PROPAGANDA

ANARCHISM: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
BY ALBERT MELTZER (1.7.1920 - 5.7.1996)

INALIENABLE TENETS OF ANARCHISM

THAT PEOPLE ARE BORN FREE

Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.

IF PEOPLE ARE BORN FREE, SLAVERY IS MURDER

Nobody is fit to rule anybody else. It is not alleged that people are perfect, or that merely through his/her natural goodness (or lack of same) he/she should (or should not) be permitted to rule. Rule as such causes abuse. There are no superpeople nor privileged classes who are above 'imperfect Humanity' and are capable or entitled to rule the rest of us. Submission to slavery means surrender of life.

AS SLAVERY IS MURDER, SO PROPERTY IS THEFT

The fact that people cannot enter into their natural inheritance means that part of it has been taken from him or her, either by means of force (old, legalised conquest or robbery) or fraud (persuasion that the State or its servants or an inherited property owning class is entitled to privilege). All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed artisan, he said "property is liberty", which seems at first sight a contradiction with his dictum that it was theft). But the principle of ownership, in that which concerns the community, still remains at the bottom of inequity.

IF PROPERTY IS THEFT, GOVERNMENT IS TYRANNY

If we accept the principle of a socialised society, and abolish hereditary privilege and dominant classes, the State becomes unnecessary. If the State is retained, unnecessary government becomes tyranny since the governing body has no other way to maintain its hold. "Liberty without socialism is exploitation: socialism without liberty is tyranny" (Bakunin).

IF GOVERNMENT IS TYRANNY, ANARCHY IS LIBERTY

Those who use the word "Anarchy" to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard government as necessary, if they think we could not live without Whitehall directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well-being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that Anarchy means the opposite to what government guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion and consider government to be tyranny, are right too in considering Anarchy (no government) to be liberty. If government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.

ORGANISATION AND ANARCHISM

Those belonging to or coming from authoritarian parties find it hard to accept that one can organise without 'some form' of government. Therefore they conclude, and it is a general argument against Anarchism, that 'Anarchists do not believe in organisation'. But govern-ment is of people, organisation is of things.

There is a belief that Anarchists 'break up other people's organisations but are unable to build their own' often expressed where dangerous, hierarchical or useless organisations dominate and prevent libertarian ones being created. It can well be admitted that particular people in particular places have failed in the task of building Anarchist organisations but in many parts of the world they do exist.

An organisation may be democratic or dictatorial, it may be authoritarian or libertarian, and there are many libertarian organisations, not necessarily Anarchist, which prove that all organisation need not be run from the top downwards.

Many trade unions, particularly if successful, in order to keep their movement disciplined and an integral part of capitalist society, become (if they do not start so) authoritarian; but how many employers' organisations impose similar discipline? If they do their affiliates would walk out if it did not suit their interests. They must come to free agreement because some have the means to resist intimidation. Even when they resort to fascism to keep the workers down, the employers retain their own independence and financial power; nazism goes too far for smaller capitalists in that after having crushed the workers it also limits, or even negates, the independence of the class that put it in power.

Only the most revolutionary unions of the world have ever learned how to keep the form of organisation of mass labour movements on an informal basis, with a minimum of central administration, and with every decision referred back to the workers on the shop floor. The importance of the "base" is a theme that runs through the discussions of the CNT and the IWW and remains perhaps the central problem that Anarchists have to grapple with if they are to really achieve mass support, be it in Unions or any other type of fighting organisations.

THE ROLE OF AN ANARCHIST IN AN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIETY

The only place for a free man in a slave society is in prison , said Thoreau (but he only spent a night there). It is a Stirring affirmation but not one to live by. The revolutionary must be prepared for persecution and prosecution, but only the masochist would welcome it. It must always remain an individual action and decision as to how far one can be consistent in one's rebellion: it is not something that can be laid down. Anarchists have pioneered or participated in many forms of social rebellion and reconstruction, such as libertarian education, the formation of labour movements, collectivisation, individual direct action in its many forms and so on.

When we advocate anarcho-syndicalist tactics, it is because social changes for the whole of society can only come about through a change of the economy. Individual action may serve some liberatory process, it's true. Individuals, for example, may retire to a country commune, surround themselves with like minded people and ignore the world so long as it overlooks them. They might certainly meanwhile live in a free economy if they could overcome certain basic problems, but it would not bring about social change.

This is not to decry individual action, far from it. Whole nations can live under dictatorship and sacrifice whole peoples one by one, and nobody will do anything about it until one individual comes along and cuts off the head of the hydra, in other words, kills the tyrant. But genocide can take place before the individual with the courage, ability and luck required comes along.

