Someone said to me in the midst of an altercation over what anarchism "represented": "what really bothers me about anarchism is that anyone can "be one" and say or do "anything they like". If you look at the history of anarchism and how and why it came to be in the 19th Centur y and then compare that with the activities of anarchists around the world today, you can begin to see that there is some truth in this statement. This article tries to look at where the anarchist movement is going and whether we're going in the right direction.
If we look at the achievements of the anarchist movement in the second half of the twentieth century we can see that our successes have been insignificant compared to those of the first. The Spanish revolution was a vindication of anarchist principles. The Aragon and Catalan collectives worked, and they worked well. Workplaces, services and factories were collectivized with workers controlling the organisation of them. According to Eddie Conlon's pamphlet production increased to such an extent that "In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country""; this was a huge success and although ultimately the revolution was lost our theory won it's battle against those who held it up as nothing more than an utopian idea. After the collapse of the Aragon front, the defeat of the Anti-Fascist militias and the rise of Franco, anarchism has had little international acclaim to speak of with awe. Skeptics of anarchism could see this as a theoretical problem; that anarchism is simply not strong enough to withstand the new demands and pressures of a globalised world. In part it may be true. But the reason for this isn't because we lack theoretical conviction, but that we appear to be more divided than we actually are.
In terms of class struggle what have we achieved since Spain? Hungary 1956 when anarchist principles were adopted to struggle against the Soviet Union or the Kwangju uprising in South Korea where students fought violently with over twenty thousand riot police and soldiers who raped and murdered hundreds of people. Paris, May 1968 was one instance, an exciting and inspiring instance of tension between students, the working class and the institutions of the state. From 40 students who went on strike to demand an end to the police spies frequenting their faculty to ten million striking workers who fought back; armed with libertarian principles and common interests they demanded and won, through defiance and conflict, huge concessions. It was the largest class upheaval in an industrial country ever. Compared even to the Miners Strike 1984- 85 or Argentina 2002-5, the Paris Uprising remains a shining example of working class resistance. All this however, ended in a return to reformism. The workers went back to work and the students went back to their universities. A revolutionary spark had been lost, this time through a combination of acceptance and betrayal rather than military defeat. Much like the Miners Strike, Argentina, Hungary and Kwangju, concessions were won, revolution was avoided. Groups of activists have continued propagandizing and organizing the fight for liberation, but the general consensus among the workers has and is simply: "Let's get on with it."
Since all this, the Anti-capitalist movement, a decidedly libertarian movement, has emerged as one of the largest organizations of people to resist the spread of neo- liberalism. Anarchists, enviromentalists, NGO's, human rights groups and some Marxists form the base of this decentralized group, which takes its guidance from the `Peoples Global Actions'. Any group which takes these principles as its core and which advocates resistance to global capital is in effect apart of the anti-capitalist movement. This amalgamation of die-hard revolutionaries and teacup liberals has unfortunately created an incoherence, which could lead those on the outside to ask: "What are they about?" The different groups that have emerged champion many different causes. Labour rights, enviromentalism; campaigns for indigenous people, migration, feminism, biodiversity and genetic engineering, all of which are acceptable causes in themselves. But what does the movement need in order to get where it is going? Indeed, where is it going in the first place?
The Seattle demonstrations against the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, an organisation responsible for pushing the free trade agenda, were brought to an end by mass action by the state. The police were brought in, in their thousands to attack and dislodge what, thanks to the perseverance of the insurrectionar y anarchists involved, became a huge movement of defiance. The subsequent riots put militant politics back on the table, not just for the activists involved, but also for the people who, without agitation came out of their houses to confront the police when tear gas was thrown into their communities. A step in the right direction!
