A-Infos (en) UK, ACG: Socialist Appeal do not understand Anarchism (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

An anarchist critique of Socialist Appeal) propaganda on Kronstadt and 
Anarchist Theory ---- Socialist Appeal is the British section of the 
International Marxist Tendency (1), founded in 1992 after its leaders 
were kicked out of the Militant Tendency which later went on to become 
the Socialist Party. The group's founders Ted Grant and Alan Woods were 
committed to the idea of entryism which saw Socialist Appeal continue to 
advocate for its members to join and agitate within the Labour Party as 
its Marxist voice. Since the election of Starmer as leader of the Labour 
Party, Socialist Appeal and Momentum members have been purged from the 
party in an attempt to end the Labour Party's left-wing agitation (2). 
This seems to have ended Socialist Appeal's naive belief in entryism and 
the seizure of state power through electoral means like Jeremy Corbyn's 
election campaigns.

After 2013 Socialist Appeal began a campaign to enlarge its membership 
through the establishment of Marxist Societies on university campuses 
which saw its membership and profile on the left rise as many students 
joined the group due to its publicity and recent campaigns pushing for 
students to get organised. This has culminated in the announcement of 
the founding of a new "Revolutionary Communist Party" in 2024 which 
joins the list of previous Revolutionary Communist Parties dating back 
to 1944. Like other Leninist groups in the UK, Socialist Appeal is 
committed to promoting the ideas of figures like Lenin, Trotsky, and 
Marx via newspapers and meetings designed to educate and promote the 
idea of revolution among the working class and students.

Their meetings usually start with a lead-off from a party member on a 
topic before opening up to wider discussion, Socialist Appeal often 
attends protests and has even imitated the SWP's flagship Marxist event 
in late 2023 (3).

Anarchists however should not be fooled. As with all Leninist 
revolutionary groups and parties, these groups do not speak or act in 
the interest of the working class. Although their propaganda will argue 
that they aim to educate the workers to prepare for the revolution, this 
is hardly the case which we can illustrate through analysis of their 
shallow propaganda and methods.

The programme of Socialist Appeal first starts with a list of reformist 
demands to address British capitalism including a £20 minimum wage and 
the nationalisation of the top 100 companies as examples of immediate 
improvements for the working class, this then leads them to argue for a 
"Socialist Federation of Britain" as part of a "World Socialist 
Federation" (4) to be achieved by a revolution led by the revolutionary 
workers party.

No clearer is Socialist Appeal's naive world/historical view than 
articulated in A. Kramer's article for Socialist Appeals magazine 
"Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from Soviet archives 
confirms the Bolsheviks' position" (5). This article aims to prove the 
innocence of key Bolshevik figures concerning their massacre of 
Kronstadt rebels who rose in 1921 to demand the end of Bolshevik 
authoritarianism and a return to workers' control which was briefly 
practised in 1917 by workers shortly after the February revolution as 
outlined by Maurice Brinton who shows the acceptance of workers' control 
by Lenin in 1917 (6). This SA (7) article grossly misrepresents both the 
Bolshevik response and reasons for the rebellion in a classic act of 
Bolshevik apologism.

"in the naval base of Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at 
a military coup against the Soviet government. The critical state that 
the Soviet Union was passing through in that moment meant that Lenin and 
Trotsky were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly"

The Kronstadt rebellion contrary to what this article portrays, was by 
no means a military coup. The countless observers and accounts of the 
rebellion present a very different picture, the origins of the rebellion 
lay with a series of strikes which emerged as a result of the dismal 
winter conditions which workers faced in Petrograd which included a lack 
of winter clothing and minimal resources to use in industry largely due 
to the continuation of war communism after the end of the civil war.

As Alexander Berkman outlines it was the "Trubotchny millworkers" who 
began striking, initially the strikes lacked political motives with 
initial action being solely to address the lack of winter clothing and 
supplies which paralysed industry in Petrograd. Rather than addressing 
the issues by loosening government control on industry and labour, the 
reaction of Trotsky, and Zinoviev was to denounce the strikes and resort 
to violent suppression when return to work did not occur, ironically 
this strategy backfired and heavily informed the opinions of the 
Kronstadt sailors.

