Anarchism: crisis, revisionism or ignorance

international | anarchist movement | other libertarian press Saturday May 27, 2006 13:24 by Stefan

Japanese Anarchism as an example

Nowadays it’s very commonly thought that everyone, without exception,understands perfectly what is Anarchism, and, just as importantly, knows all about the different and varied forms of organising it.

Nowadays it’s very commonly thought that everyone, without exception,understands perfectly what is Anarchism, and, just as importantly, knows all about the different and varied forms of organising it. That’s to say, that the principles are known, and the way of putting these into practice in a consistently and organised way are also known. But, is this true? Is it true that everyone knows what Anarchism is, and, how to apply it? And,by «everyone» here, do we mean people outside the Anarchist movement, or those inside it who are activists? Do people outside the movement know what it is? Do those who are activists also know what it is? And, what’s more, do these very same people, either inside the movement or outside it, know the different, and very varied forms of organisation, which are available, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each way of organising it? If each person individually asks his or herself these questions, and answers them truthfully to his/herself then we can reach the conclusion, collectively, that people do not know what it is, or how to apply it!

These questions enable us to reach the conclusion that «In the Kingdom of the Blind ignorance reigns». If people are blind to these questions then this easilly explains why there is so much confusion, and, consequently, also explains why conflicts exist inside and outside the movement. This is ignorance. If, however, there are people who have some idea about it, but turn a blind eye to the fact of such confusion then this can only be because they have an interest to represent- and to hide. Such people defend their own very partial opinions as if they were the only possible ones, because they wish to convince others to join them, and to create an Anarchist movement around one particular base. This is deception.Such people are either deceiving themselves, or, are willfully deceiving others.

If we wish to clarify the confusion that reigns, with the intention of making it clearer, so that everybody, inside or outside the movement, can reach their own personal conclusions, then we can do this best by looking at concrete examples from the history of the international Anarchist movement. By stepping outside our own situation we can see the wood for the trees. That is, not to let our own personal experiences deceive us. However, this is important for two other reasons. Firstly, that Anarchism is an international movement. Like Socialism and Fascism, it is an international movement or it is nothing!

Secondly, by looking at examples internationally and historically, we can know with exactitude what are the principles, and how and why they came to be accepted as such. To those who reject, or deny the international aspect of Anarchism, it is clear that they cannot be Anarchists. Likewise, those who reject the history of Anarchism, and deny that it is a tradition, and that it is still the same tradition as before (history), then we must ask ourselves two questions: “What are their theoretical reasons for saying that? And: «What are their motives and aims?” Thatis, if someone asserts that “Anarchism has changed” or “that “Now is the time to make some changes” to the principles and the way of organising, then we end up in the situation already mentions of personal interests.

In this case, however, of trying to change principles and forms of organisation, and making a break with the past (tradition), this is an issue which is much more serious than a sectional interest claim to look for adherents. Here it is not sectional interest, but theoretical dominance (hegemony). This occurred in the socialist and marxist tradition in the 50’s and 60’s with the claim of the American sociologist D. Bell that capitalism had undergone specific structural changes and, therefore, was no longer capitalist in the sens defined by Marx in Das Kapital. Marx’s definition has always been accepted as valid both inside the general socialist and Anarchist traditions and the consequence of Bell’s idea was to put an end to the anti-capitalist movement (formed by Marxists, Anarchists and Socialists).

The reply to this attack did not take long in coming. The debates took place between intelectuals and academics, and not inside workers’ organisations. This last fact is of great importance. This was debated by academics because the marxist theoreticians, were not workers. They did not participate in working class struggles, on the picket lines, as yet one other person amongst many. They lived, and still live, inside a bourgeois university academic culture, and enjoy a salary above what normal people earn,as well as having social rights which neither workers nor many students have either.

This seperation between theoreticians and practitioners (activists) has never existed in Anarchism. Firstly, because Bakunin’s claim that intellectuals would constitute a new class, and become the new rulers has always been taken seriously by Anarchists. Secondly, because Anarchism (and Anarchists)have never accepted the Cartesian seperation between mind and body, and, consequently, do not accept the distinction between inteligence and physical work. Anarchists have always asserted that inteligence is not found in one place, a university, but is found in all places. Where there are people there is inteligence. This is not to say that all people are inteligent, but, only that inteligence is not confined to one social place, but to all places.

