|
The Relevance of Anarchism
Sam Dolgoff
Bourgeois Neo–Anarchism
Meaningful discussion about the relevance of anarchist ideas to
modern industrialized societies must first, for the sake of clarity,
outline the difference between today’s “neo–anarchism”
and the classical anarchism of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta and
their successors. With rare exceptions one is struck by the mediocre
and superficial character of the ideas advanced by modern writers
on anarchism. Instead of presenting fresh insights, there is the
repetition of utopistic ideas which the anarchist movement had long
since outgrown and rejected as totally irrelevant to the problems
of our increasingly complex society.
Many of the ideas which the noted anarchist writer Luigi Fabbri
a half century ago labelled “Bourgeois Influences in Anarchism”
are again in circulation.[1] For example, there is Kingsley Widmer’s
article, “Anarchism Revived — Right, Left and All Around.”
Like similar bourgeois movements in the past, Widmer correctly points
out that:
“...Anarchism’s contemporary revival ... mostly comes from
the dissident middle class intellectuals, students and other marginal
groups who base themselves on individualist, utopian and other
non–working class aspects of anarchism...” [2]
Other typical bourgeois anarchist characteristics are:
Escapism – the hope that the establishment will be gradually
undermined if enough people ‘cop–out’ of the system and “live
like anarchists in communes and other lifestyle institutions...”
Nechayevism– romantic glorification of conspiracy, ruthlessness,
and violence in the amoral tradition of Nechayev.
Bohemianism – total irresponsibility; exclusive pre–occupation
with one’s picturesque ‘life–style’; exhibitionism; rejection of
any form of organization or self–discipline.
Anti–Social Individualism – the urge to “idealize
the most anti–social forms of individual forms of individual rebellion.”
(Luigi Fabbri)
“...intolerance of oppression [writes Malatesta], the desire
to be free and develop ones personality to its full limits, is
not enough to make one an anarchist. That aspiration towards unlimited
freedom, if not tempered by a love for mankind and by the desire
that all should enjoy equal freedom, may well create rebels who...soon
become exploiters and tyrants...”[3]
Still other neo–anarchists are obsessed with “action for the
sake of action.” One of the foremost historians of Italian
anarchism, Pier Carlo Masini, notes that for them ‘spontaneity’
is the panacea that will automatically solve all problems. No theoretical
or practical preparation is needed. In the ‘revolution’ that is
‘just around the corner’ the fundamental differences between libertarians
and our mortal enemies, authoritarian groups like the Marxist–Leninists,
will miraculously vanish.
“Paradoxically enough [observes Masini], the really modern
anarchists are those with white hair, those who guided by the
teachiugs of Bakunin and Malates–ta, who in Italy and in Spain
(as well as in Russia) had learned from bitter personal participation
how serious a matter revolution can be...” [4]
It is not our intention to belittle the many fine things the scholars
do say, nor to downgrade the magnificent struggles of our young
rebels against war, racism and the false values of that vast crime
‘The Establishment’— struggles which sparked the revival of the
long dormant radical movement. But they stress the negative aspects
and ignore or misinterpret the constructive principles of anarchism.
Bakunin and the classical anarchists always emphasized the necessity
for constructive thinking and action:
The 1848 revolutionary movement “was rich in instincts
and negative theoretical ideas which gave it full justification
for its fight against privilege, but it lacked completely any positive
and practical ideas which would have been needed to enable it to
erect a new system upon the ruins of the old bourgeois setup... ”
[5]
Lacking such solid foundations, such movements must eventually disintegrate.
Distorting Anarchist Ideas
Some works on anarchism, like George Woodcock’s Anarchism
and the two books by Horowitz and Joll — both titled The Anarchists
— perpetuate the myth that the anarchist are living antiques, visionaries
yearning to return to an idyllic past. According to Woodcock, “...the
historical anarchist movement that sprang from Bakunin and his followers
is dead...” The cardinal principles of classical anarchism: economic
and political decentralization of power, individual and local autonomy,
self–management of industry (‘workers control’) and federalism are
obsolete forms of organization (running counter) to the world–wide
trend toward political and economic centralization.... The real
social revolution of the modern age is in fact the process of
centralization toward which every development of scientific and
technological progress has contributed ... the anarchist movement
failed to present an alternative to the state or the capitalist
economy. [6]
It is hard to understand how scholars even slightly acquainted
with the vast libertarian literature on social reconstruction come
to such absurd conclusions!! A notable exception is the French sociologist–historian
Daniel Guerin whose excellent little book L’anarchisme
has been translated into English with an introduction by Noam Chomsky
(Monthly Review Press, N.Y.). Guerin concentrates on the
constructive aspects of anarchism. While not without its faults
(he underestimates the importance of Kropotkin’s ideas and exaggerates
Stirner’s), it is still the best short introduction to the subject.
