===========================================================
                                      .___ __  __   
          _________________  __ __  __| _/|__|/  |_ 
         / ___\_` __ \__  \ |  |  \/ __ | | \\_  __\
        / /_/  >  | \// __ \|  |  / /_/ | |  ||  |  
        \___  /|__|  (____  /____/\____ | |__||__|  
       /_____/            \/           \/           
              grep rough audit - static analysis tool
                  v2.8 written by @Wireghoul
=================================[justanotherhacker.com]===
anarchism-15.3/html/append31.html-277-<p>We need to understand the importance of comparing the rhetoric of Bolshevism to its reality as we can have repeated pronouncements about "democracy" made while, at the same time, the necessity  of party dictatorship is both being practised <b>and</b> advocated. Thus Lenin repeatedly  contrasted the higher form of democracy expressed by the soviets to bourgeois democracy. In  his in 1918 polemic against leading Social-Democrat Karl Kautsky who was accusing the Bolsheviks  of being undemocratic, Lenin argued that the <i>"only view that corresponds to Marxism"</i> was  expounded by Plekhanov (the father of Russian Marxism) at the Second Congress of the Russian Social  Democratic Party in 1903, namely <i>"in the revolution the proletariat would, if necessary,  disenfranchise the capitalists and <b>disperse any parliament</b> that was found to be  counter-revolutionary."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 28, p. 280] Which raises the obvious  question, found to be counter-revolutionary by whom? The proletariat? No, according to Plekhanov  it was <b>the party</b>:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append31.html:278:<blockquote><p> <i>"Every democratic principle must be considered not by itself, abstractly, but in relation to . . .  the success of the revolution [as this] is the highest law. And if the success of the revolution  demands a temporary limitation on the working of this or that democratic principle, then it would  be criminal to refrain from such a limitation . . . the principle of universal suffrage must be  considered from the point of view of what I have designated the fundamental principle of democracy.  It is hypothetically possible that we might . . . speak out against universal suffrage . . . If  in a burst of revolutionary enthusiasm the people chose a very fine parliament then we would be  bound to make it a <b>long parliament</b>; and if the elections turned out unsuccessfully, then  we would have to try to disperse it.</i> [quoted by Samuel H. Baron, <b>Plekhanov: The Father of  Russian Marxism</b>, p. 242] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/append31.html-279-<p>As we will discover, the dispersing of elected bodies by the party was not limited to bourgeois Parliaments: soviets were also subject to this policy. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given that before seizing power Lenin had repeatedly equated the power of the Bolsheviks with that of the proletariat. Thus <i>"Bolshevik power"</i> was <i>"one and the same thing"</i> as <i>"proletarian revolutionary power"</i>  and so the Second All-Russian Congress <i>"gave a majority to the Bolshevik Party and put it in power."</i> [<b>The Lenin Anthology</b>, p. 413 and p. 419] While problematic (it substitutes the party for the class), it could be argued that as the party was supported by the majority of workers (but not peasants) then the Bolshevik government was democratic. Which is true, in the limited bourgeois sense. The question is what would happen if the workers turned against the party -- would it give up its power as required by a movement committed to democracy? Unfortunately for McNally, the answer was: no.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-135-<p>Many of the syndicalist delegates to this <i>"pantomime"</i> congress  later meet in Berlin and founded the anarcho-syndicalist  <b>International Workers Association</b> based on union autonomy, self-management and federalism. Unsurprisingly, once Pestana  and Leval reported back to their organisation, the CNT rejected  the Bolshevik Myth and re-affirmed the libertarian principles  it had proclaimed at its 1919 congress. At a plenum of the CNT  in 1922, the organisation withdrew its provisional affiliation  and voted to join the syndicalist International formed in Berlin. As one historian summarises:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html:136:<blockquote><p> <i>"The CNT withdrew from the Profintern because, in line with revolutionary  syndicalist doctrine, the vast majority of its members opposed party political  influence in the unions. The weakness of the communist-syndicalist position  was amply demonstrated when a lull in the repression carried out against the  CNT in early 1922 led to the release of the detained militants; as a result  they were abruptly removed from their positions and their policy towards  Moscow overturned . . . Furthermore, the CNT was not alone: the other founder  members of the [syndicalist] IWMA had rejected the Profintern for the same reasons.  Although anarchists were influential in some, but by no means all, of the IWMA's  member organisations, these were not anarchist but revolutionary syndicalist.  [Leading CNT militant Salvador] Segui could have been speaking for all of them  when he proclaimed at Zaragoza that the CNT's split from the Profintern resulted  from the fact that 'a chasm separates us from Russia, both in ideology and  in tactics'."</i> [Garner, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 325-6] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-137-<p>Therefore, rather than the anarchists conducting <i>"fraction work"</i>  to <i>"recapture"</i> the CNT, the facts are the pro-Bolshevik National  Committee of 1921 came about due to the extreme repression the  CNT was suffering at the time. Militants were being assassinated  in the streets, including committee members. In this context it  is easy to see how an unrepresentative minority could temporarily  gain influence in the National Committee. Moreover, it was CNT  plenary session which revoked the organisations provisional  affiliation to the Comintern -- that is, a regular meeting  of mandated and accountable delegates. In other words, by the  membership itself who had been informed of what had actually been happening under the Bolsheviks. In addition, it was this  plenum which agreed affiliation to the anarcho-syndicalist <b>International Workers Association</b> founded in Berlin during  1922 by syndicalists and anarchists horrified by the Bolshevik  dictatorship, having seen it at first hand.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-609-<p>If we look at the Russian Revolution, we see anarchist theory gain its most wide scale influence in those parts of the  Ukraine protected by the Makhnovist army. The Makhnovists fought against White (pro-Tsarist), Red and Ukrainian  Nationalists in favour of a system of <i>"free soviets"</i> in which the <i>"working people themselves must freely choose their  own soviets, which are to carry out the will and desires of  the working people themselves. that is to say, <b>administrative</b>, not ruling councils."</i> As for the economy, the <i>"land, the factories, the workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other wealth of the people must belong to the working people themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say,  they must be socialised."</i> [<i>"Some Makhnovist Proclamations"</i>, contained in Peter Arshinov, <b>The History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 273]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html:610:<p>To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up  governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking the example of  Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the Makhnovists <i>"immediately invited the working population to participate in a general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their own forces and their own organisations . . . The first conference was followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step . . . They formed a committee charged with organising the railway network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began systematically to the problem of creating organs of self-management."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  p. 149]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-611-<p>They also organised free agricultural communes which  <i>"[a]dmittedly . . . were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population . . .  But what was most precious was that these communes were formed by the poor  peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free communes."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 87] Makhno played  an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed  gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional  congresses equalised the use of the land between all  sections of the peasant community. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 53-4]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-625-<p>In fact, the Socialists <i>"generally functioned through tightly knit committees, commonly highly centralised and with strong bureaucratic proclivities. In Asturias, the UGT tried to perpetuate this form wherever possible . . . But the mountainous terrain of Asturias made such committees difficult to co-ordinate, so that each one became an isolated miniature central committee of its own, often retaining its traditional authoritarian  character."</i> The anarchists, on the other hand, <i>"favoured  looser structures, often quasi-councils composed of factory workers and assemblies composed of peasants. The ambience of these fairly decentralised structures, their improvisatory character and libertarian spirit, fostered an almost festive atmosphere in Anarchist-held areas."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 249] Bookchin quotes an account which compares anarchist La Felguera with Marxist Sama, towns of equal size and separated only by the Nalon river:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html:626:<blockquote><p> <i>"[The October Insurrection] triumphed immediately in the metallurgical and in the mining town. . . . Sama was organised along military lines. Dictatorship of the  proletariat, red army, Central Committee, discipline. authority . . . La Felguera opted for <b>communismo libertario</b>: the people in arms, liberty to come and go, respect for the technicians of the Duro-Felguera metallurgical plant, public deliberations of all issues, abolition of money, the rational distribution of food and clothing. Enthusiasm and gaiety in La Felguera; the sullenness of the barracks in Sama. The bridges [of Sama] were held by a corp of guards complete with officers and all. No one could enter or leave Sama without a safe-conduct pass, or walk through the streets without passwords. All of this was ridiculously useless, because the government troops were far away and the Sama bourgeoisie disarmed and neutralised . . . The workers of Sama who did not adhere to the Marxist religion preferred to go to La Felguera, where at least they could breathe. Side by side there were two concepts of socialism: the authoritarian and the libertarian; on each bank of the Nalon, two populations of brothers began a new life: with dictatorship in Sama; with liberty in La Felguera."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 249-50] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/append32.html-627-<p>Bookchin notes that <i>"[i]n contrast to the severely delimited Marxist committee in Sama, La Felguera workers met in  popular assembly, where they socialised the industrial city's economy. The population was divided into wards, each of which elected delegates to supply and distribution committees. . . The La Felguera commune . . . proved to be so successful, indeed so admirable, that surrounding communities invited the La Felguera Anarchists to advice them on reorganising their own social order. Rarely were comparable institutions created by the Socialists and, where they did emerge, it was on the insistence of the  rank-and-file workers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 250]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html-100-<p>It would appear that this <i>"obvious point"</i> would <b>still</b> come <i>"as something  of a revelation to many Bolsheviks"</i> today! Significantly, of course, Kropotkin had  formulated this law decades previously and so the <b>real</b> question is how the Bolsheviks  sought to cope with this inevitable law is what signifies the difference between anarchism  and Leninism. Simply put, Bukharin endorsed the coercive measures of war communism as the  means to go forward to socialism. As Cohen summarises, <i>"force and coercion . . . were  the means by which equilibrium was to be forged out of disequilibrium."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  p. 198] Given that Bukharin argued that a workers' state, by definition, could not exploit  the workers, he -- like Lenin and Trotsky -- opened up the possibility for rationalising  all sorts of abuses as well as condoning numerous evils because they were "progressive."</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html:101:<p>It should be noted that Lenin showed <i>"ecstatic praise for the most 'war communist'  sections"</i> of Bukharin's work. <i>"Almost every passage,"</i> Cohen notes, <i>"on  the role of the new state, statisation in general, militarisation and mobilisation met with 'very good,' often in three languages,  . . . Most striking, Lenin's greatest  enthusiasm was reserved for the chapter on the role of coercion . . . at the end [of  which] he wrote, 'Now this chapter is superb!'