As a response to the strikes, the Kronstadt sailors sent a delegation to 
Petrograd to observe and report on the situation which naturally led to 
sympathy with striking workers, the following 16,000-man public meeting 
held in Kronstadt (also attended by Bolshevik leader Kalinin) did not 
fundamentally oppose the Soviet system. It did however condemn Soviet 
bureaucracy and methods used to suppress strikes by workers. A 
declaration was made shortly after the arrest of Kalinin who denounced 
the workers before him, this event set in motion the eventual crushing 
of Kronstadt by the Bolsheviks who could not stomach giving up party 
dictatorship and returning to the Soviet system practised in early 1917.

The following response from Soviet officials to the strikes and 
Kronstadt with simple and clear, Berkman wrote as follows "An official 
manifesto appeared today. It is signed by Lenin and Trotsky and declares 
Kronstadt guilty of mutiny (myatezh). The demand of the sailors for free 
Soviets is denounced as "a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the 
proletarian Republic."

Further misleading claims about the nature of Kronstadt are littered 
throughout the article. "These were not mere words. The real command 
over the rebels was concentrated not in the Kronstadt Soviet, as some 
naive individuals may think, but in the so-called "Court for the Defence 
of Kronstadt Fortress" (Paragraph 17), Bolshevik apologists keenly use 
the fact that a former general (Kozlovsky) was present in Kronstadt to 
conclude that the uprising was inherently counter-revolutionary. The 
Bolshevik propaganda machine used the presence of this former white 
general who for further context was placed in Kronstadt by Trotsky as an 
artillery specialist as further justification to argue that the 
provisional committee of Kronstadt was being funded and led by the West 
and Western spies.

Rather than relying on Soviet archive material to justify the slaughter 
of workers, it is useful to read the daily bulletin (Izvestia)(8) 
published by the provisional committee of Kronstadt which detailed their 
ideas, motives and the state of Kronstadt before the Bolshevik bombs 
dropped. In the first issue of the Izvestia, the provisional committee 
who were formed after the initial conference of sailors and workers on 
March 2nd dismissed any claims that would be made later by the 
Bolsheviks by stating their aims as follows:

"Comrades and citizens! The Provisional Committee is deeply concerned 
that there should not be spilled a single drop of blood. It has taken 
emergency measures for the establishment of revolutionary order in the 
town and fortress, and at the forts.

Comrades and citizens! Do not stop work. Workers, remain at your 
machines, sailors and soldiers in your units and at the forts. All 
Soviet workers and organizations must continue their work. The 
Provisional Revolutionary Committee calls all workers' organisations, 
all naval and trade unions, and all naval and military units and 
individual citizens to give it universal support and aid. The task of 
the Provisional Revolutionary Committee is a general, comradely effort 
to organize in the town and fortress means for proper and fair elections 
to a new Soviet.

And so, comrades, to order, to calm, to restraint, and to a new 
Socialist construction for the good of all labourers."

Kronstadt from day one of their resistance against Bolshevism did not 
have the aim to take the heads of Lenin, Trotsky, and Kalinin. Instead, 
the disgruntled sailors and workers wanted to work peacefully towards 
building a new system based on the power of the Soviets and an end to 
party dictatorship. This non-hostility to the Bolsheviks is clearly 
stated in the passage above but also through the support of the 
Bolshevik section of Kronstadt who threw its support behind the committee.

The claim following this that there was no firm mass of soldiers behind 
the committee and the Kronstadt rebellion is simply false. To put it 
simply if there were no soldiers or sailors or workers in support of the 
committee then the Bolsheviks would have no issue with walking straight 
into Kronstadt and reaffirming control, the fact that the Sailors did 
not take strategic forts important to the defence of Leningrad shows 
their intentions clearer than words in a bulletin can. David Schaich 
also highlights this point by demonstrating that the former general 
Kozlovsky offered advice to the committee on how best to march on 
Leningrad which was rejected by the committee (9)

What we can demonstrate from this section of this article is that 
similarly to other Trot groups, Socialist Appeal are committed to 
protecting Trotsky and Lenin from all forms of criticism by pointing to 
external factors and shifting the problems of the emerging USSR onto 
other factors like the allied blockade, the failed invasion of Poland 
and lack of support from the Western proletariat. Because of this 
Kronstadt is often glossed over and misrepresented as a 
Western-sponsored rebellion which took place at a crucial moment in 
Soviet history, as anarchists and other leftists have demonstrated this 
is far from the truth. The Kronstadt rebellion was the culmination of 
worker's frustration and solidarity which manifested in an initially 
bloodless proclamation asking for a return to democracy and workers' 
soviets. Whether this will be acknowledged by the UK Trot left is yet to 
be seen (10) (11).