In such cases we see waiting for mass action as queuing up for the gas chamber (it can be literally so). We do not think "the proletariat can do no wrong" and, most of all by submission, it can. But organisation is strength. We advocate mass action because it is effective and because the proletariat has in its hands the means to destroy the old economy and build anew. The Free Society will come about through workers' councils taking over the places of work and by conscious destruction of the authoritarian structure. They can be built within unionisation of the workforces of the present time.

WORKERS CONTROL

When advocating workers control for the places of work, we differ from those who are only advocating a share of management or imagine there can be an encroachment upon managerial function by the workers within capitalism. Self-management within a capitalist society is a sizeable reform, and is occasionally attainable when the workforce is in a particularly strong position, or more often when the work is sufficiently hazardous to defy outside inspection. That is all it is however and is not to be confused with syndicalism, except in the sense that the syndicalist thinks the future society should be self-controlled. We want no authority supreme to that of the workers, not even one of their delegates.

This probably means breaking industry down into small units, and we accept this. We reject 'nationalisation' as a form of State control.

It should not be (but unfortunately is) necessary to explain that there are, of course, ways of personal liberation other than class action, and in some cases these may be necessary lest one starve. But none of these can at present help to change society. The self-employed artisan no longer plays an important part as in Proudhon's day (perhaps this will be revived with a new society). One can get satisfaction working on one's own, one may have to do so by economic necessity, but the means of changing society rest with those who are working in the basic economy.

Trends over recent years show the importance of the self-employed artisan. As major industries are decimated by the ruling class because they are no longer necessary to capitalism, a means of integrating those working outside mainstream capitalism will increasingly need to be found if we are to achieve change. It was the necessity of finding this in a previous reversal of capitalist trends that led to the original formation of anarcho-syndicalism.

THE ANARCHIST AS REBEL

It is not unknown for the individual Anarchist to fight on alone, putting forward his or her ideas in a hostile environment. There were many examples in the past of Anarchists struggling on alone, sometimes only one in the country. It is less the case at the present time when there are usually many people calling themselves Anarchists, though perhaps only one or two in a locality who really are so, and not just adopting the label to describe rebellion when young.

Anarchists in such circumstances may fight alone for the principle of Anarchism, but usually participate in other struggles, such as anti-militarism, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, or solely within the context of the class struggle.

It is no part of the case for Anarchism to say that the profession of its ideas changes peoples' character; or that the movement invites itself to be judged on anyone who happened to be around at any one time. Organisations Anarchists create may become reformist or authoritarian; people themselves may become corrupted by money or power. All we can say is that ultimately such corruption normally leads them to drop the name 'Anarchist' as it stands in their way. If ever the term became 'respectable', no doubt we would have to choose a fresh one, equally connotative of libertarian rebellion - at present it can still stand as a descriptive though increasingly misused term.

In all organisations, personalities play a part and it may be that in different countries different schisms may occur. Some say that there are different types of Anarchism. Syndicalism, communism, individualism, pacifism, have all been cited as such. This is not so. If one wishes to cause a schism, purely on personal reasons or because one wishes to become more quietist or reformist, it is no doubt convenient to pick a name as a 'banner', But in reality there are not different forms of Anarchism. Anarchist Communism, in any definition (usually that of Kropotkin) means a method of socialism without government, not a different style of Anarchism. An alternative idea, called Anarchist Collectivism, once favoured by Spanish Anarchists, was found in practice to be exactly the same. If one is going to have no rule from above, one cannot lay down a precise economic plan for the future, and communism and collectivisation controlled from below upwards proved to be no different from each other, or from syndicalism, a permanent means of struggle towards the same goal.

Communism, in the sense used by Anarchists, is a society based on the community.

Collectivism is a division of the commune into economic units. Unless the commune is very small - based upon the village -it has to be divided into smaller units, collectives, so that all can participate not just their elected representatives. Otherwise it would merely be industrial democracy. While free communism is an aim, syndicalism is a method of struggle. It is the union of workers within the industrial system attempting to transform it into a free communistic society.

State communism is not an alternative communism to free communism, but its opposite. It is the substitution of the State or the Party for the capitalist class. Communism is not necessarily Anarchist, even if it is not State Communism but the genuine authoritarian form of communism (total State control without having degenerated into absolute power from above, or even governmental dominated socialisation). Syndicalism is not necessarily revolutionary and even revolutionary syndicalism (the idea that workers can seize places of work through factory organisation) need not be libertarian, as it can go hand in hand with the idea of a political party exercising political control. This is why we use the mouthful "anarcho-syndicalism". Workers control of production, community control from below, no government from above.