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 202-3] Compare this to Kropotkin's comment that the <i>"revolutionary tribunal and the  guillotine could not make up for the lack of a constructive communist theory."</i>  [<b>The Great French Revolution</b>, vol. II, p. 519]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html-102-<p>Ultimately, claims that "objective factors" caused the degeneration of the revolution  are mostly attempts to let the Bolsheviks of the hook for Stalinism. This approach was started by Trotsky and has continued to this day. Anarchists, unsurprisingly, do  not think much of these explanations: the "objective factors" listed to explain the  degeneration of the revolution are simply a list of factors <b>every</b> revolution  would (and has) faced -- as Lenin, Bukharin and Trotsky all admitted at the time. Bertrand Russell noted this after his trip to Soviet Russia, that while since October  1917 <i>"the Soviet Government has been at war with almost all the world, and has at  the same time to face civil war at home"</i> this was <i>"not to be regarded as  accidental, or as a misfortune which could not be foreseen. According to Marxian  theory, what has happened was bound to happen."</i> [<b>The Theory and Practice of  Bolshevism</b>, p. 103]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html-268-<blockquote><p><i> "This fact must be emphasised, in order to nail the official lies seeking to attribute the Petrograd  strikes that were soon to break out to peasant elements, 'insufficiently steeled in proletarian ideas.'  The real situation was the very opposite. A few workers were seeking refuge in the countryside. The bulk  remained. There was certainly no exodus of peasants into the starving towns! . . . It was the famous  Petrograd proletariat, the proletariat which had played such a leading role in both previous revolutions,  that was finally to resort to the classical weapon of the class struggle: the strike."</i> [<b>The Kronstadt  Uprising</b>, p. 36] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html:269:<p>In terms of struggle, links between the events in 1917 and those during the civil war also exist. For  example Jonathan Aves writes that there were <i>"distinct elements of continuity between the industrial  unrest in 1920 and 1917. This is not surprising since the form of industrial unrest in 1920, as in the  pre-revolutionary period and in 1917, was closely bound up with enterprise traditions and shop-floor  sub-cultures. The size of the Russian industrial workforce had declined steeply during the Civil War  but where enterprises stayed open . . . their traditions of industrial unrest in 1920 shows that such  sub-cultures were still capable of providing the leaders and shared values on which resistance to labour  policies based on coercion and Communist Party enthusiasm could be organised. As might be anticipated, the leaders of unrest were often to be found amongst the skilled male workers who enjoyed positions of  authority in the informal shop-floor hierarchies."</i> Moreover, <i>"despite intense repression, small  groups of politicised activists were also important in initiating protest and some enterprises developed traditions of opposition to the communists."</i> Looking at the strike wave of early 1921  in Petrograd, the <i>"strongest reason for accepting the idea that it was established workers who  were behind the <b>volynka</b> [i.e. the strike wave] is the form and course of protest. Traditions  of protest reaching back through the spring of 1918 to 1917 and beyond were an important factor in  the organisation of the <b>volynka.</b> . . . There was also a degree of organisation . . . which  belies the impression of a spontaneous outburst."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 39 and p. 126]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append43.html-270-<p>Clearly, then, the idea that the Russian working class was atomised or declassed cannot be defended  given this series of struggles. As noted, the notion that the workers were "declassed" was used to  justify state repression of collective working class struggle and defend the necessity of party  dictatorship in face of it. Emma Goldman was right to later note how the <i>"thought oppressed me  that what [the Bolsheviks] called 'defence of the Revolution' was really only the defence of [their]  party in power."</i> [<b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>, p. 57] The class struggle in Bolshevik  Russia did not stop, it continued except the ruling class had changed from bourgeoisie to Bolshevik  dictatorship:</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/append46.html-465-<p>The Bolsheviks refused to discuss the issue and on the 14th of January, they declared the Makhnovists outlawed. They then <i>"made a great effort to destroy"</i> Makhno. [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210] In summary, the Bolsheviks <b>started</b> the conflict in order to eliminate opposition to their power. This led to nine months of bitter fighting between the Red Army and the Makhnovists. To prevent fraternisation, the Bolsheviks did not use local troops and instead imported Latvian, Estonian and Chinese troops. They also used other <i>"new tactics,"</i> and <i>"attacked not only Makhno's partisans, but also the villages and towns in which the population was sympathetic toward Makhno. They shot ordinary soldiers as well as their commanders, destroying their houses, confiscating their properties and persecuting their families. Moreover the Bolsheviks conducted mass arrests of innocent peasants who were suspected of collaborating in some way with the partisans. It is impossible to determine the casualties involved."</i> They also set up <i>"Committees of the Poor"</i> as part of the Bolshevik administrative apparatus, which acted as <i>"informers helping the Bolshevik secret police in its persecution of the partisans, their families and supporters, even to the extent of hunting down and executing wounded partisans."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 212-3]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append46.html:466:<p>This conflict undoubtedly gave time for the Whites to reorganise themselves and encouraged the Poles to invade the Ukraine, so prolonging the Civil War. The Makhnovists were threatened by both the Bolsheviks <b>and</b> Wrangel. By mid-1920, Wrangel appeared to be gaining the upper hand and the Makhnovists <i>"could not remain indifferent to Wrangel's advance . . . Everything done to destroy him would in the last analysis benefit the revolution."</i> This lead the Makhnovists to consider allying with the Bolsheviks as <i>"the difference between the Communists and Wrangel was that the Communists had the support of the masses with faith in the revolution. It is true that these masses were cynically misled by the Communists, who exploited the revolutionary enthusiasm of the workers in the interests of Bolshevik power."</i> With this in mind, the Makhnovists agreed at a mass assembly to make an alliance with the Bolsheviks against Wrangel as this would eliminate the White threat and end the civil war. [Arshinov, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 176]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/append46.html-467-<p>The Bolsheviks ignored the Makhnovist offer using mid-September, when <i>"Wrangel's success caused the Bolsheviks leaders to reconsider."</i> [Palij, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 223] Sometime between the 10th and 15th of October the final agreement was signed:</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secA2.html-366-<p>It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support  this tactic. Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed"  (sometimes called <i>"attentats"</i>), as Murray Bookchin points out, only a <i>"few . . .  were members of Anarchist groups. The majority . . . were soloists."</i> [<b>The Spanish Anarchists</b>, p. 102] Needless to say, the state and media painted all anarchists with the same brush. They still do, usually inaccurately (such as blaming Bakunin for such acts even though he had been dead years before the tactic was even discussed in anarchist circles or by labelling non-anarchist groups anarchists!).</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA2.html:367:<p>All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was  a failure, as the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see.  Kropotkin can be considered typical. He <i>"never liked the slogan  <b>propaganda by deed</b>, and did not use it to describe his own  ideas of revolutionary action."</i> However, in 1879 while still  <i>"urg[ing] the importance of collective action"</i> he started  <i>"expressing considerable sympathy and interest in <b>attentats</b>"</i>  (these <i>"collective forms of action"</i> were seen as acting <i>"at  the trade union and communal level"</i>). In 1880 he <i>"became less preoccupied with collective action and this enthusiasm for acts of revolt by individuals and small groups increased."</i>  This did not last and Kropotkin soon attached <i>"progressively  less importance to isolated acts of revolt"</i> particularly once  <i>"he saw greater opportunities for developing collective action in the new militant trade unionism."</i> [Caroline Cahm, <b>Kropotkin  and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism</b>, p. 92, p. 115, p. 129,  pp. 129-30, p. 205] By the late 1880s and early 1890s he came to disapprove of such acts of violence. This was  partly due to simple revulsion at the worse of the acts (such as  the Barcelona Theatre bombing in response to the state murder  of anarchists involved in the Jerez uprising of 1892 and Emile  Henry's bombing of a cafe in response to state repression) and  partly due to the awareness that it was hindering the anarchist  cause.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA2.html-368-<p>Kropotkin recognised that the <i>"spate of terrorist acts"</i> of the  1880s had caused <i>"the authorities into taking repressive action  against the movement"</i> and were <i>"not in his view consistent  with the anarchist ideal and did little or nothing to promote popular revolt."</i> In addition, he was <i>"anxious about the  isolation of the movement from the masses"</i> which <i>"had increased  rather than diminished as a result of the preoccupation with"</i>  propaganda by deed. He <i>"saw the best possibility for popular  revolution in the . . . development of the new militancy in the  labour movement. From now on he focussed his attention increasingly  on the importance of revolutionary minorities working among the masses to develop the spirit of revolt."</i> However, even during the early 1880s when his support for individual acts of revolt  (if not for propaganda by the deed) was highest, he saw the  need for collective class struggle and, therefore, <i>"Kropotkin  always insisted on the importance of the labour movement in the  struggles leading up to the revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  pp. 205-6, p. 208 and p. 280]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secA3.html-101-<p>As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the  military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as statist/capitalist  wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff,  supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war  as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and  anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both  arrested and deported from America for organising a <b><i>"No-Conscription League"</i></b>  in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression  due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful  elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like  Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement  as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists. Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War,  the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest  against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the slogan <b><i>"No war but the class war"</i></b> which  nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil  consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of  different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their  rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists  urge working people to fight for their own interests, not those  of their masters:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA3.html:102:<blockquote><p><i> "More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all; and we must prepare to accomplish these things."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,  p. 251]
