On Anarchist Revolution
On April 18th, 2001 an insurrection in Beni-Douala in the Kabylia region
of Algeria erupted as a result of the murder of a high school boy by the
police. (1) Algeria is a military dictatorship and the police have
a long history of brutality. The insurrection soon spread to the rest
of Kabylia and later, though it remained centered in Kabylia, to other parts
of Algeria. By early may the movement had started to organize itself
in what they called aarchs. Aarchs are village and neighborhood assemblies.
They are horizontal, directly democratic organizations where everyone has
an equal say in decisions. There are no leaders. Different aarchs
coordinate their actions through a system of mandated and recallable delegates.
Each delegate is bound to a "code of honor," or mandate, which insures
that decision making power stays with the aarchs. Delegates are instructed
by the aarch that they come from on how to deal with any issue. They are
given binding instructions, committing them to a framework of policies,
developed by their aarch, within which they have to act. If at any time
they violate their mandate their aarch can instantly recall them and have
their decisions revoked. Decision-making power stays in the aarchs; delegates
simply convey and implement those positions. Delegates do not have
any authority or special privileges. The movement is thus organized
horizontally from the bottom up, with control staying in the aarchs. (2)
The aarchs are one form of what I call popular assemblies. These
are gatherings of people who meet to organize in a non-hierarchical manner
and challenge the status quo. There are no leaders telling everyone
what to do but rather all participants have an equal say in decisions.
Decision-making is generally done through some form of consensus or direct
democracy. A system of mandated and recallable delegates is used
to coordinate actions between different assemblies while keeping decision-making
power in the assemblies.
This system of assemblies and mandated delegates has sprung up many
times throughout history, not just in Algeria. It is the embryo of
anarchy. Anarchism is frequently misreprented by the media and others
as being complete chaos; anarchists are often portrayed as madmen throwing
bombs to promote destruction and carnage. These images of anarchy
and anarchists are completely false. Anarchists do not believe in
chaos or mindless destruction but rather advocate a society in which everyone
has control over their own life and an equal say in all decisions that involve
them. Anarchy comes from the Greek and literally means "no rulers."
Anarchists are opposed to all forms of domination including government,
capitalism, patriarchy and white supremacy. An anarchist society would
be organized through a system of popular assemblies similar to the aarchs.
We build the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
The initial framework of anarchy is created within the old society during
the struggle against hierarchy. There is an organic connection between
what is and what should be. Organs of self-management, popular assemblies,
are formed under the old society and wage class war against the institutions
of the old society (government, capitalism etc.). As the old society
is destroyed the same non-hierarchical organizations that fought against
it take over the running of society. The means one uses determines
the ends you get. We should therefore organize on the same principles
in which we would like to see the future society built. The struggle
against hierarchy is the school of anarchy. The same process of using
non-hierarchical organizations to wage class war brings about a new consciousness
as workers become used to organizing in such a way. By the time the
revolution is completed most people will already have experience organizing
and coordinating their actions on a large scale without hierarchy.
Historically there have been four main types of popular assemblies
that have appeared:
*Village Assemblies
*Neighborhood Assemblies
*Worker Assemblies
*University Assemblies
Village assemblies have appeared in societies in which there are still
large numbers of peasants; they obviously do not appear in fully industrialized
societies where there are no villages. The villagers in a society
meet on a regular basis to organize the struggle against the landlords
& government and (eventually) their village in a non-hierarchical manner.
Usually they expropriate (or attempt to expropriate) the land of the large
landlords and put in place some form of non-hierarchical communal production.
Village assemblies have appeared in many peasant rebellions including
the Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian revolutions. Often these assemblies
are based on the communal village assemblies that existed in many peasant
societies, but radicalized and fighting against the landlords. Normally
these communal assemblies are highly patriarchical & ageist and do not
actively organize against the landlords; in times of rebellion they tend
to become less hierarchical (losing their sexist & ageist tendencies).
Neighborhood assemblies have appeared in cities. Everyone, or
nearly everyone, living in a particular area meets together on a regular
basis to organize their struggle against the state & ruling class and
(eventually) organize their neighborhood in a non-authoritarian fashion.
Some aarchs in Algeria are neighborhood assemblies (in the cities) and others
are village assemblies (in the rural areas). During the French revolution
the Sans-Coulottes (poor people) formed neighborhood assemblies called sections
that organized against the Monarchy and later the Republic.
Worker assemblies or workplace assemblies form based around the workplace.
Workers come together to struggle against their bosses and (eventually)
take over their workplace. The worker assembly then runs the workplace.