The consequence of this is best seen in the history of Anarchist education, such as Ferrer, the Rationalist Schools in Spain, and the Ferrer Movement Schools in America, where the whole theory and practice was united, and is based on completely different assumptions about «what is a person» (human nature), and «how to learn» (the methods), and «when to learn» (from 5-18), and that education is a»»life-long process», and cannot be limited to a few years.

This fundamentally differaent political principle between Anarchists and Marxists, over the role of theoreticians, leads to a difference in practice. All Anarchists debate Anarchism, whereas only some Marxists debate marxism.

Hence, for us as Anarchists we have to «suffer» constant debate and to argue. This is us creates “confusion”. But what is happening, in practise, is that we are determining, markingout, and separating Anarchst ideas, to see the connections between them, including the contradictions. To read any history of the development of Anarchist ideas, in one country is to recognise immediately this process.

To conclude this section, we should point out that any attempt to change accepted principles, is akin to “Revisionism”.This occurs frequently in Marxism, with innumerable splits, and the consequent setting-up of a politica party based on the «new» principles. However, the same occurs inside fasc-ist movements; but, here, there is a difference which hasn’t existed to the same extent as with marxists. For fascists, «Revisionism», equals the re-writing of history, denying that important events existed, eg, crematorium-ovens, or that certain facts took place (masacres, and full-scale extermination. Plus, behind this Revisionism lies the attempt to give a new justificatio to contemporary fascism, by denying its own history, tradition and methods, so as to continue using them. This war of propaganda, of marxist revisionism and purges, and of fascist lies, should make us wary of any such claims for radical changes in our own movement. Especially, if they are undertaken by a special interest group for it’s own purposes: this smacks of control and not of principles.

JAPANESE ANARCHISM

Japan had a «closed door» policy for the 250 years before they were forced to be opened in 1868. It refused to allow any outside influences to enter, which means it refused to allow any «westerners» (Americans, Europeans, etc) to live let alone work in Japan. This is because the Japanese neither wanted Christianity to be introduced into their country - they were Buddists and followers of Confucius - nor western technology, (weapons, machinery) either. Despite some exteptions, this policy was maintained until there was a rev-lution in 1868 by the samurai, who then completely changed the face of Japanese history, and whose consequences are still felt today.

Anarchism was introduced into Japan at the beginning of this century (circa 1905), and, principally, by one person, Kotoku .Shusui. Japan at that time was absorbing ideas from Europe, Russia and America, relating to Marxism Socialism and Christianity. Kotoku became a journalist in 1893, and in 1898 was a popular columnist on the most radical daily the Yoruzu Choho (Every Morning News). He changed from being a liberal to a social democrat and attempted to organise the Shakai Minshuto (Social Democratic Party) in Tokyo. At that time «Social Democracy» meant marxism,and, the marxism of Kautsky and Bernstein, from the German SPD (German Socialist Party). This particular brand of marxism which was dominant in Gearmany, Austria and Russia at that time was based on an interpretation of «marxism as evolutionism» and was called «Revisionism» because it revised the principles of marxism. Leninism was not prominent at that time, and was an antidote to the revisionists. Leninism only became important after 1017, and more so with the founding of the III rd Intrnational in Moscow in 1921.

Due to the increase in hostile attitudes towards the Tsar and Russia, and dating a pro-war atmosphere, Kotoku and another jounalist from the same paper Sakai Toshihiko, decided to found their own paper, the Heimin Shimbun (Common People’s Newspaper) in November 1903. This newspsaper had no political viewpoint. It was based on opposition to the war about to breakout between Russia md Japan. Throughout its existence the editors and journalists were constantly prosecuted, fined and imprisoned for infringing the harsh press laws. In 1904 the November issue was banned completely because it translated and published Marx and Engel’s «The Communist Manifesto» and Kotoku and Sakai were heavily fined. The paper was forced to close in January 1905, and in February 1905 Kotoku started a five month jail sentence for «offending public morality» for laving published «The Communist Manifesto».

Whilst in prison Kotoku had read Kropotkin’s “Fields, Factories and Workshops” sent to him by the American Anarchist Albert Johnson. Johnson had previously corresponded with Kotoku, and sent him the address, and a picture, of Kropotkin although Kotoku had been hostile to Anarchism, calling it a «virus», it is clear that when he left Sugamo prison he was a convinced Anarchist. He decided to visit America, to escape from the severe repression of the emperor system, to be able to talk more freely to other activists about Anarchist ideas, to rest after contracting tuberculosis in prison,and to improve his English. He left Yokohama on the 14th November 1905, taking Kropotkin’s “Memoirs of a Revolutionist”, and arrived in San Francisco, on 5th December 1905.