Guerin effectively refutes the arguments of recent historians, particularly
Jean Maitron, Woodcock and Joll, concluding that their
...image of anarchism is not true. Constructive anarchism which
found its most accomplished expression in the writings of Bakunin,
relies on organization, on self–discipline, on integration, on
a centralization which is not coercive, but federalist. It relates
to large scale industry, to modern technology, to the modern proletariat,
to genuine internationalism... In the modern world the material,
intellectual and moral interests have created between all parts
of a nation and even different nations, a real and solid unity,
and this unity will survive all states... [7]
To assess the extent to which classical anarchism is applicable to
modern societies it is first necessary to summarize briefly its leading
constructive tenets.
Complex Societies
Necessitate Anarchism It is a fallacy to assume
that anarchists ignore the complexity of social life. On the contrary,
the classical anarchists have always rejected the kind of ‘simplicity’
which camouflages regimentation in favor of the natural complexity
which reflects the many faceted richness and diversity of social
and individual life. The cybernetic mathematician John B. McEwan,
writing on the relevance of anarchism to cybernetics explains:
Libertarian socialists, synonym for non–individualist anarchism,
especially Kropotkin and Landauer, showed an early grasp of the
complex network of changing relationships, involving many structures
of correlated activity and mutual aid, independent of authoritarian
coercion. It was against this background that they developed
their theories of social organization... [8]
One of Proudhon’s greatest contributions to anarchist theory and
socialism in general was the idea that the very complexity of social
life demanded the decentralization and autonomy of communities.
Proudhon maintained that “...through the complexity of interests
and the progress of ideas, society is forced to abjure the state
... beneath the apparatus of government, under the shadow of its
political institutions, society was slowly and silently producing
its organization, making for itself a new order which expressed
its vitality and autonomy...” [9]
Like his predecessors, Proudhon and Bakunin, Kropotkin elaborated
the idea that the very complexity of social life demanded the decentralization
and self–management of industry by the workers. From his studies
of economic life in England and Scotland he concluded that:
...production and exchange represented an undertaking so complicated
that no governemnt (without establishing a cumbersome, inefficient
bureaucratic dictatorship) would be able to organize production
if the workers themselves, through their unions, did not do it
in each branch of industry; for, in all production there arises
daily thousands of difficulties that ... no government can hope
to foresee.... Only the efforts of thousands of intelligences
working on problems can cooperate in the development of the new
social system and find solutions for the thousands of local needs....
[10]
Decentralization and autonomy does not mean the break up of society
into small, isolated, economically self–sufficient groups, which is
neither possible nor desirable. The Spanish anarchist, Diego Abad
de Santillan, Ministry of the Economy in Catalonia in the early period
of the Spanish Civil War (December 1936), reminded some of his comrades:<
...Once and for all we must realize that we are no longer ...
in a little utopian world..., we cannot realize our economic
revolution in a local sense; for economy on a localist basis can
only cause collective privation..., economy is today a vast organism
and all isolation must prove detrimental... We must work with
a social criterion, considering the interests of the whole country
and if possible the whole world...[11]
A balance must be achieved between the suffocating tyranny of unbridled
authority and the kind of ‘autonomy’ that leads to petty local patriotism,
separation of little grouplets, and the fragmentation of society.
Libertarian organization must reflect the complexity of social
relationships and promote solidarity on the widest possible scale.
It can be defined as federalism: coordination through free agreement—locally,
regionally, nationally and internationally. A vast coordinated network
of voluntary alliances embracing the totality of social life, in
which all the groups and associations reap the benefits of unity
while still exercising.autonomy within their own spheres and expanding
the range of their freedom. Anarchist organizational principles
are not separate entities. Autonomy is impossible without decentralization,
and decentralization is impossible without federalism.
The increasing complexity of society is making anarchism more
and not less relevant to modern life. It is precisely this
conplexity and diversity, above all their overriding concern for
freedom and human values that led the anarchist thinkers to base
their ideas on the principles of diffusion of Dower, self–management
and federalism. The greatest attribute of the free society is that
it is self–regulating and “bears within itself the seeds of
its own regeneration.”(Buber) The self–governing associations
will be flexible enough to adjust their differences, correct and
learn from their mistakes, experiment with new, creative forms of
social living and thereby achieve genuine harmony on a higher humanistic
plane. Errors and conflicts confined to the limited jurisdiction
of special purpose groups, may do limited damage. But miscalculations
and criminal decisions made by the state and other autocratically
centralized organizations affecting whole nations, and even the
whole world, can have the most disasterous consequences.
Society without order (as the word “society” implies)
is inconceivable. But the organization of order is not the exclusive
monopoly of the State. For, if the State authority is the sole guarantee
of order, who will watch the watchman? Federalism is also a form
of order, which preceeded the establishment of the State.