The role of anarchists in the civil war:

One of the final points addressed in this article is the role anarchists 
played in the Soviets, "Many Anarchists took part in the Revolution and 
in the Civil War on the side of the Bolsheviks against the White 
reaction. They also cooperated with the new power until the rise of 
Stalinism. To this day, those courageous people are considered by some 
modern anarchists as "traitors". Some people never learn!" The author of 
this nonsense does not provide a specific date to be attributed as the 
rise of Stalin, even if we categorise the rise of Stalin as the period 
from 1924 to 1929 this claim remains false.

It is undeniable that leftists from the Mensheviks, Social 
Revolutionaries and Anarchists participated in the blossoming soviets 
which emerged in 1917, anarchists who were a part of Makhno's insurgent 
army did at several points either join or heavily cooperate with the Red 
Army to fight the advancing White army. In January 1919 the Bolsheviks 
and the Makhnovists formally joined forces in the Red Army to push back 
and crush the White general Denikin. This alliance was by all means 
temporary between the two sides with no agreements being made concerning 
the autonomy of the areas under Makhnovist control in Ukraine.

Throughout 1919, 1920 and 1921, the Bolsheviks continually pushed 
anti-Makhnovist propaganda within their press in an attempt to discredit 
the Makhnovists  and their political reforms in occupied territories 
which sought to implement libertarian communist strategies and theory 
which strongly contrasted the authoritarian methods of the Communist 
Party. This attitude was reflected in the contributions made in 
Makhnovist congresses held in early 1919 which saw delegates reject the 
imposition of Bolshevik commissars and demand the introduction of 
Bolsheviks without any political party delegates.

"The consensus of the congress was strongly anti-Bolshevik and favoured 
a democratic sociopolitical way of life. Most of the delegates were 
against the Bolsheviks and their commissars. One delegate complained:

Who elected the Provisional Ukrainian Bolshevik Government: the people 
or the Bolshevik party? We see Bolshevik dictatorship over the left 
Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists. Why do they send us 
commissars? We can live without them. If we needed commissars we would 
elect them from among ourselves."

The attempts of Denikin and Wrangel to cement white control in Ukraine 
prompted continual on-and-off alliances between the Bolsheviks and  the 
Makhnovists which saw both conflict and tactical alliances to fight the 
whites, ultimately it was Bolshevik betrayal in late 1920 which saw 
Makhnovist forces become backstabbed by Bolshevik forces and ultimately 
removed from Ukraine by early 1921 (12).

In the early half of 1920, many Anarchists were arrested by the 
Bolsheviks without charges. Alexander Berkman personally conducted 
visits to high-ranking Bolshevik officials to guarantee the end of 
persecution towards so-called "anarchists of ideas", however, this did 
not deter the Cheka from routinely arresting anarchists as they did in 
July 1921 where 45 anarchists went on hunger strike in protest against 
wrongful arrests.

This is not to say that there were no anarchists who sympathised with 
the Bolsheviks, Berkman in his diary encountered many so-called 
"Sovietsky Anarchists" (named as such due to their friendly attitude to 
the Bolsheviks). Despite the collaborationist nature of some anarchists, 
the purges continued going into the second half of 1920 and 1921 (all of 
which occurred before the rise of Stalin and Lenin's death) The death of 
Peter Kropotkin and the subsequent refusal of the Soviet government to 
release Anarchist prisoners to attend the funeral is only one of several 
other examples of Soviet oppression of the Anarchists, by September 1921 
an agreement had been struck to release some Anarchist prisoners into 
exile after months of continued imprisonment in Moscow at the hands of 
the Cheka.

Throughout 1919, 1920 and 1921 the central committee (including Lenin 
himself) was contacted by Berkman and his comrades in a cordial attempt 
to allow anarchist (and other left-revolutionary) thinkers, education 
and ideas to be freely expressed within Soviet Russia, these attempts at 
securing freedom not just for anarchists went ignored by the central 
committee with Lenin and Trotsky uncompromising in their oppression of 
anarchists from Makhno, to Kronstadt to anarchist bookshops in Moscow 
and Kharkiv (13). Therefore, to say that Anarchists cooperated with the 
Bolsheviks until the rise of Stalin is sheer nonsense, the clear lack of 
research and historical understanding is characteristic of Soviet 
apologists who refuse to accept the wrongdoings of the Bolsheviks which 
they seek to idolise daily (14).