During the next six months he spoke endlessly to socialists of all types and participated in meetings. He corresponded with Kropotkin, spoke to Johnson daily, spoke at an IWW (syndicalist) meeting, and helped to bring together the Japanese in California into one organisation. This organisation, and California, would serve as a refuge and base for exiled Japanese revolutionaries, the same as Zurich and Switzerland was for Russian and European revolutionaries in Europe. It was called the «Shakei Kakumeito»(Social Revolutionary Party).

At that time American socialism was in a state of flux. There was the «Socialist Party of America», the smaller but more radical «Socialist Labour Party», the newly formed IWW, and many Anarchist groups headed by emminent international revolutionaries, such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman (both Russian).

Kotoku acquired a copy of Kropotkin’s “The Conquest of Bread”, in English, and which he was later to translate, publish clandestinely and distribute, in March 1909. This book is considered to be the basis of Anarcho-Communism. Likewise, he obtained a small 32 page pamphlet written by the German Anarchist Arnold Roller, whose publication coincided with the founding congress of the IWW in June 1905. It was called «The Social General Strike», is the basis of Syndicalism, and Kotoku valued it so highly, that he translated and distributed it clandestinely in Japan in 1907. One other influence on Kotoku,and on Japanese Anarchism, was that of terrorism. On 1st June 1906 50 out of the 70,000 Japanese resident on the West Coast of America around the San Francisco Bay areaformed the “Shakei Kakumeito” (Social Revolutionary Party). The name is taken from the Russian “Social Revolutionary Party”, and which believed in a government, but based on the peasantry, and which widely used “terrorism”, assassination of state officials and bank raids as a tactic. Thus, for those Japanese who were looking at the peasant basis of their society at the time, this seemed to be a reasonable solution to their problems. In December 1906 «Kakumei» (Revolution) was first published in California, and was consistently Anarchist, and accepted the tactic of terrorism.

From all of this we can draw the following conclusions. Firstly, that the socialist movement is divided into two parts: authoritarian-parties, reformist social democratic, eg the British Labour Party, German SPD prior to 1918, radical Marxist, such as the Communist Party (Bolshevik, German, etc), or ultra right parties such as the Nazi NSDAP, Falange, or Mussolini’s change from the Social Party to forming the Fasci di Combattimento. And, anti-authoritarian - syndicalist, or small Anarchist group federations. Secondly, that the basis of an Anarchism which is anticapitalist can only be, Anarcho-Comminist. Thirdly, that syndicalism is a strategy-strikes, general strikes leading to a revolution and an organisation - a method for organising Anarchists and non-Anarchists together in the same organisation. Fourthly, that terrorism, or violent attacks against forms of present injustice, is a tactic of Anarchism, but not unique to it.

If we now want to clarify the differences between Anarchist principles, strategies, tactics and organizations, then the case of the European movement is useful.

From this we can see that the ideas and principles of both Marx and Bakunin are, socialist and therefore anticapitalist. Both want the elimination economic and social exploitation. And, as the capitalist method of exploitatior is to use money to exploit people, then if money is abolished, then so is capitalism. Without money capitalism cannot exist. There was, and is, no doubt about this! In their writings they say this - and these are available for ail to read.

As a result of the expulsion of Bakunin and the sections which accepted his views from the 1st International, the socialist movement was, and has been, divided into two parts: Marx-Marxism, or authoritarian-socialism; and, Bakunin - Anarchism which is anti-authoritarian socialism. The differences which divide Anarchists from Marxists are neither over the analysis of the workings of capitalism, nor,its abolition. The differences are: l) how to do this - organise its destruction; and 2) what to do after its abolition - how to organise a future non-capitalist society. This last point is the debate about «the whithering away of the state». Hence, all this debate is over organisation, before and after the revolution, and not about principles. There are no differences between Marxists and Anarchists over principles, and so when people start talking about changing the principles, or the organisation, to bring it in line with present conditions, so as to be «more progressive»», «more up to date», etc, then these people are breaking with the past and with all those who create’ this present movement. For Anarchism this can only lead in one direction: towards authority and totalitarianism. If the organisation is changed, then this is already a de facto change in principles; and, if its the principles, then, naturally, the organisation will be changed as well. All of which means that these changes can only serve to send Anarchism towards Authority, and to destroy it totally.