NON-VIOLENCE

Is pacifism a trend within Anarchism? Though phoney Anarchism contains a large streak of pacifism, being militant liberalism and renouncing any form of positive action for Anarchism, pacifism (implying extreme non-violence, and not just anti-militarism) is authoritarian. The cult of extreme nonviolence always implies an elite, the Satyagrahi of Gandhi for instance, who keep everyone else in check either by force or by moral persuasion. The general history of the orthodox pacifist movements is that they attempt to dilute a revolutionary upsurge but come down on the side of force either in an imperialist war or by condoning aggressive actions by governments they support.

Both India and Israel were once the realisation of the pacifist ideal; the atom bomb was largely developed and created by non-violent pacifists and by League of Nations enthusiasts; the Quakers as peace-loving citizens but commercial tyrants and colonialists are notorious. In recent times, many who rejected Anarchist actions of the Spanish Resistance (though claiming to be "non-violent Anarchists") had no difficulty later in supporting far more "violent" actions of different nationalist movements.

It is true to say that there are Anarchists who consider pacifism compatible with Anarchism in the sense that they advocate the use of non-violent methods though usually nowadays advocating this on the grounds of expediency or tactics rather than principle. But this should not be confused with the so-called "Tolstoyan Anarchism" (neither Tolstoyan nor Anarchist). Tolstoy considered the Anarchists were right in everything but that they believed in revolution to achieve it.

His idea of social change was "within one" (which is to say in the sky). He did not advocate non-violent revolution, he urged non-resistance as a way of life compatible with Christian teaching though not practised as such.

One has to say also that this refers to pacifism in the Anglo-American sense, somewhat worse in Great Britain where the concept of legalised conscientious objection led to a 1 dialogue between pacifism and the State. In countries where objection to military service remained a totally illegal act, the concept of pacifism is not necessarily extreme non-violence.

WORKERS' SELF-DEFENCE

The Marxist-Leninists in time of revolution rely upon the formation of a Red Army. Under the control of one party, the "Red" Army is the old army under a red flag. We have seen many times how this can become a major instrument of repression, just as a Nationalist army under a new flag can also become one, sometimes even before it attains power. The very formation of an Army to supersede workers militias will destroy the Revolution (Spain 1936). Che Guevara introduced new romantic ideas of the Red Army as the advance guard of a peasants army - combining the spontaneity of a Makhnovista (Ukraine 1917) and Zapatista\Magonista (Mexican anarchistic) peasant army with the disciplined ideas of Party intellectuals. In such cases, after the initial enthusiasm carries it through to victory, the disciplined leadership takes over; if it fails, the leaders run off elsewhere.

The self-defence notions of anarcho-syndicalists are that workers use arms in their own defence, against the enemy at hand and that the democratic notion of workers militias prevails. While there may be technical leadership, instruction and duties such as are at present in the hands of non commissioned officers up to the rank of sergeant, there should be no officers whose job is to command, or lower ranking NCOs to transmit the chain of command.

The idea of an armed people is derided by many so-called military and political experts, but only if used by workers in their own interests. If smaller nations use it successfully these experts admit that a citizens army - that is to say, a non-professional one that can hang up its rifles and go back to work, coming out when called upon - is possible, provided only that, as in the case of (say) Israel or South Africa, they obey nationalistic and aggressive policies from above. Providing they don't maintain the force in international class interests, the "experts" are prepared to admit the efficiency of such an army remaining democratically controlled within its own ranks.

HOW WILL A REVOLUTION COME ABOUT?

We do not know. When a revolutionary situation presents itself - as it did with the occupation of factories in France 1936 and 1968; as it did in Spain 1936 with the fascist uprising; or with the breakdown of the Russian Armies 1917; or in many other times and places; we are ready for it or we are not (and usually not!!). Many times the workers are partially ready and leave the "wounded wild animal" of Statism fiercer than ever. It may be a purely individual action that sets off the spark. But only if, at that period, there is a conscious movement towards a free society that throws off the shackles of the past, will that situation become a social revolution.

The problem today that faces us is that half the world is prepared to rise almost at any opportune time, but has no military power to resist repression, and no industrial muscle to sustain itself. The other half of the world has such might, but no real desire to rise, being either bought off by capitalism or succumbing to persuasion.