Alan Woods on Anarchism:

In 2012 Alan Woods published an article on Marxism and Anarchism (15) 
which drew the attention of our Brazilian comrades in the group "Black 
Flag" who criticised Woods's article. Here I will add my perspective as 
an anarchist communist student to Woods's analysis.

Woods starts by diagnosing the situation of UK capitalism in the wake of 
the 2008 financial crash, he correctly highlights how this event spurred 
major interest among left-wing ideas like anarchism and socialism due to 
capitalism upsetting the norms people experienced under neoliberal 
capitalism. Almost immediately however Woods misrepresents anarchism and 
our ideas:

"Anarchism is appealing to many young people due to its simplicity: to 
reject anything and everything to do with the status quo. But upon 
deeper examination, there is a pervasive lack of real substance and 
depth of analysis in these ideas. Above all, there is very little in the 
way of an actually viable solution to the crisis of capitalism. After 
reading their material, one is inevitably left asking: "but what is to 
replace capitalism, and how can we make this a reality, starting from 
the conditions actually existing today?"

Anarchism is a broad political tradition like Marxism with several 
different strands and currents emerging throughout our history, a core 
idea of anarchism as a political idea is indeed opposing the status quo 
(capitalism and the state) due to its oppression and exploitation of the 
working class. Anarchism cannot however be boiled down to simply this, 
if Anarchism was only a critique of the present without any strategies 
or visions for the future then Woods would be justified in making this 
critique. This however simply is not the case, anarchism has a wide 
range of strategies and a clear vision of what we believe an anarchist 
society would be like.

Anarchists similarly to Marxists believe in a social revolution by the 
working class to displace the ruling capitalist class, methods, and 
strategies during the revolution and after it however are fundamentally 
different which I will outline later. Woods however believes that 
anarchist leaders want the following, "who believe that confusion, 
organisational amorphousness, and the absence of ideological definition 
are both positive and necessary."

Where he read this claim is beyond me. Anarchists to my knowledge have 
never advocated confusion and organisational amorphousness within our 
theory, in my mind this claim is little more than a way of calling 
anarchists naive and uninformed when it comes to the revolution. 
Anarchists have a wide variety of organisational methods and strategies 
which originate in 19th and 20th-century anarchist theory and 
working-class practice. The idea of organisational dualism and 
anarchosyndicalism (16) are two of the most prominent anarchist ideas 
about organisations and education both before and after the revolution.

Having an unorganised and uneducated working class who accept their 
position within a capitalist society is not sufficient to overthrow 
capitalism. Woods is correct when he argues that organisation is 
necessary to stop revolution from fizzling out. Drawing on the rich 
history of Marxism which Woods seeks to defend we can see the type of 
organisation Leninists favour and its failure to assist the working 
class in overthrowing capitalism. To do this it is necessary to look at 
Woods's chapter titled "Do we need a leadership?"

Leadership:

Woods' argument about leadership and organisation can be summed up as 
follows, anarchists reject leaders because we don't like them and it is 
not enough just to dislike and reject something without offering 
appropriate solutions for the future society. He then proceeds to argue 
that "We stand for the revolutionary transformation of society. The 
objective conditions for such a transformation are more than ripe. We 
firmly believe that the working class is equipped for such a task." 
Woods demonstrates the shortcomings of current forms of working-class 
organisations by using examples of trade union bureaucracy and reformist 
political parties which anarcho-syndicalists have analysed in depth over 
the last century.

Woods is correct when he argues that without organisation we can achieve 
nothing, this is not something anarchists would dispute. What anarchists 
would and have taken issue with is the Marxist insistence on the 
formation of a worker's party and the transforming of unions into 
revolutionary unions. As Woods correctly highlights the current TUC 
trade unions that are affiliated with the Labour Party have been a major 
force in crushing rank-and-file militancy within the unions and acting 
as a very effective policeman for capital. In my own experience as a 
student, I have seen first-hand the role the UCU bureaucracy has had in 
calling off strikes at the first hint of negotiations being possible 
which handily lost my university teachers their fight for improved 
working conditions and restoration of pay - a prime example of a day to 
day struggle crushed by endless union management and an intense desire 
to return to normal (17).

However, reforming unions is not a task the working class should waste 
their time undertaking. Unlike the 19th century when union organisers 
and the working class faced fierce repression, in the 21st century 
workers have enough freedom and organisational capacity to take the 
initiative and voluntarily associate to form new syndicalist unions with 
anarchists organised according to organisational dualism within and 
outside the union. If we agree with the assumption that unions at 
present have two roles; associational and representative, then it is 
clear to us that the latter function is at fault for unions corrupting 
and becoming servants of capital.