After Seattle the revolutionaries and the reformers went their separate ways to fight their separate battles. The Seattle `moment' dispersed back to its roots, affinity groups and individual campaigns, only finding some cohesion at events like Genoa, where thousands of people came together to resist the G8. The ideological and tactical differences , however, creates what? On the one side we have Black Bloc and insurrectionar y, revolutionary anarchists who see these events as an opportunity to create resistance and confrontation. On the other side the reformists and pacifists who see it as an opportunity to apply "pressure". To form a base where the world and its leaders can see how angry people are. On one side we have the belief in fighting and on the other the belief in lobbying. What is to be expected of this unlikely alliance? When Bakunin sat on the First International and endured Karl Marx's endless diatribes about his overpowering role as General- Secretary and his love affair with the state, a programme for anarchist working class liberation began to take some form. It was a new time in working class struggle, especially in 19th century Europe, which was plagued with reaction and oppression. This new working class revolutionary movement had a logical base. The enemy of the workers had a face, it could be seen and its effects could be explained. It wasn't just them and us, there were reasons and it created the means for an alternative.
One has to admit that Marx is unarguably the father of anti-capitalism. With his analysis of capitalism, its historical development and its philosophical and psychological effects on humanity it is hard to ignore him; his concept and ideas on capitalism were the beginning of a new understanding of the world. When anarchism was put into theoretical form it did so from this specific basis. Bakunin himself passed comment, no doubt through gritted teeth: "Karl Marx is a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His work on Capital...is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that it absolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts." One of the problems now facing us in the present day anarchist movement is the split in to varying derivative philosophies and perspectives. Many anarchists see the abandonment of Marx's materialist approach as a pre-condition of individual freedom; but what kind of freedom do they mean? With all the fancy names and social and theoretical nuances, the working class are still exploited, we still work long hours for little pay and we still have no control over our lives. Class struggle anarchists believe the creation of an anarchist society can only come about through the self- struggle of the working class. With lifestyleism, the belief that anarchism can be achieved through individual pursuit, we have an almost religious opting out of capitalist society in return for a life of communal living, enviromentalism and most often militant veganism.
One underlying principle of anarchist thought is direct action, it is the means in which we see the creation of an anarchist society. Rob Sparrow calls it "...the distinctive contribution of anarchists in the realm of political method." In each variant of anarchism this principle upholds itself. From primitivism, individualism and insurrectionism, the concept of direct action, creating through doing, is paramount. Rob Sparrow says further: "Direct action repudiates such acceptance of the existing order and suggests that we have both the right and the power to change the world. It demonstrates this by doing it" Direct action has been a tactic associated with the anarchist movement since the First International. Mikhail Bakunin was famous for his passionate involvement in revolutionary and insurrectionary movements. One historian notes that while on a train ride through Italy he saw a small village in revolt. He called the train to stop, jumped out and agitated the peasants and workers to storm the villa of the Mayor. Malatesta, another First International regular was also prone to throwing himself into acts of direct action, fighting with the Egyptians against the British colonialists.
Right into the 20th century the attentant, the act of bringing "justice" directly to those who were responsible for the exploitation and oppression of the workers, was a common thing. The most notable was Alexander Berkman's assassination attempt on Henry Frick, which landed him in prison for thirteen years. Emma Goldman was implicated in the assassination attempt of President McKinley, although later released without charge. She also served two years in prison for distributing contraceptives. Another example of a famous historical direct action was the tragic story of Marinus Van Der Lubbe who burnt down the German Reichstag in retaliation to the rise of the Nazi's.
Anarchists through out history have never shied away from confronting the institutions of the state. In the 1970's the squatters movement directly resisted the capitalist classes greed plans. There were mass takeovers of luxury flats and empty hotels in London to protest against housing policies. This led to organised workers going on strike in support of the occupations. The road protest camps were another example of libertarian direct action, where people resisted the creation of motorways and the destruction of the environment. But such campaigns and movements are hampered by their individualist origins and methods. Yes, lifestyle anarchists and individualists have built up a partially successful model of co-operation and solidarity. They have created a network of individual direct actions. Radical Routes and other housing co-operative networks allow people to take control of their and create a new way of living. In some instances they have been remarkably successful. The Sumac centre in Nottingham has created an extremely valuable resource that is used broadly by the community. The café, social clubs, children's events and workshops are so popular that it continues to expand and combined with the campaigns for social issues it makes the Sumac centre a prime example of individualist community direct at work, building a sense of political and alternative understanding. Another example is the social centre in Leeds, which recently opened where you can buy vegan food, use it for a political or social space or use the internet, read a book and generally relax. The atmosphere is great, the people appear quite cliquey when you first meet them, but they are all good people. The social centre is another example of libertarian inspired individuals building something for themselves. It's direct action at work. "Anyone can do it" is the motto and a motto which is inspirational; but who does this ultimately extend to? Co-operation and solidarity of this nature, although desirable usually extends to the inner circle and not the working class at large. Although workers co- operatives can and have been set up, how realistic is this as an overall goal? Can such initiatives, small as they are, provide the means to demolish capitalism?