anarchism-15.3/html/secA3.html-103-</p></blockquote>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html-137-<blockquote><p><i> "Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and our own conception of the truth."</i> [quoted by Peter Arshinov, <b>History of the Makhnovist Movement</b>, p. 58] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html:138:<p>To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up  governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking the example of  Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the Makhnovists <i>"immediately invited the working population to participate in a general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their own forces and their own organisations . . . The first conference was followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step . . . They formed a committee charged with organising the railway network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began to turn systematically to the problem of creating organs of self-management."</i>  [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 149]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html-139-<p>The Makhnovists argued that the <i>"freedom of the workers and  peasants is their own, and not subject to any restriction. It  is up to the workers and peasants themselves to act, to  organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all  aspects of their lives, as they see fit and desire . . .  The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern."</i>  [Peter Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 99] In  Alexandrovsk, the Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists  spheres of action - their Revkom (Revolutionary Committee)  would handle political affairs and the Makhnovists military  ones. Makhno advised them <i>"to go and take up some honest  trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the   workers."</i> [Peter Arshinov in <b>The Anarchist Reader</b>,  p. 141]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html-155-<h2>A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations</h2>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html:156:<p>After the end of the First World War there was a massive radicalisation  across Europe and the world. Union membership exploded, with strikes,  demonstrations and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly  due to the war, partly to the apparent success of the Russian Revolution.  This enthusiasm for the Russian Revolution even reached Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie, who like many other anti-capitalists,  saw <i>"the red in the east [giving] hope of a brighter day"</i> and the  Bolsheviks as making <i>"laudable efforts to at least try some way out  of the hell of industrial slavery."</i> [quoted by Carlotta R. Anderson,  <b>All-American Anarchist</b> p. 225 and p. 241]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secA5.html-157-<p>Across Europe, anarchist ideas became more popular and anarcho-syndicalist  unions grew in size. For example, in Britain, the ferment produced the  shop stewards' movement and the strikes on Clydeside; Germany saw the   rise of IWW inspired industrial unionism and a libertarian form of  Marxism called "Council Communism"; Spain saw a massive growth in the  anarcho-syndicalist CNT. In addition, it also, unfortunately, saw the  rise and growth of both social democratic and communist parties. Italy  was no exception.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html-170-<p>So to work out the marginal productivity of the factors involved, <i>"ten  cheaper spades"</i> somehow equals nine more expensive spades? How is this  keeping capital constant? And how does this reflect reality? Surely,  any real world example would involve sending the tenth digger to get  another spade? And how do nine expensive spades become nine cheaper ones? In the real world, this is impossible but in neoclassical economics this is not only possible but required for the theory to work. As Robinson argued, in neo-classical theory the <i>"concept of capital all the man-made factors are boiled into one, which we may call <b>leets</b> . . . [which],  though all made up of one physical substance, is endowed with the  capacity to embody various techniques of production . . . and a change  of technique can be made simply by squeezing up or spreading out leets,  instantaneously and without cost."</i> [<b>Contributions to Modern Economics</b>,  p. 106]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html:171:<p>This allows economics to avoid the obvious aggregation problems with "capital", make sense of the concept of adding an extra unit of capital to discover its "marginal productivity" and allows capital to be held "constant" so that the "marginal productivity" of labour can be found. For when <i>"the stock of means of production in existence can  be represented as a quantity of ectoplasm, we can say, appealing to  Euler's theorem, that the rent per unit of ectoplasm is equal to the  marginal product of the given quantity of  ectoplasm when it is fully  utilised. This does seem to add anything of interest to the argument."</i>  [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 99] This ensures reality has to be ignored and so  economic theory need not discuss any practical questions:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html-172-<blockquote><p><i> "When equipment is made of leets, there is no distinction between long and short-period problems . . . Nine spades are lumps of leets; when the tenth man turns up it is squeezed out to provide  him with a share of equipment nine-tenths of what each man had before . . . There is no room for imperfect competition. There is no possibility of disappointed expectations . . . There is no  problem of unemployment . . . Unemployed workers would bid down wages and the pre-existing quantity of leets would be spread out to accommodate them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 107]
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html-173-</p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html:174:<p>The concept that capital goods are made of ectoplasm and can be remoulded  into the profit maximising form from day to day was invented in order to prove that labour and capital both receive their contribution to society, to show that labour is not exploited. It is not meant to be taken literally, it is only a parable, but without it the whole argument (and defence of capitalism) collapses. Once capital equipment is admitted to being actual, specific objects that cannot be squeezed, without cost, into new objects to accommodate more or less workers, such comforting notions that profits  equal the (marginal) contribution of "capital" or that unemployment is  caused by wages being too high have to be discarded for the wishful  thinking they most surely are.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC2.html-175-<p>The last problem arises when ignore these issues and assume that marginal productivity theory is correct. Consider the notion of the short run, where at least one factor of production cannot be varied. To determine its marginal productivity then capital has to be the factor which is varied. However, common sense suggests that capital is the least flexible factor and if that can be varied then every other one can be as well? As dissident economist Piero Sraffa argued, when a market is defined broadly enough, then the key neoclassical assumption that the demand and supply of a commodity are independent breaks down. This was applied by another economist, Amit Bhaduri, to the "capital market" (which is, by nature, a broadly defined industry). Steve Keen usually summarises these arguments, noting that <i>"at the aggregate level [of the economy as a whole], the  desired relationship -- the rate of profit equals the marginal productivity of capital -- will not hold true"</i> as it only applies <i>"when the capital to labour ratio is the same in all industries -- which is effectively the same as saying there is only one industry."</i> This <i>"proves Sraffa's assertion  that, when a broadly defined industry is considered, changes in its  conditions of supply and demand will affect the distribution of income."</i>  This means that a <i>"change in the capital input will change output, but it also changes the wage, and the rate of profit . . . As a result, the distribution of income is neither meritocratic nor determined by the market. The distribution of income is to some significant degree  determined independently of marginal productivity and the impartial blades of supply and demand . . . To be able to work out prices, it is first necessary to know the distribution of income . . . There is therefore nothing sacrosanct about the prices that apply in the  economy, and equally nothing sacrosanct about the distribution of income. It reflects the relative power of different groups in society."</i>   [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 135]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secD1.html-35-<p>In other words, while Marx was right to note that the <i>"silent compulsion  of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist  over the worker"</i> he was wrong to state that <i>"[d]irect extra-economic force is still of course used, but only in exceptional cases."</i> The ruling class rarely lives up to its own rhetoric and while <i>"rely[ing]  on his [the workers'] dependence on capital"</i> it always supplements that with state intervention. As such, Marx was wrong to state it was  <i>"otherwise during the historical genesis of capitalist production."</i>  It is not only the <i>"rising bourgeoisie"</i> which <i>"needs the power of the  state"</i> nor is it just <i>"an essential aspect of so-called primitive  accumulation."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, pp. 899-900]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD1.html:36:<p>The enthusiasm for the "free market" since the 1970s is in fact the product  of the extended boom, which in turn was a product of a state co-ordinated  war economy and highly interventionist Keynesian economics (a boom that the apologists of capitalism use, ironically, as "evidence" that "capitalism" works) plus an unhealthy dose of nostalgia for a past that never existed.  It's strange how a system that has never existed has produced so much!  When the Keynesian system went into crisis, the ideologues of "free  market" capitalism seized their chance and found many in the ruling class willing to utilise their rhetoric to reduce or end those aspects of state intervention which benefited the many or inconvenienced themselves. However, state intervention, while reduced, did not end. It simply became more  focused in the interests of the elite (i.e. the natural order). As Chomsky  stresses, the "minimal state" rhetoric of the capitalists is a lie, for  they will <i>"never get rid of the state because they need it for their own  purposes, but they love to use this as an ideological weapon against  everyone else."</i> They are <i>"not going to survive without a massive state  subsidy, so they want a powerful state."</i> [<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 215]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD1.html-37-<p>And neither should it be forgotten that state intervention was required  to create the "free" market in the first place. To quote Polanyi again,  <i>"[f]or as long as [the market] system is not established, economic  liberals must and will unhesitatingly call for the intervention of the  state in order to establish it, and once established, in order to maintain  it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 149] Protectionism and subsidy (mercantilism) -- along  with the liberal use of state violence against the working class -- was  required to create and protect capitalism and industry in the first place  (see <a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a> for details).</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html-42-<p>The government itself is <i>"a major producer of flak, regularly assailing, threatening, and 'correcting' the media, trying to contain any deviations from the established line in foreign or domestic policy."</i> However, the  right-wing plays a major role in deliberately creating flak. For example,  during the 1970s and 1980s, the corporate community sponsored the  creation of such institutions as the American Legal Foundation, the  Capital Legal Foundation, the Media Institute, the Center for Media and  Public Affairs, and Accuracy in Media (AIM), which may be regarded as  organisations designed for the specific purpose of producing flak.  Freedom House is an older US organisation which had a broader design but  whose flak-producing activities became a model for the more recent  organisations. The Media Institute, for instance, was set up in 1972 and  is funded by wealthy corporate patrons, sponsoring media monitoring projects, conferences, and studies of the media. The main focus of its studies and conferences has been the alleged failure of the media to portray business accurately and to give adequate weight to the business point of view, but it also sponsors works which "expose" alleged left-wing bias in the mass  media. [p. 28 and pp. 27-8]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html:43:<p>And, it should be noted, while the flak machines <i>"steadily attack the media, the media treats them well. They receive respectful attention, and their  propagandistic role and links to a large corporate program are rarely  mentioned or analysed."</i> [p. 28] Indeed, such attacks <i>"are often not  unwelcome, first because response is simple or superfluous; and second,  because debate over this issue helps entrench the belief that the media are . . . independent and objective, with high standards of professional integrity and openness to all reasonable views"</i> which is <i>"quite acceptable to established power and privilege -- even to the media elites themselves, who are not averse to the charge that they may have gone to far in pursuing their cantankerous and obstreperous ways in defiance of orthodoxy and power."