THE EMPLOYERS DO NOT GIVE WORK

It is basic socialist thinking, to which Anarchism subscribes, that work is not something that is given by the employer. The employer may have the legal right to distribute work, but the wealth of a country is due to the workers and to natural resources, not to an employer or a State.

It is the Anarchist case that fluctuations of the money market, inflation, recession, unemployment, as well as war, are artificially created and are not natural disasters like flood, famine, earthquake, drought - and as one knows nowadays, even some of these are created by abuse of natural resources,

It may be that in some technological society of the future, run by the State, in a sort of boss Utopia, the working class will be displaced as a productive class. We see signs of that even today as large parts of the economy are closed down as unprofitable and people uprooted. There is a technology, still in its infancy but making great strides, which will reduce us, as a productive class, to turners of switches and openers of the scientists' doors; to secretaries and receptionists; to janitors and clerks; to domestic servants of the rich. Anarcho-syndicalists think such a society must be resisted. They do not worship work as a fetish in itself but fight dehumanisation and alienation. In this they differ from some other Anarchists who think work has no purpose and who become state-dependent by conviction.

TRADE UNION (AND ANTI-TRADE UNION)

OBJECTIONS TO ANARCHISM

Trade unionists often regard anarcho-syndicalism as a direct menace, sometimes viewing the Anarchist objections to authoritarian leadership and to the closed shop as equivalent with Conservative attacks on free trade unionism. Yet at the same time Conservatives view anarcho-syndicalism as 'trade unionism gone mad.' (One Spanish Rightist said the CNT consisted of 'bandits with union cards' — and in a situationist-like phrase another said 'the crime of industrialisation led to the industrialisation of crime.')

But some package-deal libertarians think anarcho-syndicalism is just another form of trade unionism and their objections are based on their repulsions to trade unionism, or even work as such. What's the difference between the two? Both derive directly from the idea of workers' co-operation.

TRADE UNIONISM is an association of workers for the betterment of their conditions. While its pressures for wages and job security cause it to form political alliances, these differ from country to country. In the USA union leaders tend to make deals with the capitalists, often for the immediate cash and security advantages of their members, sometimes for the leadership; in this country union leaders have formed the Labour Party, and are slightly less inclined to deal with capitalism or nationalism.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM, which does not differ from country to country except in the degree to which workers find it applicable to their immediate needs and interests, is concerned with the taking over of industry by the workers and therefore supersedes any political alliance; it does seek, by direct action, to improve pay and job security, but its main aim is revolutionary change and workers control.

TRADE UNIONISM tends to become a division of the working class separating employed from unemployed/unwaged, and creating job categories to which one is very often bound for life. It is sometimes, in the English system certainly, impossible to get a job unless you have a union card and impossible to get a union card unless you have a job.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM is based on the unity of all the workers in the region, grouping all employed, unemployed or self-employed in the local workers' centre, and providing entry regardless of 'category.'

TRADE UNIONISM in many countries looks to a closed shop to defend the workers' interests, which — while it means on the one hand the union can obtain limited reforms or increases for all — also means the union is dependent more on parliamentary action than industrial action. The leadership becomes all-powerful since once it exerts its right to expel a member, that person is not only out of the union, but out of a job.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM rejects the closed shop and relies on voluntary membership, and so avoids any leadership or bureaucracy. One or two paid officials suffice for a membership of thousands, and sometimes even that much is considered unnecessary.

TRADE UNIONISM is generally for State intervention, unless it is (as in the USA or Germany) entirely sold on private enterprise. Its highest aim is to influence or control the State.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM fights private enterprise and State control alike. Its aim is to abolish both.

On the whole workers prefer Trade Unionism when it is delivering the goods in the form of cash payments and job security; and so long as they can criticise its shortcomings, they fatally accept that its leadership is fairly immovable and inevitably bound to considerations other than the welfare of their members.

The workers prefer Anarcho-syndicalism when they need a tough union, and when they are imbued with libertarian ideas as against accepting authoritarian ideas or taking their ideas from the media.

The term 'Syndicalist' — as distinct from Anarcho-syndicalist — has three or four meanings in organised labour. In Italy, France and Spain it is simply an interchangeable term for trade unionist. In the English-speaking countries, where the term trade unionist is normal language, syndicalism has been taken to mean revolutionary trade unionism, in other words trade unions working towards social change, not necessarily Anarchist. Sometimes it has been used interchangeably with Anarcho-syndicalist, or used as a euphemism for the latter when Anarcho- tends to scare. It has also been used to mean militant—as distinct from revolutionary —trade unionism, aiming at control, not directly by the working class, but by the leadership in particular of the trade unions themselves.