The working class still have sub-standard housing, they are still forced into mind- numbing jobs which exploit and are betrayed daily by the politicians and businessmen that rule over them. Hyper capitalism has sent people into a consumer frenzy and the weekend seems to be the only escape. Drug taking and alcohol consumption is at an all time high, millions of hours are being lost through people being ill, stress rates are going up and all the while there is the latest this and that to buy. The stress of modern day living and the ef fects that capitalism has on people are as much the same, if in different form, than a hundred years ago. The community is being lost by the scare-mongering about immigration, the rise of the far right and the depression and alienation created from having nothing but the small possessions you lock in your house, away from the rest of the world. In recent statistics it was reported that more than 3m people in the UK alone were reported as depressed, with many cases relating to financial worries. Working class communities are run down, worn out and full of nothing. Anti-social behaviour has become so bad nowadays that the government has had to introduce Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, which ef fectively punishes children for being bored. Young people need activity and stimulation. The tiredness, wariness and disenfranchisement of parents and families at large means young people are not getting the attention they need to grow. Instead of dealing with the real reasons for anti-social behaviour and investing money into building social centres and youth clubs for young people the government is waging wars and giving subsidies to the rich. In one working class community I know, well a ghetto if we're honest, there is one school to educate hundreds of children. Every time it rains however, the roof leaks onto the kids below it or collapses altogether. The school has no money to rebuild it, and the council claim they don't either. What is to be done?
The G8 summit is on its way to Scotland. The richest and most powerful leaders of capitalism in the world will meet at Gleneagles to discuss how to protect themselves and free trade from the apparent ever-increasing global risk of terrorism and social upheaval. The agenda at the G8 this year is simply about cutting crime. Terrorist crime, organised crime, immigration crime, document forgery and narcotics crime. But not war crimes, or human rights abuses or the murder of trade unionists or the destruction of the environment and mass poisonings of helpless people. Leaders who have human rights records, war crimes records and who have lied, cheated and betrayed us, while at the same time destroying the planet we live in will meet and shake each others hand, congratulating each other no doubt on a job well done.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Creating modes of direct action is crucial to
our chance of liberation, no matter how
confrontational.
-------------------------------------------------------
The G8 symbolises the elite of capitalism. They are the harbingers of neo-liberalism and the protectors of the multi-national corporations that exploit the vulnerable and profit from suffering, misery and alienation. Resistance to it is vastly important. Genoa was a sign that people were sick of the lies and hatred caused by their agenda. Tony Blair dubbed the anti-globalisation movement, "The G8 circus" in an attempt to belittle the only truly democratic and participator y movement challenging the neo-liberal consensus he supports. The atmosphere of defiance at Genoa is almost exclusively attributed to the Black Bloc and the insurrectionary anarchists who trained, prepared and organised themselves to irritate, unhinge and provoke the authorities. This idea and tactic is an impor tant one. Coming out in force and unflinchingly challenging and confronting the agents of the state is a valuable tool for fighting the state and capitalism. Wolfi Landstreicher tells how "...anarchists must attack, for waiting is defeat; what is needed is open mutiny and the spreading of subversion among the exploited and excluded." Mutiny and subversion was precisely what the authorities got. Although some groups like the post modern communists `Ya Basta' and Pink Block wanted to use non-violent means to get inside the Red Zone, Black Block proposed violent resistance. From one personal story of someone involved it is inspiring to see how large, committed and organised they were: "I formed up with the infamous black bloc. The black bloc of autonomists and anarchists proposed to mask up, pad up and take the police on directly. Our black bloc set off about 2000 strong and succeeded in meeting up with about another 4000 activists from Cobos."