To maintain their power, unions in the 19th and 20th centuries began to 
establish fixed incentives to fix their membership levels as high as 
possible to project influence at the negotiating table and 
counterbalance employers. The paying of fixed membership dues allowed 
for the recruitment of full-time union organisers who paved the way for 
the union bureaucratisation we have seen in the 20th and 21st centuries, 
as a result, unions have devolved from associations of workers to 
representative mediators for the state and capital.

As Woods eluded, this development within unions has benefitted the 
state. The Solidarity Federation highlights the example of a reporter 
who asked a boss of a multinational corporation why he accepted unions 
in his workforce, his answer was "Have you ever tried negotiating a 
football field full of militant angry workers?" (18). The integration of 
the unions into capitalism has served its purpose in curtailing radical 
rank-and-file union members which in turn allows for capitalists to 
continually expand profits at the expense of the conditions of the worker.

The same phenomenon however can similarly be applied to the Leninist 
workers' party which is the favoured tool for organising a mass workers 
movement to end capitalism. Modern Trots and Leninists will argue 
consistently for the creation of a workers' party to organise the 
working class and spread propaganda to prepare for the coming 
revolution. The main justification for centralising all power within one 
party comes down to the argument that without the enlightened leadership 
of the Marxist academics and intellectuals, the workers will not be 
capable of overthrowing capitalism.

Revolutionary parties have sprung up under many different organisations 
and leaders, arguably the most relevant example for the British left 
today is the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) whose influence in protest 
movements is still as strong as ever alongside their flagship propaganda 
event "Marxism". What unites them however is still a keen desire to 
build their parties even under immense pressure from the ruling class as 
argued by John Molyneux in the SWP's journal International Socialism (19).

As countless anarchists before me have demonstrated, the centralisation 
of power and the imposition of a new ruling class and bureaucracy 
naturally come full circle back towards some form of state capitalism 
enforced at the barrel of a gun pointed by a party commissar. As well as 
this not only have Marxists been adept at mishandling revolutionary 
moments, their policy towards industrial action in Western Europe during 
the 1960s and 1970s proves their ideas towards organisation as 
unfitting. We can see this through the Italian and French Marxists 
cooperating with unions to defeat and settle the strike movements in 
their respective nations (20) (21).

In contrast to this, anarchist methods of organisation differ 
significantly. In the 19th and 20th centuries as mentioned previously, 
anarchists developed the idea of organisational dualism as a pillar of 
anarchist organising. Unlike Wood's idea of using the revolutionary 
party as the mechanism to teach theory (generalised lessons from the 
past), anarchists favour creating a mass workers' organisation spanning 
millions of workers from different sectors united by their shared 
economic and class interests whilst within this organisation there 
should be another one composed of anarchists who follow a specifically 
anarchist programme united by the principles of theoretical unity, 
tactical unity, federalism and collective responsibility. Although this 
idea was formalised in the text "The Organisational Platform of the 
General Union of Anarchists (draft)" (22) anarchists had practised this 
idea since the mid-19th century in the form of trade unions with 
anarchist organisations which operate within and outside the union.

The platform is distinct from Marxist forms of organisation due to the 
principles which it adheres to. If platformism was simply a set of 
principles to which workers subscribe then this would be no different to 
the programmes of Marxist workers' parties like the SPD (23) or the 
programme adopted by the French Workers Party (24) (written by Marx).

There is within these ideas a degree of spontaneity, unlike the 
regimented and stifling decision-making of parties like the SWP within 
their party councils. I believe organisations must lack central 
leadership and military-like discipline in favour of adaptability and 
investment within democratic processes. What do I mean by this? In the 
Russian Revolution for example, if given a choice between working with 
Makhnovists in their liberated Ukrainian territory or working in Soviet 
industry and under the militarisation of labour policy it seems 
comically obvious which one you would pick. Although the material 
situation is far from desirable in both examples, most revolutionaries I 
would argue would be heavily invested in the libertarian socialist 
organisations developed under the Makhnovists due to the attempts by 
their forces to encourage workers to take control over their production 
and decision-making, which adds a level of personal involvement in 
decision making.