There can no doubt be forms of Anarchism which reject Syndicalism, which normally means they reject the whole idea of class struggle, and logically any form of activity other than protesting about the iniquities of the State system, without any intention of changing it: this is militant liberalism or mere permanent protest, masquerading as Anarchism.

The term Council Communism is almost synonymous with Anarcho-syndicalism in its original German usage: with the exception that Anarcho-syndicalism is the most militant expression of working class activity imbued with Anarchist ideas, and Council Communism the most militant, and libertarian, expression of a working class imbued with Marxist ideas (but not Bolshevik/ Leninist ones: this is the anti-thesis of Council Communism) coming to similar conclusions by a different road. However, the prevalent modern usage of the term Council Communism in 'Situationist' -type circles is by those who reject Anarcho-syndicalism because it believes in a permanent organisation of workers. They want the workers to organise 'spontaneously' at the very moment of revolution. This is a con-trick, designed to leave 'the revolutionary movement', so called, in the hands of an educated class just as does the so-called 'revolutionary party.'

'Spontaneity' (sometimes nowadays mixed up with autonomy) means that the workers are only expected to come in the fray when there's any fighting to be done, and in the normal times leave theorising to the specialists or students. One does not, understandably, find many workers going along with these views which are more popular with students/ intelligentsia who espouse the 'marginals' as the new vanguards.

THE AVERAGE PERSON'S OBJECTION TO ANARCHISM

Generally speaking the ordinary people pick up their objection to Anarchism from the press, which in turn is influenced by what the Establishment want. For many years there was a press conspiracy of silence against Anarchism, followed in the 1960s by a ruling on transcribing Anarchism and Marxism, or Anarchism and Nationalism, so that the one must be referred to the other, in order to confuse. This was borne out in many exposures in Black Flag showing where avowed Marxists were in the turbulent sixties described in the Press as "Anarchists" while avowed Anarchists were described as "Marxists" or "Nationalists". On some occasions Nationalists were called "Anarchists" but usually when the word "Anarchist" was being used it was as if to describe oneself as an Anarchist was to make a confession of guilt. This, as we have seen, is picked up from the liberal-democratic attitude to Anarchism; but it is flavoured strongly with the fascist attitude also. Because of it, the phrase "self-confessed Anarchist" came to be used by the Press to describe a person who is an Anarchist as opposed to someone who they have merely labelled Anarchist in order to confuse.

This has altered somewhat with the commercial exploitation of Anarchism by the music industry and the academic exploitation of philosophy, giving rise to a middle class Liberal version of an Anarchist as a liberal-minded philosopher, a harmless eccentric, a drop out or a person wearing fashionably unfashionable clothes.

As opposed to this increasingly popular misconception, the average person takes the fascist view of Anarchism, as picked up in its entirety by police officers and others, as genuine; but tempered with the fact that they do not take it quite seriously. Sometimes they confuse the word "revolutionary", and assume all who protest are thereby Anarchist. This ignorance, however, is more often displayed by journalists than it is by the general public.

When it comes down to an objection to Anarchism as it is, as distinct from objections to a mythological Anarchism as imagined or caricatured by the authoritarian parties or Establishment, or practised by the Alternative Establishment, there are not many serious objections from the general public. They may not think it as practical or capable of realisation if presented in a positive way to them; but they usually do so if presented in a negative way - i.e. describing the tyranny of the State. The fact that we could dispense with authoritarian parties, the worthlessness of politicians and so on, is generally agreed. The sole main objection is perhaps the feeling that they want to make the best out of life as it is; and they do not feel strong enough to challenge the State or to face the struggle involved in bringing about a free society, or put up with the many vicissitudes major and minor, that make up the life of a militant or someone reasonably committed to an ideal. The temptations to conform and to accept the bribes which the capitalist class can now hold out are great. Only when the State wants its last ounce of blood do people wake up to the need for resistance, but then it is too late, and also, of course, the State then takes on the pretence of being "the country" in order to be loved instead of hated or disliked.

The entirety of this text is available from:

AK PRESS P.O. BOX 40682 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94140-0682

AK PRESS P.O. BOX 12766 EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND EH8 9YE

PUBLISHED:

1ST Cienfuegos, Sanday, Orkneys 1981

2nd Cienfuegos, Minneapolis

3rd Belfast Anarchists

4th ASP, Doncaster

5th revised adition, 1993

6th revised adition, 1996

7th revised adition, 2000 by AK PRESS

This small portion has been published here for the sake of a quick introduction to anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. No Copyright!