Critics within the anti-capitalist movement saw this as a prime example of the "bankruptcy" of anarchism. Marxists and reformists alike were disappointed at the "violent tactics" employed by the anarchists, and saw them as counter-productive and alienating for the actual anti-globalisation cause. This patronising attitude is all-too common; , the stuffy closet reformists disguised as Marxists will always try and make those who resist authority look unreasonable because it serves their authoritarian purpose. Regardless of any mistakes, the black bloc managed to create tension and aggravated the police to the desired effect. Tragically one anarchist, Carlos Guiliani, was murdered after being shot by a soldier.
The organisation for Genoa was, for all intents and purposes, relatively secret. The Black Bloc and the white suited `Tutte Blanches' kept their activities to themselves before the actual event. But this time the organisation has been far reaching and on a massive scale. The Dissent Network, which was created in 2003 out of those involved in ecological direct action, the anti-war movement and the anti-capitalist movement have done masses of work. It has adopted the `People's Global Action' principles and has set to work creating what it calls a `Network of Dissent' to the July G8 meeting. The Dissent Network is a decentralised organisation of affinity groups who have gone full steam ahead to work out logistics and training. Throughout the last year workshops have been organised for activists to teach activists. Research, information and fundraising have been passed to the different working groups who organise themselves. . It appears to have been a massive operation with people from all over the country and the world participating in co-operation.
The Dissent Network has adopted , "a confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations." Good step. Dissent Network, compared to the Socialist Worker Party front groups like `the G8 Alternative,' is by far the biggest and most organised group and will pose a real threat to the G8. It will no doubt manage to shut it down and create defiance with the authorities on the scale of Genoa and maybe even Seattle. The ef fects of such confrontations will once again put militant politics back on the table, how long and to what effect will be the biggest test of it's existence. On the left, the Dissent Network is criticised by the elitist of the materialist realm. These stodgy old Marxists, authoritarian or otherwise, who see these activities as a waste of time by "youngsters" with nothing better to do, can patronise all the want. This attitude, that `naivety makes the impressionable youth grow angrier', comes about because of the symbolic nature of the G8 resistance and largely because the working class are not involved. Fine, but the objective of the Dissent Network is not to liberate the working class, it is to resist the G8.
The Dissent Network is most likely made up of young people, mainly individuals with no affinity to a libertarian organisation with wider class perspectives, but that does not suddenly make it irrelevant. Resisting the G8 is an important part of being an anti- capitalist and extending leftwards, as an anarchist. Creating modes of direct action is crucial to our chance of liberation, no matter how confrontational. Emma Goldman points out quite poetically "Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral" and we should agree with her.
So if we agree that the G8 is important in terms of creating resistance and that it is merely symbolic, does that mean the Dissent Network goes without criticism? No. The Dissent Network has done well. We can admit that, but maybe it has done too well? There is a difference between believing the G8 demonstrations to be symbolic and believing that the main contention of the anarchist movement or anarchists in general should be towards this symbolism.
The Dissent Network has spent vast amounts of time, effort and money on building this network, for a symbol. How can this be justified? Individualism? The working class are undergoing continual bombardment from the state and capitalism and instead of building a dissent network to resist the day-to-day fights of working class people, the Dissent Network has spent thousands of pounds, man power and resources aimed at pissing of the police. Was all of it really necessary? As a class struggle anarchist the picture for me is clear. The G8 summit, no matter how much we fight, how many police we manage to get past, aggravate, confront, inflate and resist the demonstration and inescapable riots that no doubt will ensue are without argument pure symbolism. Regardless of the ability of those involves in the organisation of the Dissent Network, any one who believes that it can be an actual force for change are deluding themselves. They have done well in doing what they are doing, and the days of action will invariably be something to remember; but then what?
Going back to the Landstreicher quote,"...what is needed is open mutiny and the spreading of subversion among the exploited and excluded" The exploited and excluded are not involved in the Dissent Network to any significant degree. The majority of those involved are lifestyle anarchists who have opted out of society in order to be anarchists. Their way of life is already defined and while they indulge themselves in organising what is nothing more than a gesture, the working class have to deal with state repression without the means to fight back. Once the riots have died down and the media have got bored of the story the G8 leaders will still be in control and the exploited and excluded will be no better off.