</i> Ultimately, such flak <i>"can only be understood as a demand that  the media should not even reflect the range of debate over tactical  questions among the dominant elites, but should serve only those segments that happen to manage the state at a particular moment, and should do so  with proper enthusiasm and optimism about the causes -- noble by  definition -- in which state power is engaged."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Necessary  Illusions</b>, p. 13 and p. 11]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html-44-<h2><a name="secd35">D.3.5 Why is "anticommunism" used as control mechanism?</a></h2>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html-64-<p>As noted above, the claim that the media are "adversarial" or (more implausibly) that they have a "left-wing bias" is due to right-wing PR organisations. This means that some "inconvenient facts" are occasionally allowed to pass through the filters in order to give the <b>appearance</b> of "objectivity" -- precisely so the media can deny charges of engaging in propaganda. As Chomsky and Herman put it: <i>"the 'naturalness' of these processes, with inconvenient facts allowed sparingly and within the proper framework of assumptions, and fundamental dissent virtually excluded from the mass media (but permitted in a marginalised press), makes for a propaganda system that is far more credible and effective in putting over a patriotic agenda than one with official censorship."</i> [p. xiv]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html:65:<p>To support their case against the "adversarial" nature of the media,  Herman and Chomsky look into the claims of such right-wing media PR  machines as Freedom House. However, it is soon discovered that <i>"the  very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence,  or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite."</i>  Such flak, while being worthless as serious analysis, does help to  reinforce the myth of an "adversarial media" and so is taken seriously  by the media. By saying that both right and left attack them, the media  presents themselves as neutral, balanced and objective -- a position  which is valid only if both criticisms are valid and of equal worth.  This is not the case, as Herman and Chomsky prove, both in terms of  evidence and underlying aims and principles. Ultimately, the attacks  by the right on the media are based on the concern <i>"to protect state  authority from an intrusive public"</i> and so <i>"condemn the media for lack  of sufficient enthusiasm in supporting official crusades."</i> In other  words, that the <i>"existing level of subordination to state authority  is often deemed unsatisfactory."</i> [p. xiv and p. 301] The right-wing  notion that the media are "liberal" or "left-wing" says far more  about the authoritarian vision and aims of the right than the reality  of the media.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secD3.html-66-<p>Therefore the "adversarial" nature of the media is a myth, but this is not to imply that the media does not present critical analysis. Herman and Chomsky in fact argue that the <i>"mass media are not a solid monolith on all issues."</i> and do not deny that it does present facts  (which they do sometimes themselves cite). This <i>"affords the  opportunity for a classic <b>non sequitur</b>, in which the citations of facts from the mainstream press by a critic of the press is offered  as a triumphant 'proof' that the criticism is self-refuting, and that  media coverage of disputed issues is indeed adequate."</i> But, as they  argue, <i>"[t]hat the media provide some facts about an issue . . . proves  absolutely nothing about the adequacy or accuracy of that coverage. The  mass media do, in fact, literally suppress a great deal . . . But even more important in this context is the question given to a fact - its placement, tone, and repetitions, the framework within which it is presented, and the related facts that accompany it and give it meaning (or provide understanding) . . . there is no merit to the pretence that because certain facts may be found by a diligent and sceptical researcher, the absence of radical bias and de facto suppression is thereby  demonstrated."</i> [p. xii and pp xiv-xv]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secH5.html-51-<p>Lenin's analogy is, of course, flawed. The factory is a <i>"means of exploitation"</i> because its <i>"means of organisation"</i> is top-down and hierarchical. The <i>"collective work"</i> which the workers are subjected to is organised by the boss and the <i>"discipline"</i> is that of the barracks, not that of free individuals. In fact, the <i>"schooling"</i> for revolutionaries is <b>not</b> the factory, but the class struggle - healthy and positive self-discipline is generated by the struggle against the way the workplace is organised under capitalism. Factory discipline, in other words, is completely different from the discipline required for social struggle or revolution. Workers become revolutionary in so far as they reject the hierarchical discipline of the workplace and develop the self-discipline required to fight it.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH5.html:52:<p>A key task of anarchism is to encourage working class revolt against this type of discipline, particularly in the capitalist workplace. The <i>"discipline"</i> Lenin praises simply replaces human thought and association with the following of orders and hierarchy. Thus anarchism aims to undermine capitalist (imposed and brutalising) discipline in favour of solidarity, the <i>"discipline"</i> of free association and agreement based on the community of struggle and the political consciousness and revolutionary enthusiasm that struggle creates. Thus, for anarchists, the model of the factory can never be the model for a revolutionary organisation any more than Lenin's vision of society as <i>"one big workplace"</i> could be our vision of socialism (see  <a href="secH3.html#sech31">section H.3.1</a>). Ultimately, the factory exists to reproduce hierarchical social relationships and class society just as much as it exists to produce goods.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH5.html-53-<p>It should be noted that Lenin's argument does not contradict his earlier ones. The proletarian and intellectual have complementary jobs in the party. The proletariat is to give lessons in political discipline to the intellectuals as they have been through the process of factory (i.e. hierarchical) discipline. The role of the intellectuals as providers of <i>"political consciousness"</i> is the same and so they give political lessons to the workers. Moreover, his vision of the vanguard party is basically the same as in <b>What is to Be Done?</b>. This can be seen from his comments that the leading Menshevik Martov <i>"<b>lumps together</b> in the party organised and unorganised elements, those who lend themselves to direction and those who do not, the advanced and the incorrigibly backward."</i> He stressed that the <i>"division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him [the intellectual] a tragicomical outcry against transforming people into 'cogs and wheels.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 258 and p. 392] Thus there is the same division of labour as in the capitalist factory, with the boss (the <i>"centre"</i>) having the power to direct the workers (who submit to <i>"direction"</i>). Thus we have a "revolutionary" party organised in a <b>capitalist</b> manner, with the same <i>"division of labour"</i> between order givers and order takers.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ2.html-177-<p>Thus anarchism is not indifferent to or ignores political struggles and issues. Rather, it fights for political change and reforms as it fights for economic ones -- by direct action and solidarity. If anarchists <i>"reject any participation in the works of bourgeois parliaments, it is not because they have no sympathy with political struggles in general, but because they are firmly convinced that parliamentary activity is for the workers the very weakest and most hopeless form of the political struggle."</i> [Rocker, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 76] Anarchists reject the idea that political and economic struggles can be divided. Such an argument just reproduces the artificially created division of labour between mental and physical activity of capitalism within working class organisations and within anti-capitalist movements. We say that we should not separate out politics into some form of specialised activity that only certain people (i.e. our "representatives") can do. Instead, anarchists argue that political struggles, ideas and debates must be brought into the <b>social</b> and <b>economic</b> organisations of our class where they must be debated freely by all members as they see fit and that political and economic struggle and change must go hand in hand. Rather than being something other people discuss on behalf of working class people, anarchists, argue that politics must no longer be in the hands of so-called experts (i.e. politicians) but instead lie in the hands of those directly affected by it. Also, in this way the social struggle encourages the political development of its members by the process of participation and self-management.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ2.html:178:<p>In other words, political issues must be raised in economic and social organisations and discussed there, where working class people have real power. As Bakunin put it, <i>"the proletariat itself will pose"</i> political and philosophical questions in their own organisations and so the political struggle (in the widest scene) will come from the class struggle, for <i>"[w]ho can entertain any doubt that out of this ever-growing organisation of the militant solidarity of the proletariat against bourgeois exploitation there will issue forth the political struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie?"</i> Anarchists simply think that the <i>"policy of the proletariat"</i> should be <i>"the destruction of the State"</i> rather than working within it and we argue for a union of political ideas and social organisation and activity. This is essential for promoting radical politics as it <i>"digs a chasm between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and places the proletariat outside the activity and political conniving of all parties within the State . . . in placing itself outside all bourgeois politics, the proletariat necessarily turns against it."</i> So, by <i>"placing the proletariat outside the politics in the State and of the bourgeois world, [the working class movement] thereby constructed a new world, the world of the united proletarians of all lands."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 302 p. 276, p. 303 and p. 305]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ2.html-179-<p>History supports Bakunin's arguments, as it indicates that any attempt at taking social and economic issues into political parties has resulting in wasted energy and their watering down into, at best, reformism and, at worse, the simple ignoring of them by politicians once in office (see <a href="secJ2.html#secj26">section J.2.6</a>). Only by rejecting the artificial divisions of capitalist society can we remain true to our ideals of liberty, equality and solidarity. Every example of radicals using electioneering has resulted in them being changed by the system instead of them changing it. They have become dominated by capitalist ideas and activity (what is usually termed "realistic" and "practical") and by working within capitalist institutions they have, to use Bakunin's words, <i>"filled in at a single stroke the abyss . . . between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie"</i> that economic and social struggle creates and, worse, <i>"have tied the proletariat to the bourgeois towline."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 290]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ3.html-17-<p>We must stress here that anarchists are <b>not</b> opposed to organisation and are <b>not</b> opposed to organisations of anarchists (i.e. <b>political</b> organisations, although anarchists generally reject the term "party" due to its statist and hierarchical associations). Murray Bookchin made it clear when he wrote that the <i>"real question at issue here is not organisation versus non-organisation, but rather what <b>kind</b> of organisation"</i> Anarchist organisations are <i>"organic developments from below . . . They are social movements, combing a creative revolutionary lifestyle with a creative revolutionary theory . . . As much as is humanly possibly, they try to reflect the liberated society they seek to achieve"</i> and <i>"co-ordination between groups . . . discipline, planning, and unity in action . . . achieved <b>voluntarily</b>, by means of a self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, pp. 138-9]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ3.html:18:<p>Ultimately, centralised organisations are undemocratic and, equally as important, <b>ineffective.