Contrast this to the soul-crushing levels of discipline and obedience we 
saw under the rule of Lenin and Trotsky, rule by decree and enforcement 
by political commissars not selected by yourself and your comrades is 
hardly a motivating factor to increase your output in your chosen (or 
assigned) trade. Woods expresses this idea of Bolshevik authoritarianism 
by referring to Marx's idea of the "Semi-state". Anyone who reads into 
the Bolshevik usurping of the Soviets can realise that this so-called 
semi-state is hardly an expression of revolutionary working-class power 
but rather the expression of Lenin's brutal authoritarianism. Only by 
unifying your means and your ends within your organisations and 
educational efforts a true path to achieving the same end Marxists hold 
so dear.

Revolutionary theory:

I, as an anarchist communist, would like to believe that both Marxists 
and anarchists believe theory to be of great importance to our 
revolutionary class struggle. Anarchist theory and its development I 
believe is rooted in the practices which emerged out of working class 
practice in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is why anarchist theory 
evolves and why new theory emerges to address and detail new issues 
which emerge in capitalism, although I would still seek to argue that 
most past anarchist theory still holds some if not lots of major 
relevance in contemporary society. In terms of how Woods views the role 
of theory and Marxism, he argues the following: "Marxists base 
themselves on the lessons of the past. We can say what has worked and 
what hasn't and apply this knowledge to the present situation. We will 
still make some mistakes, and it is not as simple as looking up the 
answer in a revolutionary cookbook, but we really have no need to 
reinvent the wheel; it was invented a very long time ago!"

It is very easy for anyone with a limited understanding of the Russian 
Revolution and contemporary British leftist politics to laugh this point 
off by arguing that groups like the SWP and Woods's very own Socialist 
Appeal still repeat the Marxist Leninist failures of the past, but that 
is not the point of this critique. Earlier in the article Woods makes 
what I believe to be a subtle dig at the way anarchists view theory:

"Yet there are some who deride the very notion of theory. "We do not 
need outmoded political theories!" they say. "We are engaged in a great 
experiment and we will improvise and evolve our ideas as we go along." 
These words, superficially appealing, conceal a profound contradiction."

Although in this quote he may not be referring to anarchists I believe 
it is important to clarify the role of theory within anarchism. Put 
simply anarchists do not reject theory, there are plenty of anarchist 
theorists ranging from Kropotkin to Shusui who have written theory, and 
one of the key differences between how Marxists and anarchists view 
theory is the way it is practiced. As mentioned previously the unity of 
means and ends is vital to anarchists, if we fail to practice the theory 
which we preach then we are arguably no better than the Trots we seek to 
discredit. There is little else to say on this matter, the idea that 
anarchists reject the role of theory and learning from the past is 
simply delusional thinking and demonstrates a clear lack of 
understanding from Woods.

New anarchist theory often emerges off the back of major revolutionary 
upheavals like the Russian Revolution. Makhno for example developed with 
other Russian exiled anarchists the core principles which he believed 
any general union of anarchists should follow. This theory was 
subsequently based on the lessons learned by Makhno in Ukraine where a 
lack of organisation led in part to the defeat of Russian anarchism. The 
extent to which historical theory can be applied to our modern-day 
circumstances is debatable, modern anarchists all over the world and in 
the UK pursue strategy in the way which suits their needs the best 
according to the conditions in which they operate. Rather than adopting 
the continual Marxist strategy of building a revolutionary party in the 
same manner in each nation, it is down to the anarchists themselves to 
review their situation and proceed accordingly without defaulting to the 
sacred Marxist texts which underpin their values (25).

Addressing theory and practice:

Woods in his section titled "The Theory and Practice of Anarchism" seeks 
to highlight the flaws in anarchist theory and practice by analysing the 
question of state power and demonstrating the failure of French 
anarcho-syndicalists to use the general strike in 1914 (26). The 
question of state power, contrary to what Woods asserts is of great 
importance to anarchists and it forms a large part of why we are 
anti-statists. Woods presents the example of a general strike which 
brings industry to a halt, he argues that without seizing state power 
the capitalists can effectively starve the workers back to work.