--------------------------------------------------
"...no matter how many police we manage to get
past, aggravate, confront and the inescapable
riots, [these actions] are pure
-------------------------------------------------
At the moment the anti-capitalist movement, the Dissent Network included, is a theoretically unorganised mess. This is where the statement "anarchists... anyone can "be one" and say or do "anything they like"" find's its truth. Anyone can get involved with the anti-capitalist movement and can say and do what ever they like. This may live up to some ideal dream of non- partisan politics but the reality of it is confusion and inconsistency. The anti- capitalist movement has no unifying direction or purpose other than being broad based and anti-capitalist. If it is to go somewhere this agenda has to become specific and clear. The destruction of capitalism and the state can only come about through the propagation of a revolutionar y ideal, in context with what society is. Class analysis has undergone many tests, but has never failed in providing a clear answer to society's problems. What will come after the G8? There is nothing in the Dissent literature that suggests anything. The individuals involved will continue with what and go where? The lifestyleism of the twenty first century will no doubt continue to thrive, pursuing the chimera of an alternative means of living. Class struggle anarchists will have to pick up the pieces and continue attempting to build a wider resistance to capitalism; wider than the G8.
If that's to happen though we need a dialogue. The lifestylists need to get a perspective on material analysis and the class struggleists need to get out of the habit of being so righteously patronising. We need to work together. The huge amount of finances, time and resources gone in to building the Dissent Network were, in my opinion, a waste of time. Having said that, what we do have now is a model that can and should be replicated. Working class communities are in dire need for assistance. Dissent and the anti-capitalist movement is made up in part by lifestylists who want to challenge capitalism and the state by creating a practical alternative. We can do this. But instead of building a forum of debate and organisation for resisting the G8 and the WTO, what is necessary is to combine that idea with a class perspective. Building a forum for debate within working class communities and organising practical alternatives for all of us that will resist capitalism and the state on a local, more humble level.
The time and resources, money and effort that went into building the G8 would have been better directed to those communities where young people are tearing each other apart because of boredom, and school roofs are falling in because they can't afford to repair them. Providing community spaces for working class people to combat illiteracy or helping families resist the debt collectors and the racists. Going from symbolic messages, which I admit are valid, to practical involvement in communities are where the anti-capitalist movement should be going. Its focus should switch to things it can do, right now. How do we justify anything else? Those revolutionary and individualist anarchists who are involved in the anti-capitalist movement need to do what they have done to build resistance to the G8. Opt out of an unlikely alliance with reformists, disguised or not, and build a network which resists capitalism and the state on a day-to-day basis. The Dissent Network has proved it has the energy, ideas, talent and knowledge to do just that. They can build networks of resistance within and not outside of local communities..
It is not just us, as anarchists, who want an anarchist society, it is every single working class and unemployed person who is tired of being treated like a slave or like shit, tired of losing out on dreams, tired of having nothing and paying out everything to a system they hate. For every person who wants a better world, for those people embattled in a day-to-day struggle against drudgery, frustration and insanity; for all of us a network of resistance is everything. Dissent must develop towards where it really matters. To achieve liberation against the G8, the working class, the unemployed, the struggling and the tired need to be inspired. They need to realise that change is possible, that confidence in our abilities to fight back is what's required for us to change our world.
After the dust has settled over Gleneagles and we have come back with stories to tell of confrontation and defiance, we have to remember what we are doing. Why we were there in the first place and what can come next. In order to effect any real, significant change, the anarchist and anti-capitalist movement has to become pro-active where it matters. If we can resist the G8, we can resist our bosses too. If we can beat the police, we can beat the degradation of our communities. If we can remember to fight, we can remember what life should be like, and ultimately what anarchists want.
===========================================
* Organise is the magazine of the Anarchist Federation.
It is published twice times a year to promote discussion
and the development of anarchist communist theory.
_______________________________________________
Back to Organise! #64 contents