Obviously these are only formed in societies where some degree of industrialization
has been implemented. Worker assemblies have been created during
many working class uprising including the Russian, Spanish and Iranian
revolutions.
University assemblies or student assemblies appear only in societies
that have a high percentage of their population that goes off to college
as students. These are less common then the other three types.
A good example of these assemblies comes from the May-June 1968 uprising
in France. During the uprising students formed their own popular
assemblies that challenged the rule of the capitalists and the state.
These assemblies coordinate their activities through the use of mandate
and recallable delegates as described earlier in the case of the aarchs.
Thus workers councils coordinate the worker assemblies, neighborhood councils
coordinate the neighborhood assemblies, etc. These councils are
different from representative institutions in that delegates, unlike representatives,
cannot take any position they want after being elected and do not have
authority over others. Decision-making power stays with the popular
assemblies; delegates simply act as contact people to facilitate coordination
between the different assemblies. If at any time a delegate violates
his or her mandate (does not do what the popular assembly instructed him/her
to do) then s/he is immediately recalled and the delegate's decisions revoked.
Councils are thus controlled by the assemblies they coordinate.
They are organized from the bottom up, based on decentralized direct democracy.
In addition to these four types of popular assemblies there are also
various organizations that are organized along non-hierarchical lines,
sometimes with their own assemblies and spokescouncils. These include
not only clubs and specific interest associations but also political organizations
such as syndicalist unions and anarchist confederations designed to move
society in a more anarchistic direction. Sometimes non-anarchist political
organizations use non-hierarchical forms of organizing not because they
advocate anarchy but because they find them effective. These non-hierarchical
organizations exist even in extremely authoritarian societies, although
they are usually marginalized. In authoritarian societies the major
activities of society is done through hierarchical organizations such as
the state or corporations. The hierarchical organizations dominate
while the non-hierarchical organizations are marginal. In an anarchist
society this would be reversed - non-hierarchical organizations such as
worker and neighborhood assemblies would dominate while hierarchical organizations
would be marginal. Pure anarchy would have no hierarchy of any sort.
Non-hierarchical political organizations (either specifically anarchist ones
or coalition groups) can distribute propaganda and carry out direct action
against the dominant hierarchical institutions. They can thus weaken
the system and possibly improve the short-term situation of the oppressed.
Popular assemblies often come about spontaneously as the result of
an economic or political crisis; this has happened many times throughout
history. Usually this is in the aftermath of some sort of popular
uprising; the popular assemblies serve as a means of organizing and continuing
the struggle. For example, popular assemblies appeared in Russia
shortly after the February revolution, in Argentina after the December
2001 uprising and in Spain after workers defeated a Fascist coup.
They create a situation of "double power" where non-hierarchical organizations,
the popular assemblies, clash with the formerly dominant hierarchical institutions
on a large scale. Non-hierarchical organization is no longer marginal
but is in direct conflict with the old hierarchical organizations (the
state, corporations, etc.). The popular uprising(s) that precede
the establishment of a "double power" situation mark the start of the
social revolution. The politicians obviously will not just vote themselves
out of office nor will the majority of capitalists just step down out of
the good of their hearts, hence they must be overthrown in a revolution.
Revolution does not have to be violent or bloody, although it is likely
that there would be at least a small amount of violence involved.
Most violence in revolutions is the result of the state; an anarchist revolution
wouldn't be much more violent than maintaining the status quo (which itself
is extremely violent). It is possible for anarchist organizations prior
to the revolution to act as a catalyst to bring about a situation of "double
power" and the organizing done prior to the revolution will certainly affect
the outcome of the revolution.
Revolution in the "first world" at present appears extremely unlikely,
at least in the short-term. However, there is a considerable amount
of resistance to the empire in the "third world." It is not at all
unreasonable to talk of revolution in places like Argentina, Bolivia or
Algeria. Rebellions in those places have already created self-managed social
structures that are basically the embryo of anarchy (such as the aarchs).
So far most of those have been defeated, but they are being formed on a
much greater scale than in the past. Over the past several years situations
of "double power" have emerged, and been beaten back, repeatedly in many
"third world" countries. Like the 1905 revolution in Russia, this hopefully
represents a prelude to a larger, international revolution that will erupt
in a few decades.
The role of revolutionaries in the core of the empire is to sabotage it
so that the much greater resistance in the periphery can succeed.
By "sabotage" I mean not only literal sabotage but anything which interferes
with the ability of imperialism to crush "third world" revolutions.
This includes increasing the social costs of their imperialist adventures.