The expelled Bakuninist sections, re-grouped to organise a uniquely Anarchisti international organisation. At that time «Anarchism» was used in a pejorative way to attack Bakunin and Bakuninists. Gradually, the term was defined,but this took a long time and was even dificult for some Bakuninist sections to accept the term, as it had a bad ring to it. Bakuninism, at that time, was also called Collectivism. However, when this concept was put into practice, especially in Spain, it soon became evident that it was inadequate. That is, social products and wealth are distributed to those who work - those who don «t work, get nothing:

Obviously, this concept excludes the parasites, but also excludes a whole lot of other people as well: the young, the old, the sick,the unemployed, and does not confront the problem of domestic versus capitalist production (an essential issue in feminism). Whereas «Anarchism» was gradually refined and accepted «collectivism» was heavily criticised, by figures such as Kropotkin, Reclus, Malatesta and Cafiero, and was rejected in favour of the term Communist. The result was: Anarcho-Communism. This is the basis of the Anarchist movement or at last that part of it (the major part) which is anticapitalist/socialist.

The change in emphasis is between “work” and “needs” . The needs of everyone have to be met, and not just those for the people who work. If not then we fall back into the trap of the “collectivists” again. Money is to be abolished immediately, and any system using a voucher-system has to be rejected, as this is “money” under a different name. Kropotkin was to later expound on this in his book “The Conquest of Bread”, which Kotoku accepted and translated as we have seen. The Anarchists of the 1870’s foresaw that the satisfaction of needs, and not wants, is the basis of a just society; and also foresaw the debate of the 1960’s and 1970’s, over the Young and Old Marx, which is about “needs”. They have never received recognition for this fact. Whilst the marxists were squabbling over power and creating authoritarian organisations, which later voted for the “war credits” and by doing so gave support to the Imperialist War of 1914-1919, and couldn’t stop the fascists in Germany in the 1930’s, the Anarchists analysed principles so as to have a sound basis for action,and practice.

It’s no surprise that the marxist academics/intelectuals of the 1960’s and since have not given credit to the Anarchists for this. It puts to shame the whole marxist movement.

Having established the terms/concepts to define their principles, theAnarchists then placed all their attention on how to put these into practice - to organise anarchists. This was not easy! There were different opinions about how to organise it, and these reflected the differences in temperament and the different organisations which existed at that time. That is, the Italians wanted to start the revolution straight away, using insurrection as a method, taking control of villages, burning all legal and state documents, destroying state and capitalist institutions and fomenting the revolutionary control of the village and its land by the inhabitants. Having taken control of one village, the revolutionaries ?ould then move on to the next one to do the same. This would convert an insurrection into a revolution. There were several attempts at doing this by the Italians and so their organisation was the small group, which by force of arms would liberate villages, releasing revolutionary impulses. Insurrection was not just a tactic, but was being advocated as a strategy. To go from «the idea» to «the deed». This approach was called «Propaganda by Deed» but nowadays it is thought that this term means atentados, or, individual acts against monarchs, presidents, police officials, etc. This interpretation is mistaken, and is based on events in the years 1890’s to 1910, when many atentados were carried but as reprisals against different states in America, Europe, Russia and Japan.owever, it is clear that an atentado is not an insurrection, and not a revolution either.

The Spanish also wanted to start the revolution immediately, but used trade-unions as thd form of organisation.Thus, the union played the part of organiser, instead of the Italian’s small group idea. But both coincided in the use of isurrection as a strareqy, extending it to a revolution. However, Kropotkin after visiting England and talking to trade-unionists there, thought that unions colc only be reformist. A little latr he changed his mind completely as a result of the Patterson Strike where the strikers showed the will to go beyond reformism (the defence of their interests/jobs) to revolution and put an end the capitalism. They also produced novel and imaginative tactics, all of which impressed Kropotkin, and forced him to change his mind about unions.

If the Anarchists, or at least some of them, looked to the unions as the means of organising the revolution, then so did the reformists as well. The reformists in the Congresses of the trade-unionists often adopted «libertarian socialism» as the final goal. However, they adopted as their means the use of strikes as a tactic, but voting in parliamentary elections as a strategy. The strikes for the reformists are always «non-violent» or «non-confrontational».

That’s to say, that acts of sabotage, or attacks against the bourgeoisie, their (homes, cars, factories), or against the forces of repression, such as police stations, prisons and the military, are never carried out. Demostrations are limited to walking through the streets making some noise but nothing else.

