the necessity of government. His opposition
is only against the existing form of government. He is not against the
principle of government. This is why he strives always to capture
political power. He considers the state as the only creator and defender
of social life. He ignores direct action of individuals and groups and
seeks to combat his opponent by the action of his representatives in
parliament.
For the anarchist the problem is different. He is an opponent of every
government, regardless of the form it takes. His aim is not the
conquest, but the abolition of governmental power, He cannot therefore
be an agent or representative of governmental power, awheel in the State
chariot. Anarchism bases all its teachings on the free personality and
the tactical expression of this teaching is individual initiative and
direct action. The forms of Anarchist tactics may vary according to the
circumstances and the tactics of our enemies, but the struggle itself
will always be a direct one.
As anarchists we know that modern parliamentarianism, the so-called
representative system, is only a new form of the old State principle.
The place of the dictator is taken by the deputies. The results are the
same. It is immaterial if the laws are made and imposed by the will of
one hundred five hundred or a thousand persons. Experience demonstrates
that legislation of parliamentary majorities can sometimes be more
despotic than that of a personal dictator. If the people in lands ruled
by parliaments enjoy more rights and freedoms than in despotic lands, it
is not because the government is better, but because the rulers were
forced to adapt themselves to the demands of the masses. As soon as the
masses become indifferent to the rights which they or their forefathers
won through direct action, then even the most democratic government
exposes the essentially despotic and reactionary nature common to all
governments. It makes little difference who determines the fate of a
nation, whether it is an absolute king or a number of deputies. Proudhon
was correct when he stated, “Parliament is nothing more than a king with
600 heads”. The anarchists want to make it impossible for one, ten, or a
hundred people to rule and tyrannize over their subjects and control
their thoughts.
In working for the realization of these ideals we must never forget
where in is found the life source of every authoritarian power. The
foundation of every government is not the police, army and other power
institutions which protect the state system, but the ignorance,
superstition and the respect of the masses for these institutions. These
attitudes must be changed. If we ourselves participate in legislative or
executive functions and become part of the mechanics of government, this
work will be impossible.
In the past man could not conceive of a world without God. To him the
center of all his feelings and conceptions was God. Upon this blind
fanaticismthe church built its power. The pioneers of free thought were
forced to struggle bitterly and long against the established
institutions to overcome the respect of the masses for the church and
other agencies. Direct attack was the only way to break the power of the
church.
In the period of absolute monarchy, the king was revered almost as God.
He and his court were the center of life. Everything revolved around him
and his ministers. At that time a society without a king meant for most
people the end of the world. We know how much labor and sacrifice it
took to destroy this superstition and to prove to people that the king
is only an ordinary man, very often an inferior one at that; that his
power rested on the ignorance of his subjects.
Now the great superstition is the worship and belief in the “king with
the 600 heads.” Parliamentarianism is the most terrible lie of our time.
The people expect everything from the state and its laws. Parliament is
regarded as the fountain of life. The people cannot conceive of how
society can exist without statist executive and legislative
institutions. Just as in the past, people could not imagine a world
without a God and without a King. The spiritual and cultural nonentities
who form parliaments enjoy the same superstitious respect as did the
previous nonentities who played the part of annointed despots. The
newspapers are full of parliamentary reports as if nothing else existed
in the world outside of the few business men and lawyers who regard
themselves and are regarded by others as the lords of life. To destroy
this superstition is our task. If we were to follow the advice of Dr.
Maryson we would not weaken but support and sanction this superstition
of the omnipotence of the all powerful parliamentary government, because
we ourselves would be taking part in parliamentary action.
Don’t tell me that the anarchist deputies would be the opposition to the
government. This proves nothing except that the opposition is also a
necessary part of the parliamentary system. If there were no opposition
it would be necessary to create one. A Parliament without an opposition
is impossible and absurd. The fact that we go into a parliament is
logical proof that we recognize the moral validity and necessity for
this body. We thereby help to perpetuate the belief in the magical
powers of parliament. The old saying, “Tell me the company you keep and
I will tell you what you are” would also be used against us.
But Comrade Maryson tells us that he is only looking for a platform in
parliament. From this tribunal he can speak to all the people. Should
not the anarchists avail themselves of this opportunity? It would be
simple. First of all we must agree that it must be done. We nominate in
the next election, our candidate, Comrade Yanovsky, (a Prominent Jewish
anarchist speaker and writer) on the condition that he will not take
part in the lawmaking activity of parliament. He would only protest
against bad legislation and make propaganda for anarchism, or better
said, state our position as anarchists to all problems discussed in
parliament.
The realities of the situation are not so simple, my dear Maryson. If
you were to suggest that Yanovsky be sent to some congress or convention
to explain our position on some specific problem, no one would object.
If Yanovsky would correctly present our position we would certainly be
pleased. If he did not, no great harm would be done. No one could force
us to accept a decision which we did not agree with. However, the
situation takes on a different character when we nominate him for
parliament. If Yanovsky should be elected he is no longer on equal
footing with us. His election gives him a higher power. He is no longer
a delegate but a deputy whose voice and vote have an influence in the
making of laws. We have not the slightest guarantee that Yanovsky will
do everything we ask him. We would have to depend solely on his personal
honesty, strength of purpose, energy and so forth. Should he take an
opposite position to ours on this or that problem in parliament, we
would not be able to stop him. As a delegate to an ordinary gathering,
we would just laugh at him, if he failed to represent us. He could do
nothing to us. As deputy his personal will superseces our joint
decision. He could force us to accept his decision because he gives his
vote for or against a particular piece of legislation. His personal will
becomes a legislative and executive power. This is a fact that we
observe every day. We know of social-democratic deputies who voted to
send troops to crush striking workers, strengthen the police, accept the
budget of a government and so forth. In actual fact you will not find a
deputy who always carries out the will of his electors. It is true that
you can, in the next elections, pick another deputy if the first one did
not carry out your decisions. But firstly, you would not be able to
correct the harm done by his predecessor and secondly, you would not
have the slightest assurance that the second one would behave better
than the first. Perhaps you will answer me that our candidate would
after all be an anarchist and not a social-democrat. In this respect I
ama sceptic. I do not believe that the name will change the fact.