If invading other countries results in large amounts of unrest or the radicalization
of a signifigant amount of the population, or otherwise hurts the capitalists'
ability to rule, then they are less likely to invade. For example,
during the Russian Revolution Britain was unable to launch a full-scale invasion
of Russia and had to limit their intervention due to unrest in their own
country. The ruling class believed that a full-scale war would result
in revolution and so the military intervention was less then it would have
been. France sent troops to attack the revolutionary government in
Russia, but French soldiers mutinied and refused to invade. Once there
has been revolution in the periphery the empire will begin to collapse and
then it will be more realistic to talk of revolution in the heart of the
empire. Building revolutionary movements in the core is one way of
sabotaging imperialism. A revolutionary movement will be much more
effective at opposing imperialism than a reformist one.
Revolutionary movements in the "third world" are far stronger than those
in the "first world." There are mass rebellions and insurrections on
a regular and widespread basis throughout most of the periphery. In
some places there have even been popular assemblies formed. Revolutions
will almost certainly break out where the revolutionary movements are stronger.
The "first world" revolutionary movements will be in a position of having
to try to prevent their imperialists from crushing the "third world" movements.
True, the US can crush revolutions in other countries but they can also crush
revolutions in the US. It would probably be easier to do so since
it's their home territory. Revolutions throughout the "third world"
will take away the super-profits gained from neocolonialism and thereby intensify
the class struggle in the remaining "first world" countries. The defeat
of imperialism will probably create a political crisis and successfull revolutions
in the periphery will provide a good example to inspire more revolutions.
"Double power" cannot last forever - either the popular assemblies will
overthrow the old system and create anarchy or they will be defeated,
robbed of all power, and disband. In the modern era every time popular
assemblies have been formed they have ultimately been defeated.
There has been two main ways this has occurred. Sometimes the old
regime will be able to defeat them through a combination of reforms and
repression. This happened to the Italian factory occupations, the
May-June 1968 rebellion in France, the 1956 Hungarian uprising and others.
The other way is for some authoritarian group (republicans, fundamentalists,
nationalists, Marxists, etc.) to take advantage of the unrest to propel
themselves into power, overthrowing the old elite and establishing themselves
as the new elite. The new elite then uses similar tactics as the old
elite to destroy the popular assemblies. This happened in the French,
Russian and Iranian revolutions. We can learn from these defeats so
that in the future things go better.
In situations where the old elite stays in power reformists sometimes
play a key role in disbanding the assemblies. Reformists seek to make
changes by working within the present system. Some only want to modify
the present system while others delude themselves into thinking that they
can fundamentally alter the system without a revolution. Reformist
organizations are usually hierarchical, especially the larger ones.
Usually they are connected to the left wing of the ruling elite. Reformist
leaders "capitalize on the misery of the people [they] claim to fight for,
hoping to act as powerbroker between 'the masses' and the powers-that-be."
(3) They attempt to restrict the rebellions of ordinary people
to actions they are in control of. This obviously classes with the
goal of a society based on popular assemblies in which ordinary people have
control of their own lives. Reformists attempt to channel activity
away from revolution and into making minor modifications to the system and
putting the reformists in power. They try to delegate power away from
ordinary people and into the hands of a few leaders. Once they have
achieved whatever minor modifications to the system they set out to make
they attempt to put a lid on all rebellions and tell their followers to go
home. They restrict the power of the assemblies and then help disband
them. This was the role of the Socialist Party during the Italian Factory
occupations and of the Communist Party & CGT during the May-June uprising
in France.
To combat both possible paths of defeat anarchists should attempt to
strengthen the popular assemblies as much as possible, even if other ideologies
are more popular within them. At first it is likely that most participants
will believe in some variant of reformist ideology and that anarchists
will be in a minority; most participants would see the assemblies as just
a way of achieving some short-term goal(s). While defending the assemblies
we should also attempt to spread our philosophy within them and radicalize
the participants. It is likely that the participation in the assemblies
and the process of the revolution will itself aid this process since the
assemblies themselves posit a new way of running society. Obviously
this process of radicalizing the assemblies will be greatly aided if there
are already many anarchists prior to the start of the revolution. We
should oppose any attempt to subordinate the assemblies to any political
party or organization (including anarchist organizations!) in favor of building
the power of the assemblies. Any group attempting to use the assemblies
to establish themselves as a new ruling class must be opposed. Anarchists
should propagate our ideas as much as possible both before and during the
revolution so that there is a mass consciousness which opposes the attempts
of reformists to sabotage the revolution and of authoritarians to use it
to establish themselves as a new elite. Changes in consciousness and
in social structure go hand in hand. In almost every case where these
networks of popular assemblies appeared and were defeated most participants
were not anarchists and did not see them as the embryo of a future stateless
society. Not surprisingly, they did not last. "Without a conscious
anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused
and finally destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power
over the masses." (4)
The assemblies should overthrow the old system and take over the running
of society. The state should be abolished by disbanding its police
and military forces and dissolving the various branches of government.