The state within Marxist political theory is not seen necessarily by 
Marxists as an inherently oppressive structure which is why Marxists 
argue that the workers once they are in control of the state can 
exercise its power for the benefit of the workers. As is stated 
countless times in anarchist theory, the state is not a neutral vessel 
which can be occupied and used by any class which finds itself in a 
dominant position. The state is a social structure which develops over 
time through the use of professionally organised violence, through this 
violence the state develops a territorial concentration and centralises 
functions within the ruling class (this includes legislative and 
judicial functions)

As a result by participating within the state, any potential new rulers 
will have to engage in social conditions which in turn transform them 
over time. By becoming the ruling class of a state, workers would engage 
in governing, legislating, and managing. Over time these conditions will 
reproduce themselves via the same people whose intention was to destroy 
them, countless anarchists have analysed this idea and better detail 
than I ever could but the point still stands nonetheless (27). To 
achieve communism, anarchists should not engage with the state, 
communism is to be achieved by workers engaging in practices and social 
conditions which constantly reproduce libertarian communism. In other 
words, practice what you preach, by practising fascistic methods and 
forms of organisation you will in turn get fascism, by organising 
collectively and allowing the worker to feel that he or she is driving 
the revolution you will create anarchy.

Kropotkin in "The Conquest of Bread"  said that during revolutionary 
upheaval the workers must expropriate industry to immediately guarantee 
people's basic human needs (food, housing, and clothing). This process 
is not to take place while the workers stand around during a general 
strike as Woods seems to think, instead, the process of the 
expropriation of industry and agriculture should be an immediate 
priority of workers and anarchists to prevent capitalists from starving 
workers into submission. The CNT-FAI for example after the July 1936 
revolution immediately went about seizing and collectivising industry, 
agriculture and the means of communication and distribution within 
Catalonia which was followed by the removal of bosses and the public 
ownership of the means of travel in Barcelona.

Following on from this, Woods points out how the CGT in France abandoned 
its anarcho-syndicalism when it failed to seize state power before World 
War I which was followed by the union backing the French war effort.

It is easy for both sides to pick out examples which benefit their 
analysis. I, for example, could argue that the SPD backing the German 
war effort in World War I demonstrate the failure of Marxist parties to 
effectively seize state power in Germany despite their intentions, but 
this tit for tat arguing serves little purpose overall.

The general strike as a tool anarchists can use to paralyse and 
ultimately destroy the state is a powerful weapon but as Woods 
criticised it, it  alone it cannot be successful, Woods seems to imply 
throughout his analysis that anarchist militants would simply stand 
around while on the general strike while capitalists proceed to walk all 
over them. This is by no means true, revolution and the general strike 
is a period of industrial action and militant action by the workers in 
defence of their comrades against the state's oppression. As a result, 
anarchists and workers do not view the general strike as something to 
conduct and simply leave, it is one of several actions anarchists need 
to take to achieve libertarian communism after the downfall of capitalism.

The final stretch:

Woods finishes with a series of points about the anarchist insistence on 
majority voting as well as a passionate defence of Lenin and workers' 
control and the need for revolutionary violence to achieve peace. As I 
have done multiple times before I would refer the reader to Maurice 
Brinton's work titled "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control" for the best 
critique of Lenin and his failure in the revolution to uphold and defend 
workers' democracy and control. Throughout Woods's analysis of 
anarchism, he is prone to making incredibly shallow points which seek to 
mischaracterise anarchism as a naive political theory which is bound to 
fail due to its tendencies to create bureaucracy, its reluctance to 
seize state power etc. I would argue this piece is little more than 
Bolshevik apologism as well as a vague jab at a fictional anarchism 
Woods has drafted to pass us off as uninformed.

In terms of majority voting anarchists have a mixed history with the 
concept, in an ideal situation achieving consensus is by all means 
desirable but in most situations it is not always achievable especially 
when trying to cooperate on the left with other non-anarchist groups. 
Throughout history anarchists have advocated for and used majority 
voting as well as unanimous agreement, Malatesta throughout his life 
advocated for the use of majority voting as well as unanimous agreement 
depending on the context. If achieving consensus is deemed impossible by 
default Malatesta argued that majority voting or third-party arbitration 
should be defaulted to. Anarchists also do not tend to believe in voting 
on every single issue which emerges in society, in both revolutionary 
upheaval and anarchy itself fewer and fewer decisions will have to be 
made once the optimal solution for an issue is decided or established (28).

It would therefore be a waste of time for anarchists to engage in voting 
on what time of year farmers should plant their crops as through 
centuries of experience farmers have already established appropriate 
means of doing so. In instances where majority voting is used in a 
congress or general assembly, it is still nonetheless important to give 
a platform to the minority as well as the resources to test their ideas 
so that over time they may become the majority opinion. Rather than 
having a universally binding and paralysing programme within a party, I 
would argue it is ideal to strive for consensus where possible while 
simultaneously recognising the need to adopt majority voting when this 
cannot be achieved.