</b> Hierarchical organisations kill people's enthusiasm and creativity, where plans and ideas are not adopted because they are the best but simply because they are what a handful of leaders <b>think</b> are best for everyone else. Really effective organisations are those which make decisions based frank and open co-operation and debate, where dissent is <b>not</b> stifled and ideas are adopted because of their merit and not imposed from the top-down by a few party leaders. This is why anarchists stress federalist organisation. It ensures that co-ordination flows from below and there is no institutionalised leadership. By organising in a way that reflects the kind of society we want, we train ourselves in the skills and decision making processes required to make a free and classless society work. Means and ends are united and this ensures that the means used will result in the desired ends. Simply put, libertarian means must be used if you want libertarian ends (see <a href="secH1.html#sech16">section H.1.6</a> for further discussion).</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ3.html-19-<p>In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of anarchist organisation. Anarchists would agree with Situationist Guy Debord that a <i>"revolutionary organisation must always remember that its objective is not getting people to listen to speeches by expert leaders, but getting them to speak for themselves."</i> We organise our groups accordingly. In <a href="secJ3.html#secj31">section J.3.1</a> we discuss the basic building block of specifically anarchist organisations, the <b><i>"affinity group."</i></b> Sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj32">J.3.2</a>, <a href="secJ3.html#secj33">J.3.3</a>, <a href="secJ3.html#secj34">J.3.4</a> and <a href="secJ3.html#secj35">J.3.5</a>, we discuss the main types of federations of <b><i>affinity groups</i></b> anarchists create to help spread our message and influence. Then <a href="secJ3.html#secj36">section J.3.6</a> highlights the role these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist society. In <a href="secJ3.html#secj37">section J.3.7</a>, we analyse Bakunin's unfortunate expression <i>"Invisible Dictatorship"</i> in order to show how many Marxists distort Bakunin's ideas on this matter. Finally, in sections <a href="secJ3.html#secj38">J.3.8</a> and <a href="secJ3.html#secj39">J.3.9</a> we discuss anarcho-syndicalism and other anarchists attitudes to it.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ5.html-209-<p>David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with experiments in workers' self-management within capitalist firms:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ5.html:210:<blockquote><p><i>"Participation in such programs can indeed be a liberating and exhilarating experience, awakening people to their own untapped potential and also to the real possibilities of collective worker control of production. As one manager described the former pilots [workers in a General Electric program]: 'These people will never be the same again. They have seen that things can be different.' But the excitement and enthusiasm engendered by such programs, as well as the heightened sense of commitment to a common purpose, can easily be used against the interests of the work force. First, that purpose is not really 'common' but is still determined by management alone, which continues to decide what will be produced, when, and where. Participation in production does not include participation in decisions on investment, which remains the prerogative of ownership. Thus participation is, in reality, just a variation of business as usual -- taking orders -- but one which encourages obedience in the name of co-operation.</i> </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ5.html-211-<blockquote><p><i>"Second, participation programs can contribute to the creation of an elite, and reduced, work force, with special privileges and more 'co-operative' attitudes toward management -- thus at once undermining the adversary stance of unions and reducing membership . . .</i> </p></blockquote>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ7.html-113-<p>The history of every revolution confirms Kropotkin (who echoed Proudhon) that <i>"revolutionary government"</i> is a contradiction in terms. Government bodies mean <i>"the transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central body with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the workers, the responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and its objectives [are] also transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could have no other than an adverse effect on the morale of the revolutionary fighters."</i> [Richards, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 42-3] Such a centralisation of power means the suppression of local initiatives, the replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of officials and party hacks. Only when power rests in the hands of everyone can a social revolution exist and a free society be created. If this is not done, if the state replaces the self-managed associations of a free people, all that happens is the replacement of one class system by another. This is because the state is an instrument of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument of majority empowerment as its centralised, hierarchical and authoritarian nature excludes such a possibility (see <a href="secH3.html#sech37">section H.3.7</a> for more discussion on this issue).</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ7.html:114:<p>Therefore an important role of anarchists is to undermine hierarchical organisation by creating self-managed ones, by keeping the management and direction of a struggle or revolution in the hands of those actually conducting it. It is <b>their</b> revolution, <b>not</b> a party's and so they should control and manage it. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of it. As Bakunin argued, social revolution <i>"should not only be made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 141] <i>"The revolution is safe, it grows and becomes strong,"</i> correctly argued Alexander Berkman, <i>"as long as the masses feel that they are direct participants in it, that they are fashioning their own lives, that <b>they</b> are making the revolution, that they <b>are</b> the revolution. But the moment that their activities are usurped by a political party or are centred in some special organisation, revolutionary effort becomes limited to a comparatively small circle from which the large masses are practically excluded. The natural result is that popular enthusiasm is dampened, interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness wanes, and the revolution becomes the monopoly of a clique which presently turns dictator."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 213] The history of every revolution proves this point, we feel, and so the role of anarchists is clear -- to keep a revolution revolutionary by encouraging libertarian ideas, organisation, tactics and activity.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secJ7.html-115-<p>Anarchists, therefore, organise to influence social struggle in a libertarian manner and our role in any social revolution is to combat authoritarian tendencies and parties while encouraging working class self-organisation, self-activity and self-management (how we organise to achieve this is described in <a href="secJ3.html">section J.3</a>). Only by the spreading of libertarian ideas and values within society, encouraging libertarian forms of social organisation (i.e., self-management, decentralisation, federalism, etc.) and continually warning against centralising power into a few hands can a revolution become more than a change of masters.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secC9.html-85-<p>As noted above, the argument that unemployment is caused by wages being too high is part of the wider marginalist perspective. Flaws in that will  mean that its explanation of unemployment is equally flawed. So it must  be stressed that the marginalist theory of distribution lies at the core  of its theories of both output and unemployment. In that theory, the marginal  product of labour is interpreted as the labour demand curve as the firm's  demand for labour is the marginal physical product of labour multiplied by  the price of the output and this produces the viewpoint that unemployment is  caused by wages being too high. So given the central role which marginal  productivity theory plays in the mainstream argument, it is useful to start  our deeper critique by re-iterating that, as indicated in <a href="secC2.html">section C.2</a>,  Joan Robinson and Piero Sraffa had successfully debunked this theory in the  1950s. <i>"Yet for psychological and political reasons,"</i> notes James K.  Galbraith, <i>"rather than for logical and mathematical ones, the capital  critique has not penetrated mainstream economics. It likely never will.  Today only a handful of economists seem aware of it."</i> [<i>"The  distribution of income"</i>, pp. 32-41, Richard P. F. Holt and Steven Pressman  (eds.), <b>A New Guide to Post Keynesian Economics</b>, p. 34] Given that this  underlies the argument that high wages cause high unemployment, it means that the mainstream argument for cutting wages has no firm theoretical basis.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC9.html:86:<p>It should also be noted that the assumption that adding more labour to capital is always possible flows from the assumption of marginal productivity theory  which treats "capital" like an ectoplasm and can be moulded into whatever form is required by the labour available (see <a href="secC2.html#secc25">section C.2.5</a> for more  discussion). Hence Joan Robinson's dismissal of this assumption, for <i>"the difference between the future and the past is eliminated by making  capital 'malleable' so that mistakes can always be undone and equilibrium  is always guaranteed. . . with 'malleable' capital the demand for labour  depends on the level of wages."</i> [<b>Contributions to Modern Economics</b>, p. 6] Moreover, <i>"labour and capital are not often as smoothly substitutable for each other as the [neo-classical] model requires . . . You can't use one without the other. You can't measure the marginal productivity of one  without the other."</i> Demand for capital and labour is, sometimes, a <b>joint</b> demand and so it is often to adjust wages to a worker's marginal productivity independent of the cost of capital. [Hugh Stretton,  <b>Economics: A New Introduction</b>, p. 401]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secC9.html-87-<p>Then there is the role of diminishing returns. The assumption that the demand  curve for labour is always downward sloping with respect to aggregate employment  is rooted in the notion that industry operates, at least in the short run, under  conditions of diminishing returns. However, diminishing returns are <b>not</b> a  feature of industries in the real world. Thus the assumption that the downward  slopping marginal product of labour curve is identical to the aggregate demand  curve for labour is not true as it is inconsistent with empirical evidence.  <i>"In a system at increasing returns,"</i> noted one economist, <i>"the direct relation  between real wages and employment tends to render the ordinary mechanism of wage  adjustment ineffective and unstable."</i> [Ferdinando Targetti, <b>Nicholas Kaldor</b>,  p. 344] In fact, as discussed in <a href="secC1.html#secc12">section C.1.2</a>, without this assumption mainstream economics cannot show that unemployment is, in fact, caused by real wages being too high (along with many other things).</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html-44-<p>Malatesta agreed, explicitly pointing to <i>"corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)"</i> as a means of defending a revolution from <i>"attempts to reduce a free people to a state of slavery again."</i> To defend a revolution required <i>"the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 42] Decades later, his position had not changed and he was still arguing for the <i>"creation of voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention"</i> for only <i>"the people in arms, in possession of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth"</i> could <i>"defend . . . the revolution."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 166 and p. 170]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html:45:<p>Alexander Berkman concurred. In his classic introduction to anarchism, he devoted a whole chapter to the issue which he helpfully entitled <i>"Defense of the Revolution"</i>. He noted that it was <i>"your duty, as an Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion . . . the social revolution . . . will defend itself against invasion from any quarter . . . The armed workers and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution. By means of their unions and syndicates they must always be on guard against counter-revolutionary attack."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 231-2] Emma Goldman clearly and unambiguously stated that she had <i>"always insisted that an armed attack on the Revolution must be met with armed force"</i> and that <i>"an armed counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be met in no way except by an armed defence."</i> [<b>Vision on Fire</b>, p. 222 and p. 217] Kropotkin, likewise, took it as a given that <i>"a society in which the workers would have a dominant voice"</i> would require a revolution to create and <i>"each time that such a period of accelerated evolution and reconstruction on a grand scale begins, civil war is liable to break out on a small or large scale."</i> The question was <i>"how to attain the greatest results with the most limited amount of civil war, the smallest number of victims, and a minimum of mutual embitterment."