White supremacy and patriarchy should be destroyed at the same time.
In the economic realm this means the formation of workplace assemblies
and the direct expropriation of the means of production by the workers.
Industry is then placed under self-management; worker assemblies take over.
All major decisions are made at workplace assemblies of all workers in
that workplace. In the past worker assemblies have elected factory
committees to take care of coordination and administrative tasks; the factory
committees were to simply implement the policies formulated in the worker
assemblies where decision-making power stayed. Historically when this
expropriation first takes place they continue to produce for a market. Self-managed
workplaces sell their products and purchase raw materials on the market.
This system of worker-controlled enterprises competing in a stateless
market economy is called mutualism.
There are a number of problems with mutualism. It is often difficult
to make major changes in the economy without negatively affecting many
workers. The present economy is organized to produce a considerable amount
of crap that wouldn’t be needed in a post-capitalist society and industry
can be made more efficient if organized differently. Should the revolution
result in a a civil war or the end of a war the economy will need to
switch to wartime or peacetime production. In addition markets have many
negative side effectives even in mutualism, such as the creation of rich
and poor collectives, which should be avoided. For these reasons these
self-managed workplaces should federate together so as to coordinate production
across the entire economy. This can be done through the formation
of workers councils using mandated, recallable delegates as described earlier.
This system allows different collectives to coordinate production without
relying on either the market or centralize planning. It is basically decentralized
planning - a self-organizing economy. In the very beginning money would
probably be kept. People would be paid on the basis of how much they work,
although there would be considerable equalization of wages. This is called
anarcho-collectivism. There are a number of problems with the collectivist
system (as Kropotkin and others have argued), which is why I think this should
be taken a set further to anarcho-communism. Money should be abolished and
the economy organized along the lines of "from each according to ability,
to each according to need." This can be implemented by the worker
assemblies & councils, maintaining the self-organizing nature of the
economy while doing away with money. This transition should be done
as rapidly as possible.
Participation in all of this should be strictly voluntary. Anyone
who does not want to participate in a commune or popular assembly should
not be forced to do so. Both physical and economic coercision should
be avoided. Someone who does not want to participate in the collectives
should be given access to enough of the means production (probably a plot
of land) so that they can support themselves but no more then they can
use by themselves (without slaves/hired labor). Failure to do so
would effectively force them to join the collectives. They could also
form other social structures if they wanted so long as it is purely voluntary
and they aren't oppressing anyone.
Along with the transition to anarcho-communism industry should be gradually
decentralized. The present system of centralized industry is wasteful
and inefficient. Local production for use is better because
it saves resources and labor on shipping things around the world.
There is no reason why clothes should be made in places like El Salvador
and then shipped to the US; the only reason this is done under capitalism
is because it is easier to set up sweatshops in places like El Salvador.
Usually it is better to produce things in the general vicinity of where
they are going to be used. There are exceptions since some things are
easier to produce in certain areas (some places have good land, others good
timber, etc) but this has to be balanced with the problems of shipping things
around the globe. A sustainable green economy based on local production
for use should be implemented.
At first, after an anarchist revolution in fully industrialized societies
there would be a dual structure of confederations of worker assemblies and
confederations of neighborhood assemblies. As industry is decentralized
these could merge together. If the people living in the same area
also works together they don't really need to have separate assemblies.
At the same time there should also be a radical reevaluation of technology.
The present technologies were all designed not to improve people's lives
but to generate profit and support hierarchies. Some technologies are
harmful and should be abolished (such as nuclear weapons) while others just
need to be modified. Technologies should be altered to be more beneficial
for everyone, not just a small elite. Once the old system has been
overthrown the evolution of a free society could take any number of paths,
all up to the people who live in it.
Endnotes
(1) "Insurrection in Algeria" http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/30/5696349
(2) "Apology for the Algerian Insurrection" http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/algeria.html
(3) "Towards a Maximum Anti-War Movement" http://www.huahuacoyotl.com/
(4) Anarcho, "Anarchy in Iraq?" http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/war/iraq/anarchy.html