Revolutionary violence on the other hand is necessary for the defence of 
revolutionary gains, I believe very few on the left reject this idea. 
However, as Alexander Berkman (29) argued we cannot equate periods of 
revolutionary violence with the revolution itself as the two are vastly 
different. The revolution is not simply burning down parliament and 
Whitehall and declaring victory for the people, this period of violence 
is by all means transitionary and defensive. What is known as the 
revolution is everything that comes after, the reconstructing of 
society, the building of new social values and relations fitting of our 
vision for our future society, this idea of the revolution does not 
emerge out of the barrel of a gun but rather out of the energy of the 
people who conduct the revolution itself. We cannot therefore equate a 
revolution simply with violence, to do so is to discredit what we are 
trying to achieve in the long term (Libertarian Communism)

Rather than relying on Reddit testimonies and outdated practices 
preached by British Trots, anarchists must formulate coherent answers to 
the lies and misleading propaganda of groups like Socialist Appeal. 
Without reinforcing our ideas in our organisations, we run the risk of 
losing more and more comrades to the forces of the Trotskyist left which 
further distances us from our goal of libertarian communism. By applying 
our historical theory to our present day, we can and must create the 
necessary organisations and bodies to help anarchists carry out the 
social revolution.

Jacob Dawson, 23 December 2023


(1)www.marxist.com/

(2)Mason, Rowena (2021) Labour votes to ban four far-left factions that 
supported Corbyn's leadership

(3)revolutionfestival.co.uk/

(4)socialist.net/programme/

(5) Kramer, A. (2003) Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from 
Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position.

(6) Brinton, Maurice. (1970) The Bolsheviks and Workers Control.

(7) From now on I will use SA and Socialist Appeal interchangeably.

(8)libcom.org/article/kronstadt-izvestia

(9) Schaich, David (2005) Kronstadt 1921: An analysis of Bolshevik 
propaganda, 
libcom.org/article/kronstadt-1921-analysis-bolshevik-propaganda-david-schaich

(10) Kalyonov, Andrey., Gigantion, Byran. (2021) Who Were the Kronstadt 
Rebels? A Russian Anarchist Perspective on the Uprising.

(11) Berkman, Alexander (1922) The Kronstadt Rebellion.

(12)Palij, Maichael. (1976) The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921.

(13) Heath, Nick. "Anarchism, Russia." In The International Encyclopedia 
of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present, edited by Immanuel Ness, 
141-143. Vol. 1. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

(14) The Anarchist Library has many great pieces about the role of the 
Bolsheviks and Anarchists within the Russian Revolution, I would 
recommend reading further into the matter as I cannot offer an extensive 
account of the revolution itself - 
theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/russian-revolution

(15) Woods, Alan (2012) Marxism and Anarchism.

(16) Rocker, Rudolf (1938) Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.

(17) Topple, Steve (2023) The UCU cancelling strikes has thrown up 
questions about the union.

(18) Solidarity Federation, (2012) Fighting for ourselves, Anarcho 
Syndicalism And The Class Struggle, pg 19, chapter 1.

(19) Molyneux, John (2019) In defence of party building, International 
Socialism, Issue 163, isj.org.uk/issue-163/.

(20) Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, Cohn-Bendit Gabriel (1968) Obsolete Communism: 
The Left Wing Alternative. libcom.org/article/france-1968-reading-guide

(21)Lowry, Sam (2008) Worker and student struggles in Italy, 1962-1973. 
libcom.org/article/worker-and-student-struggles-italy-1962-1973-sam-lowry

(22) Dielo Truda (1926) Organisational Platform of the Libertarian 
Communists.

(23) Protokoll des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei 
Deutschlands: Abgehalten zu Erfurt vom 14. bis 20. Oktober 1891[Minutes 
of the Party Congress of the Social Democratic Party of Germany: Held in 
Erfurt from October 14-October 20, 1891]. Berlin, 1891, pp. 3-6; 
www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

(24) Marx, Karl (1880) The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier.

(25) All pictures used in this article can be credited to the 
International Institute of Social History -

search.iisg.amsterdam/

(26)To quickly address his criticism of Bakunin, yes he was very 
anti-Semitic and this needs to be shunned and condemned in every way 
possible.

(27) Baker, Zoe (2019) Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing 
State Power.

(28) Malatesta, Errico (1884) A Dialogue On Anarchy. 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-between-peasants

(29) Berkman, Alexander (1929) What is Communist Anarchism? 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2024/01/12/socialist-appeal-do-not-understand-anarchism/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en