</i> To achieve this there was <i>"only one means; namely, that the oppressed part of society should obtain the clearest possible conception of what they intend to achieve, and how, and that they should be imbued with the enthusiasm which is necessary for that achievement."</i> Thus, <i>"there are periods in human development when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war breaks out quite independently of the will of particular individuals."</i> [<b>Memiors of a Revolutionist</b>, pp. 270-1]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html-46-<p>So Durruti, while fighting at the front during the Spanish revolution, was not saying anything new or against anarchist theory when he stated that <i>"the bourgeois won't let us create a libertarian communist society simply because we want to. They'll fight back and defend their privileges. The only way we can establish libertarian communism is by destroying the bourgeoisie"</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 484] Clearly, anarchism has always recognised the necessity of defending a revolution and proposed ideas to ensure it (ideas applied with great success by, for example, the Makhnovists in the Ukrainian Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish). As such, any assertion that anarchism rejects the necessity of defending a revolution is simply false. Sadly, it is one Marxists make repeatedly (undoubtedly inspired by Engels similar distortions - see <a href="secH4.html#sech47">section H.4.7</a>).</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html-95-<blockquote><p><i>"It is this war of classes that we must concentrate upon, and in that connection the war against false values, against evil institutions, against all social atrocities. Those who appreciate the urgent need of co-operating in great struggles . . . must organise the preparedness of the masses for the overthrow of both capitalism and the state. Industrial and economic preparedness is what the workers need. That alone leads to revolution at the bottom . . . That alone will give the people the means to take their children out of the slums, out of the sweat shops and the cotton mills . . . That alone leads to economic and social freedom, and does away with all wars, all crimes, and all injustice."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 355-6] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html:96:<p>For Malatesta, <i>"the most powerful force for social transformation is the working class movement . . . Through the organisations established for the defence of their interests, workers acquire an awareness of the oppression under which they live and of the antagonisms which divide them from their employers, and so begin to aspire to a better life, get used to collective struggle and to solidarity."</i> This meant that anarchists <i>"must recognise the usefulness and importance of the workers' movement, must favour its development, and make it one of the levers of their action, doing all they can so that it . . . will culminate in a social revolution."</i> Anarchists must <i>"deepen the chasm between capitalists and wage-slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of State."</i> The new society would be organised <i>"by means of free association and federations of producers and consumers."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] Alexander Berkman, unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he put it, only <i>"the workers"</i> as <i>"the worst victims of present institutions,"</i> could abolish capitalism an the state as <i>"it is to their own interest to abolish them . . . labour's emancipation means at the same time the redemption of the whole of society."</i> He stressed that <i>"<b>only the right organisation of the workers</b> can accomplish what we are striving for . . . Organisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere . . . alone can solve the labour question and serve the true emancipation of man[kind]."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 187 and p. 207]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secH2.html-97-<p>As can be seen, the claim that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or anarchists in general, ignored the class struggle and collective working class struggle and organisation is either a lie or indicates ignorance. Clearly, anarchists have placed working class struggle, organisation and collective direct action and solidarity at the core of their politics (and as the means of creating a libertarian socialist society) from the start. Moreover, this perspective is reflected in the anarchist flag itself as we discuss in our  <a href="append2.html">appendix on the symbols of anarchism</a>. According to Louise Michel the <i>"black flag is the flag of strikes."</i> [<b>The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel</b>, p. 168] If anarchism does, as some Marxists assert, reject class conflict and collective struggle then using a flag associated with an action which expresses both seems somewhat paradoxical. However, for those with even a basic understanding of anarchism and its history there is no paradox as anarchism is obviously based on class conflict and collective struggle.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html-26-<p>So any attempt to apply the notions developed from theorising about (or, more correctly, justifying and rationalising) capitalism to anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system. John Crump stressed this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism between the World Wars:</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html:27:<blockquote><p><i>"When considering the feasibility of the social system advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear about the criteria against which it should be measured. It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by means of the criteria which have been devised to measure capitalism's performance does not make sense . . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were demanded that it assess its operations against the performance indicators to which pure anarchists attached most importance, such as personal liberty, communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional right to free consumption. Faced with such demands, capitalism would either admit that these were not yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to the type of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often employs, such as identifying human liberty with the market and therefore with wage slavery . . . The pure anarchists' confidence in the alternative society they advocated derived not from an expectation that it would <b>quantitatively</b> outperform capitalism in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism flowed from their understanding that it would be <b>qualitatively</b> different from capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of production and distribution . . . they certainly believed that anarchist communism would provide economic well-being for all. But neither were they prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly does."</i> [<b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan</b>, pp. 191-3] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html:28:<p>Finally, anarchists are well aware that transforming how an economy works does not happen overnight. As discussed in <a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>, we have long rejected the idea of instantaneous social transformation and argued that revolution will take time to develop and change the legacy of centuries of class and hierarchical society. This transformation and the resulting changes in people and surroundings can only be achieved by the full participation of all in overcoming the (many) problems a free society will face and the new ways of relating to each other liberation implies. A free people will find their own practical solutions to their problems, for <i>"there will be all sorts of practical difficulties to overcome, but the [libertarian socialist] system is simplicity itself compared with the monster of centralised State control, which sets such an inhuman distance between the worker and the administrator that there is room for a thousand difficulties to intervene."</i> [Herbert Read, <b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 49] Thus, for anarchists, the <i>"enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full freedom and scope to find creative channels."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 223] As such, the ideas within this section of our FAQ are merely suggestions, possibilities.</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html-29-<h2><a name="seci41">I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?</a></h2>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html-275-<p>Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that rewards harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice to it here so we will present a few examples. One study with college students showed that those paid to work on a puzzle <i>"spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid"</i> when they were given a choice of whether to work on it or not. <i>"It appeared that working for a reward made people less interested in the task."</i> Another study with children showed that <i>"extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 70 and p. 71] Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because a reward is effectively saying that a given activity is not worth doing for its own sake -- and why would anyone wish to do something they have to be bribed to do?</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html:276:<p>In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents extensive evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also fails even there. Indeed, he argues that <i>"economists have it wrong if they think of work as a 'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must do in order to be able to buy what we need, merely a means to an end."</i> Kohn stresses that <i>"to assume that money is what drives people is to adopt an impoverished understanding of human motivation."</i> Moreover, <i>"the risk of <b>any</b> incentive or pay-for-performance system is that it will make people less interested in their work and therefore less likely to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence. Furthermore, <b>the more closely we tie compensation (or other rewards) to performance, the most damage we do.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 131, p. 134 and p. 140]</p>
anarchism-15.3/html/secI4.html-277-<p>Kohn argues that the idea that humans will only work for profit or rewards <i>"can be fairly described as dehumanising"</i> if <i>"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of learning, and the desire to do good work are already part of who we are."</i> Also, it is <i>"a way of trying to control people"</i> and so to <i>"anyone who is troubled by a model of human relationships founded principally on the idea of one person controlling another must ponder whether rewards are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be"</i>. So <i>"there is no getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative.' One observer more bluntly characterises incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they really convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append31.md-2932-> possible that we might . . . speak out against universal suffrage . . . If
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append31.md:2933:> in a burst of revolutionary enthusiasm the people chose a very fine
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append31.md-2934-> parliament then we would be bound to make it a **long parliament** ; and if
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md-5098-examined and discussed with animation by the masses of workers, who all
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md:5099:welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md-5100-the first step . . . They formed a committee charged with organising the
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md-5253-> Felguera metallurgical plant, public deliberations of all issues, abolition
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md:5254:> of money, the rational distribution of food and clothing. Enthusiasm and
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append32.md-5255-> gaiety in La Felguera; the sullenness of the barracks in Sama. The bridges
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md-962-and mobilisation met with 'very good,' often in three languages, . . . Most
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md:963:striking, Lenin's greatest enthusiasm was reserved for the chapter on the role
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md-964-of coercion . . . at the end [of which] he wrote, 'Now this chapter is
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md-3149-shared values on which resistance to labour policies based on coercion and
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md:3150:Communist Party enthusiasm could be organised. As might be anticipated, the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/append43.md-3151-leaders of unrest were often to be found amongst the skilled male workers who
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA2.md-2806-level"_ ). In 1880 he _"became less preoccupied with collective action and
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA2.md:2807:this enthusiasm for acts of revolt by individuals and small groups