Anarchists are, after all, people and not angels and the fault lie not
in whether a deputy calls himself an anarchist or a social-democrat, but
in the fact that we ourselves give him the power to regulate our lives.
And even if we nominated and elected the best anarchist candidate, it
would not do away with the incontestable fact that we ourselves placed
our fate in the hands of another person who will do with our trust what
he pleases. Whether an anarchist can or should participate in
parliamentary action I leave to the reader to decide for himself. As far
as I am personally concerned, my opinion is that an anarchist could not
and should not do this. If he did he would betray hits anarchist
principles and convictions.
It is not necessary to explain in detail how elections are rigged,
especially in America, where politics is nothing more than open buying
and selling on the election market. At no other time is so much appeal
made to the lowest and dirtiest passions of the mob as in the election
period and if a person cannot stoop to sewer politics he will have no
influence in the election. Idealism will never get him elected, for
idealism and politics are two different things. Comrade Maryson assures
us that he does not want to compromise in any way. His opinion is that
the anarchist deputy need never bypass the anarchist principles. But I
ask him if he ever earnestly considered the peculiar role: that our
anarchist would have to play in the chambers of parliament and the kind
of speech he would have to deliver to the voters in the electoral
campaign? He would have to tell the voters that it is senseless to
expect help from parliament, that social problems will not be solved
there since parliamentary government, like all other governments, would
be the political instruments of the ruling classes whose purpose is to
perpetuate the economic and social slavery of the people. He would have
to declare that he could do nothing for them and for this he deserves to
be elected as deputy in parliament. As an anarchist, he would have to
explain that the representative system is nothing more than a new form
of political slavery. He would have to explain that no person can
represent another. Just as another person cannot eat, drink and sleep
for him, so he cannot think and act for him. This is why, dear voter, I
ask you not to vote for me or any other candidate.
What impression would such a speech make? The candidate would be looked
upon as a political clown who is not in his right mind.
The proposal of Comrade Maryson to use the parliamentary tribune as a
propaganda stage is by no means new. This was the original position of
the social-democracy. As early as 1887 the congress of the German
social-democrats in St. Galen decided that social democratic deputies
should not, under any circumstances, take part in the making of laws and
should limit themselves to criticizing and making socialist propaganda.
What was the result? Other parties charged that the social-democrats
criticize others but do nothing practical or constructive. The
social-democrats gradually relaxed their original rule and collaborated
with other deputies on practical measures, because they did not want to
lose influence with the voters. This is understandable. Placed in a
similar position, the anarchists would have to do the same. It is not
the name but the thing itself which produces definite effects, and even
the best intentions of Comrade Maryson would not be able to halt or
reverse the process.
Comrade Maryson stresses the great propaganda success which the
social-democrats made by parliamentary activity. The question is, how we
understand the word success. If success is measured by the number of
votes, then the social-democrats have been successful. As
asocial-democratic party, its success is null and void, for the greater
the number of votes it won, the weaker its original socialist principles
became. In Germany there are three million social-democratic voters, but
how many real socialists will you find among them? You have in Germany
80 daily social-democratic newspapers. If you would not read the line
“Social-Democratic Organ” you would never suspect, from their contents,
that they are socialist papers. Only the theoretical organ of the party,
“Die Neue Ziet,” edited by Karl Kautsky, carries from time to time
socialist discussion and articles. Although its price is low, it has
only seven thousand readers out of three million voters and is always in
debt. Bakunin knew what he was talking about when he admonished his
Marxist opponents, “You want to conquer political power, but I am much
afraid that political power will conquer your socialism.” If it were not
for the anarchists, socialism would be completely submerged in the swamp
of parliamentary action.
Is the parliamentary tribunal really the only place from which we can
speak to the people and give our movement a practical importance? I
think not. The majority of the people are not interested in politics.
The number of those who take the trouble to read the parliamentary
reports are very few. Parliament is but the political stock exchange of
the ruling classes. This is why the agenda carries the stamp of those
classes.
I do not understand how it is that Comrade Maryson comes with his
proposal at this time when anarchism is making good progress in most of
the European countries. In France we have the revolutionary labor
movement whose aims and tactics are closely linked with anarchist
demands. They are against the wage system and against every government.
They advocate the autonomy of the communes and declare that it is the
great historic mission of the unions to organize the coming communistic
production and the political administration of every commune. They are
antiparliamentarian and for direct action. Their most important and
effective propagandists are outspoken anarchists who influence the
entire French labor movement. The same in true in French Switzerland,
Italy, Holland and Belgium, to say nothing of Spain, whose labor
movement had from the outset an anarchist character. Here is our place,
in the union, among the people. Here is the field for our activity,
where our words will not be lost.
It is not true, Comrade Maryson, that only through parliament is it
possible to interest the people. Here is an example from the history of
the first “International Workingmens’ Association.” This powerful
organization had within a short time united two million workers in its
ranks, despite the fact that it rejected parliamentary action. Later,
when Marx and Engels tried to introduce parliamentary action there came
the split, and the International went under.