The purpose of the strike-tactic for the reformists, is that a handful of workers negotiate with the bosses.When an agreement is reached between the two the striking workers go back to work to be exploited again. Obviously, this process could go on indefinitely, from crisis to crisis, and strike to strike. Doing this does not put an end to the process (capitalism), it just prolongs it. The reformists foresaw this and,consequently, proposed that the workers should chose people to go to parliament to change the laws.When there are enough of them in parliament, a majority, then they will propose laws, pass them, and orde the State to implement them. Hence, a «violent» revolution, of physical confrontations, won’t be necessary. It’s only necessary to vote every 4 or 5 years and gradually the capitalist-state will be changed, until it finally disappears.

The Anarchists of all persuasions hated this view right from the start. They pointed out that when a small group of workers negotiate with the bosses, this divides the workers immediately, and breaks the major weapon of the exploited and oppressed: solidarity and mutual aid.

Also, such a small group is open to all kinds of pressure, from threats on their lives and their families lives, to bribery and corruption. Hence, to avoid all of this the Anarchists proposed taking direct control of the factories and running them with bosses. Factory managers and technical staff could stay on working, but with a change of status: they become a worker just like anyone else. Money is abolished, so there can’t be problems with pay diferentials. All needs are to be met (physical.emotional/psychological and social) according to conditions (local and larger scale). Decisions are made in open assemblies of all people, and delegates from these are then sent to other assemblies, thus creating a federation. This point is essential for all Anarchists of any persuassion. A federation of small scale Anarchist affinity groups works exactly the same as a Federation of Sindicates, that is a union. The internal structure is identical in both cases, and this is because logically, for it to be Anarchist it must be organised along Anarchist lines: full participation of all members in assemblies, delegates, and federations of assemblies. The differences between these two are about tactics and strategies, but not one of purpose (the destruction of authority and exploitation), and nor is it about organisation. They are both organised the same, but who they organise, and what they do are completely different. Later on, we will see these differences more clearly when we look at concrete historical examples.

If the Anarchists hated the reformists notion of «non-violent» strikes, then their concept of «the road to parliament», via elections, candidates and political parties outraged them. They pointed out, that if corruption and intimidation can happen on a small scale, between workers and bosses, imagine what it would be like on a larger scale, such as national elections, with millions of lives and millions of dollars, pounds, yen and pesetas, etc at stake. Total corruption!

The Anarchists have made an important contribution to political philosophy and sociological theory when they pointed out that, «power corrupts». That is that when someone, anyone, comes in contact with power there is always the possibility that this person will be corrupted, either by the use of power, «drunk with power», a tyrant, despot or dictator, or by money, «presents», sex or drugs. Hence, we can see that the Anarchist perspective is based on an acute sense of reality, and not as its critics say, is «idealistic» or «Utopian». And this is because of what we have said earlier: Anarchists do not seperate theory and practice, means and ends, and never between theorists and activists. To do so would be to create an elite, just like the marxists propose, and create a new class of leaders, who would become authoritarian (dictators), and be corrupted by power. Anarchists are not interested in substituting one set of leaders for another, or listening to promises about future changes, but to effectuate themselves, in conjunction with others, via direct action, with the aim of destroying all forms of injustice (racial, sexual, social, physical, economical, etc) once and for all.

To conclude this section, we can note the following: 1) the main stream Anarchist movement is anticapitalist; 2) the name for theses principles are Anarcho-Communist; 3) the socialist/communist movement is divided into two parts, authoritarian and Anarchist; 4) the authoritarian part is divided into two parts, marxist and social democratic/Labour Party; 5) the differences between the Authoritarian Socialists and the Anarchists, are over tactics, strategies and organisations, but not over final aims. About this last point we should point out that in principle there»s no difference. However, in practice, the Anarchists accuse all the authoritarians of being, or trying to be, the new leaders and of being corrupt. They are integrated into the system (social democrats), or want to become the new leaders, of a state-capitalist economy (marxists); 6) that amongst the Anarchists there are different kinds of organisations: the affinity-group, or the sindicate; 7) there is no difference of how they’re organised, but there is a difference of why and who is organised: workers in sindicates, or small groups formed for all kinds of purpose. As to why they are organised in this way, we will seemore clearly in the next section.

* This article must be written in mid ‘90s by Stefan, an anarchist originally from England who leaves in Barcelona, Spain. The original article had notes etc, but as they have been lost I did not include them.