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA2.md-2808-increased."_ This did not last and Kropotkin soon attached _"progressively
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA3.md-1045-
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA3.md:1046:> _"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA3.md-1047-> capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md-1251-examined and discussed with animation by the masses of workers, who all
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md:1252:welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md-1253-the first step . . . They formed a committee charged with organising the
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md-1432-and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly due to the war, partly
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md:1433:to the apparent success of the Russian Revolution. This enthusiasm for the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secA5.md-1434-Russian Revolution even reached Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie,
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md-1524-ectoplasm, we can say, appealing to Euler's theorem, that the rent per unit of
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md:1525:ectoplasm is equal to the marginal product of the given quantity of ectoplasm
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md-1526-when it is fully utilised. This does seem to add anything of interest to the
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md-1538-
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md:1539:The concept that capital goods are made of ectoplasm and can be remoulded into
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC2.md-1540-the profit maximising form from day to day was invented in order to prove that
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD1.md-283-
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD1.md:284:The enthusiasm for the "free market" since the 1970s is in fact the product of
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD1.md-285-the extended boom, which in turn was a product of a state co-ordinated war
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md-401-dominant elites, but should serve only those segments that happen to manage
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md:402:the state at a particular moment, and should do so with proper enthusiasm and
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md-403-optimism about the causes -- noble by definition -- in which state power is
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md-582-an intrusive public"_ and so _"condemn the media for lack of sufficient
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md:583:enthusiasm in supporting official crusades."_ In other words, that the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secD3.md-584-_"existing level of subordination to state authority is often deemed
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md-438-what they intend to achieve, and how, and that they should be imbued with the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md:439:enthusiasm which is necessary for that achievement."_ Thus, _"there are
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md-440-periods in human development when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md-1040-so that it . . . will culminate in a social revolution."_ Anarchists must
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md:1041:_"deepen the chasm between capitalists and wage-slaves, between rulers and
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH2.md-1042-ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH5.md-471-free association and agreement based on the community of struggle and the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH5.md:472:political consciousness and revolutionary enthusiasm that struggle creates.
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secH5.md-473-Thus, for anarchists, the model of the factory can never be the model for a
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ2.md-1718-we argue for a union of political ideas and social organisation and activity.
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ2.md:1719:This is essential for promoting radical politics as it _"digs a chasm between
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ2.md-1720-the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and places the proletariat outside the
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ3.md-111-important, **ineffective.** Hierarchical organisations kill people's
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ3.md:112:enthusiasm and creativity, where plans and ideas are not adopted because they
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ3.md-113-are the best but simply because they are what a handful of leaders **think**
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ5.md-2266-> 'These people will never be the same again. They have seen that things can
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ5.md:2267:> be different.' But the excitement and enthusiasm engendered by such
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ5.md-2268-> programs, as well as the heightened sense of commitment to a common purpose,
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ7.md-1152-becomes limited to a comparatively small circle from which the large masses
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ7.md:1153:are practically excluded. The natural result is that popular enthusiasm is
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secJ7.md-1154-dampened, interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes, creativeness
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC9.md-904-is always possible flows from the assumption of marginal productivity theory
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC9.md:905:which treats "capital" like an ectoplasm and can be moulded into whatever form
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secC9.md-906-is required by the labour available (see [section C.2.5](secC2.md#secc25)
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-194-> in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md:195:> contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism flowed from their
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-196-> understanding that it would be **qualitatively** different from capitalism.
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-218-intervene."_ [Herbert Read, **Anarchy and Order** , p. 49] Thus, for
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md:219:anarchists, the _"enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-220-liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full freedom
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-3142-that it will make people less interested in their work and therefore less
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md:3143:likely to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence.
anarchism-15.3/markdown/secI4.md-3144-Furthermore, **the more closely we tie compensation (or other rewards) to
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt-10-	ORIG_DIR=$1;
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt:11:        DEST_DIR=`echo $ORIG_DIR|sed -s "s,html,txt,g"`;
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt-12-        mkdir -p $DEST_DIR;
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt:13:	AAFAQ_PATH=`echo $ORIG_DIR|sed -s "s,\/,\\\/,g"`;
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt:14:        for html in `find $ORIG_DIR -type f -name "*.html"`;
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt-15-        do
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt:16:		txt=$(basename `echo $html|sed -s "s,html,txt,g"`);
anarchism-15.3/debian/html2txt-17-		# workaround #770011, see #800007
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secC9.html-85-<p>As noted above, the argument that unemployment is caused by wages being too high is part of the wider marginalist perspective. Flaws in that will  mean that its explanation of unemployment is equally flawed. So it must  be stressed that the marginalist theory of distribution lies at the core  of its theories of both output and unemployment. In that theory, the marginal  product of labour is interpreted as the labour demand curve as the firm's  demand for labour is the marginal physical product of labour multiplied by  the price of the output and this produces the viewpoint that unemployment is  caused by wages being too high. So given the central role which marginal  productivity theory plays in the mainstream argument, it is useful to start  our deeper critique by re-iterating that, as indicated in <a href="secC2.html">section C.2</a>,  Joan Robinson and Piero Sraffa had successfully debunked this theory in the  1950s. <i>"Yet for psychological and political reasons,"</i> notes James K.  Galbraith, <i>"rather than for logical and mathematical ones, the capital  critique has not penetrated mainstream economics. It likely never will.  Today only a handful of economists seem aware of it."</i> [<i>"The  distribution of income"</i>, pp. 32-41, Richard P. F. Holt and Steven Pressman  (eds.), <b>A New Guide to Post Keynesian Economics</b>, p. 34] Given that this  underlies the argument that high wages cause high unemployment, it means that the mainstream argument for cutting wages has no firm theoretical basis.</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secC9.html:86:<p>It should also be noted that the assumption that adding more labour to capital is always possible flows from the assumption of marginal productivity theory  which treats "capital" like an ectoplasm and can be moulded into whatever form is required by the labour available (see <a href="secC2.html#secc25">section C.2.5</a> for more  discussion). Hence Joan Robinson's dismissal of this assumption, for <i>"the difference between the future and the past is eliminated by making  capital 'malleable' so that mistakes can always be undone and equilibrium  is always guaranteed. . . with 'malleable' capital the demand for labour  depends on the level of wages."</i> [<b>Contributions to Modern Economics</b>, p. 6] Moreover, <i>"labour and capital are not often as smoothly substitutable for each other as the [neo-classical] model requires . . . You can't use one without the other. You can't measure the marginal productivity of one  without the other."</i> Demand for capital and labour is, sometimes, a <b>joint</b> demand and so it is often to adjust wages to a worker's marginal productivity independent of the cost of capital. [Hugh Stretton,  <b>Economics: A New Introduction</b>, p. 401]</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secC9.html-87-<p>Then there is the role of diminishing returns. The assumption that the demand  curve for labour is always downward sloping with respect to aggregate employment  is rooted in the notion that industry operates, at least in the short run, under  conditions of diminishing returns. However, diminishing returns are <b>not</b> a  feature of industries in the real world. Thus the assumption that the downward  slopping marginal product of labour curve is identical to the aggregate demand  curve for labour is not true as it is inconsistent with empirical evidence.  <i>"In a system at increasing returns,"</i> noted one economist, <i>"the direct relation  between real wages and employment tends to render the ordinary mechanism of wage  adjustment ineffective and unstable."</i> [Ferdinando Targetti, <b>Nicholas Kaldor</b>,  p. 344] In fact, as discussed in <a href="secC1.html#secc12">section C.1.2</a>, without this assumption mainstream economics cannot show that unemployment is, in fact, caused by real wages being too high (along with many other things).</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html-44-<p>Malatesta agreed, explicitly pointing to <i>"corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)"</i> as a means of defending a revolution from <i>"attempts to reduce a free people to a state of slavery again."</i> To defend a revolution required <i>"the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 42] Decades later, his position had not changed and he was still arguing for the <i>"creation of voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention"</i> for only <i>"the people in arms, in possession of the land, the factories and all the natural wealth"</i> could <i>"defend . . . the revolution."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 166 and p. 170]</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html:45:<p>Alexander Berkman concurred. In his classic introduction to anarchism, he devoted a whole chapter to the issue which he helpfully entitled <i>"Defense of the Revolution"</i>. He noted that it was <i>"your duty, as an Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion . . . the social revolution . . . will defend itself against invasion from any quarter . . . The armed workers and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution. By means of their unions and syndicates they must always be on guard against counter-revolutionary attack."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 231-2] Emma Goldman clearly and unambiguously stated that she had <i>"always insisted that an armed attack on the Revolution must be met with armed force"</i> and that <i>"an armed counter-revolutionary and fascist attack can be met in no way except by an armed defence."</i> [<b>Vision on Fire</b>, p. 222 and p. 217] Kropotkin, likewise, took it as a given that <i>"a society in which the workers would have a dominant voice"</i> would require a revolution to create and <i>"each time that such a period of accelerated evolution and reconstruction on a grand scale begins, civil war is liable to break out on a small or large scale."</i> The question was <i>"how to attain the greatest results with the most limited amount of civil war, the smallest number of victims, and a minimum of mutual embitterment."</i> To achieve this there was <i>"only one means; namely, that the oppressed part of society should obtain the clearest possible conception of what they intend to achieve, and how, and that they should be imbued with the enthusiasm which is necessary for that achievement."</i> Thus, <i>"there are periods in human development when a conflict is unavoidable, and civil war breaks out quite independently of the will of particular individuals."</i> [<b>Memiors of a Revolutionist</b>, pp. 270-1]</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html-46-<p>So Durruti, while fighting at the front during the Spanish revolution, was not saying anything new or against anarchist theory when he stated that <i>"the bourgeois won't let us create a libertarian communist society simply because we want to. They'll fight back and defend their privileges. The only way we can establish libertarian communism is by destroying the bourgeoisie"</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, <b>Durruti in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 484] Clearly, anarchism has always recognised the necessity of defending a revolution and proposed ideas to ensure it (ideas applied with great success by, for example, the Makhnovists in the Ukrainian Revolution and the CNT militias during the Spanish). As such, any assertion that anarchism rejects the necessity of defending a revolution is simply false. Sadly, it is one Marxists make repeatedly (undoubtedly inspired by Engels similar distortions - see <a href="secH4.html#sech47">section H.4.7</a>).</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html-95-<blockquote><p><i>"It is this war of classes that we must concentrate upon, and in that connection the war against false values, against evil institutions, against all social atrocities. Those who appreciate the urgent need of co-operating in great struggles . . . must organise the preparedness of the masses for the overthrow of both capitalism and the state. Industrial and economic preparedness is what the workers need. That alone leads to revolution at the bottom . . . That alone will give the people the means to take their children out of the slums, out of the sweat shops and the cotton mills . . . That alone leads to economic and social freedom, and does away with all wars, all crimes, and all injustice."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 355-6] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html:96:<p>For Malatesta, <i>"the most powerful force for social transformation is the working class movement . . . Through the organisations established for the defence of their interests, workers acquire an awareness of the oppression under which they live and of the antagonisms which divide them from their employers, and so begin to aspire to a better life, get used to collective struggle and to solidarity."</i> This meant that anarchists <i>"must recognise the usefulness and importance of the workers' movement, must favour its development, and make it one of the levers of their action, doing all they can so that it . . . will culminate in a social revolution."</i> Anarchists must <i>"deepen the chasm between capitalists and wage-slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of State."</i> The new society would be organised <i>"by means of free association and federations of producers and consumers."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 113, pp. 250-1 and p. 184] Alexander Berkman, unsurprisingly, argued the same thing. As he put it, only <i>"the workers"</i> as <i>"the worst victims of present institutions,"</i> could abolish capitalism an the state as <i>"it is to their own interest to abolish them . . . labour's emancipation means at the same time the redemption of the whole of society."</i> He stressed that <i>"<b>only the right organisation of the workers</b> can accomplish what we are striving for . . . Organisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere . . . alone can solve the labour question and serve the true emancipation of man[kind]."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 187 and p. 207]</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secH2.html-97-<p>As can be seen, the claim that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or anarchists in general, ignored the class struggle and collective working class struggle and organisation is either a lie or indicates ignorance. Clearly, anarchists have placed working class struggle, organisation and collective direct action and solidarity at the core of their politics (and as the means of creating a libertarian socialist society) from the start. Moreover, this perspective is reflected in the anarchist flag itself as we discuss in our  <a href="append2.html">appendix on the symbols of anarchism</a>. According to Louise Michel the <i>"black flag is the flag of strikes."</i> [<b>The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel</b>, p. 168] If anarchism does, as some Marxists assert, reject class conflict and collective struggle then using a flag associated with an action which expresses both seems somewhat paradoxical. However, for those with even a basic understanding of anarchism and its history there is no paradox as anarchism is obviously based on class conflict and collective struggle.</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html-26-<p>So any attempt to apply the notions developed from theorising about (or, more correctly, justifying and rationalising) capitalism to anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system. John Crump stressed this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism between the World Wars:</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html:27:<blockquote><p><i>"When considering the feasibility of the social system advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear about the criteria against which it should be measured. It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by means of the criteria which have been devised to measure capitalism's performance does not make sense . . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were demanded that it assess its operations against the performance indicators to which pure anarchists attached most importance, such as personal liberty, communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional right to free consumption. Faced with such demands, capitalism would either admit that these were not yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to the type of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often employs, such as identifying human liberty with the market and therefore with wage slavery . . . The pure anarchists' confidence in the alternative society they advocated derived not from an expectation that it would <b>quantitatively</b> outperform capitalism in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism flowed from their understanding that it would be <b>qualitatively</b> different from capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of production and distribution . . . they certainly believed that anarchist communism would provide economic well-being for all. But neither were they prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly does."</i> [<b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan</b>, pp. 191-3] </p></blockquote>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html:28:<p>Finally, anarchists are well aware that transforming how an economy works does not happen overnight. As discussed in <a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>, we have long rejected the idea of instantaneous social transformation and argued that revolution will take time to develop and change the legacy of centuries of class and hierarchical society. This transformation and the resulting changes in people and surroundings can only be achieved by the full participation of all in overcoming the (many) problems a free society will face and the new ways of relating to each other liberation implies. A free people will find their own practical solutions to their problems, for <i>"there will be all sorts of practical difficulties to overcome, but the [libertarian socialist] system is simplicity itself compared with the monster of centralised State control, which sets such an inhuman distance between the worker and the administrator that there is room for a thousand difficulties to intervene."</i> [Herbert Read, <b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 49] Thus, for anarchists, the <i>"enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full freedom and scope to find creative channels."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 223] As such, the ideas within this section of our FAQ are merely suggestions, possibilities.</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html-29-<h2><a name="seci41">I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?</a></h2>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html-275-<p>Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that rewards harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice to it here so we will present a few examples. One study with college students showed that those paid to work on a puzzle <i>"spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid"</i> when they were given a choice of whether to work on it or not. <i>"It appeared that working for a reward made people less interested in the task."</i> Another study with children showed that <i>"extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 70 and p. 71] Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because a reward is effectively saying that a given activity is not worth doing for its own sake -- and why would anyone wish to do something they have to be bribed to do?</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html:276:<p>In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents extensive evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also fails even there. Indeed, he argues that <i>"economists have it wrong if they think of work as a 'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must do in order to be able to buy what we need, merely a means to an end."</i> Kohn stresses that <i>"to assume that money is what drives people is to adopt an impoverished understanding of human motivation."</i> Moreover, <i>"the risk of <b>any</b> incentive or pay-for-performance system is that it will make people less interested in their work and therefore less likely to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence. Furthermore, <b>the more closely we tie compensation (or other rewards) to performance, the most damage we do.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 131, p. 134 and p. 140]</p>
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/html/secI4.html-277-<p>Kohn argues that the idea that humans will only work for profit or rewards <i>"can be fairly described as dehumanising"</i> if <i>"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of learning, and the desire to do good work are already part of who we are."</i> Also, it is <i>"a way of trying to control people"</i> and so to <i>"anyone who is troubled by a model of human relationships founded principally on the idea of one person controlling another must ponder whether rewards are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be"</i>. So <i>"there is no getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative.' One observer more bluntly characterises incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they really convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26]</p>
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secC9.md-904-is always possible flows from the assumption of marginal productivity theory
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secC9.md:905:which treats "capital" like an ectoplasm and can be moulded into whatever form
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secC9.md-906-is required by the labour available (see [section C.2.5](secC2.md#secc25)
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-194-> in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md:195:> contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism flowed from their
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-196-> understanding that it would be **qualitatively** different from capitalism.
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-218-intervene."_ [Herbert Read, **Anarchy and Order** , p. 49] Thus, for
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md:219:anarchists, the _"enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-220-liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full freedom
##############################################
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-3142-that it will make people less interested in their work and therefore less
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md:3143:likely to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence.
anarchism-15.3/.pc/0001-fix-typos.patch/markdown/secI4.md-3144-Furthermore, **the more closely we tie compensation (or other rewards) to