But it is order which guarantees the freedom and independence of
the individuals and associations who freely and spontaneously constitute
the federations. Federalism is not like the State, born of the will
to power, but is recognition of the ineluctable interdependence
of mankind. Federalism springs from the will to harmony and solidarity
Modern Industry Better Organized
Anarchistically
Bourgeois economists, sociologists and administrators like Peter
Drucker, Gunnar Myrdal, John Kenneth Galbraith, Daniel Bell, etc.,
now favor a large measure of decentralization not because they suddenly
became anarchists, but primarily because technology has rendered
anarchistic forms of organization “operational necessities”.
But the bourgeois reformers have yet to learn that as long as these
organizational forms are tied to the state or capitalism, which
connotes the monopoly of political and economic power, decentralization
will remain a fraud — a more efficient device to enlist the cooperation
of the masses in their own enslavement. To illustrate how their
ideas inadvertently demonstrate the practicality of anarchist organization
and how they contradict themselves, we cite the “free enterpriser”
Drucker and the “welfare statist” Myrdal. In the chapter
titled “The Sickness of Government”, Drucker writes:
...Disenchantment with government cuts across national boundaries
and ideological lines... government itself has become one of
the vested interests... the moment government undertakes anything
it becomes entrenched and permanent ... the unproductive becomes
built into the political process itself... social theory to be
meaningful at all, must start with the reality of pluralism of
institutions, a galazy of suns rather than one big center surrounded
by moons that shine only by reflected light...a society of institutional
diversity and diffusion of power... in a pluralist society of
organizations (each unit would be)limited to the specific service
it renders to the members of society which it meant to perform
— yet, since every institution has power in its own sphere,
it would be as such, affected with the public interest... such
a view of organizations as being autonomous and limited are necessary
both to make the organization perform and to safeguard the individual’s
freedom.... [12]
After demonstrating the ‘monstrosity of government, its lack of
performance and its impotence,’ Drucker flatly contradicts himself
and comes to the surprising conclusion that “never has strong,
effective government been needed more than in this dangerous world...
never more than in this pluralist society of organizations.”
Myrdal convincingly domonstrates that both the Soviet and the “free
world states” need decentralization for administrative efficiency
in order that (political and economic life) shall not succumb to
the rigidity of the central apparatus. But then he expects the paternalistic
welfare state to loosen “its controls over everyday life”
and gradually transfer most of its powers to “all sorts of
organizations and communities controlled by the people themselves...”
No anarchist could refute Myrdal’s argument better than he does
himself:
... to give up autocratic patterns, to give up administrative
controls and ... withdraw willingly from intervening when it is
no longer necessary, are steps which do not correspond to the
inner workings of a functioning bureaucracy... [13]
If these advocates of decentralization and autonomy were consistent,
they would realize that the diffusion of power leads to anarchism.
“Forming the New Society Within the Shell of the Old”
(preamble of the I.W.W.)
The anarchist have always opposed the Jacobins, Blanquists, Bolsheviks
and other would–be dictators, who would in Proudhon’s words, “...reconstruct
society upon an imaginary plan, much like the astronomers who for
respect for their calculations would make over the system of the
universe...” [14]
The anarchist theoreticians limited themselves to suggest the utilization
of all the useful organisms in the old society in order to reconstruct
the new. They envisioned the generalization of practices and tendencies
which are already in effect. The very fact that autonomy, decentralization
and federalism are more practical alternatives to centralism and
statism already presupposes that these vast organizational networks
now performing the functions of society are prepared to replace
the old bankrupt hyper–centralized administrations. That the “elements
of the new society are already developing in the collapsing bourgeois
society” (Marx) is a fundamental principle shared by all tendencies
in the socialist movement.
Society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labor and
all the deeply rooted institutions now functioning, will in some
form continue to function for the simple reason that the very existence
of mankind depends upon this inner cohesion. This has never been
questioned by anyone. What is needed is emancipation from authoritarian
institutions over society and authoritarianism within the organizations
themselves. Above all, they must be infused with revolutionary spirit
and confidence in the creative capacities of the people. Kropotkin
in working out the sociology of anarchism, has opened an avenue
of fruitful research which has been largely neglected by social
scientists busily engaged in mapping out new areas for state control.
Kropotkin based himself on the essential principle of Anarchist–Communism
— abolition of the wage system and distribution of goods and services
on the principle “From each according to his ability and to
each according to his needs.” He envisaged the structure of
an Anarchist–Communist society as follows:
The Anarchist writers consider that their conceptions (of Anarchist–Communism)
is not a utopia. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis
of tendencies that are at work already, even though State
Socialism may find temporary favor with the reformers... the anarchists
build their previsions of the future upon those data which are
supplied by the observations of life at the present time...the
idea of independent communes for the territorial organization,
and of federations of trade unions for the organization of [people]
in accordance with their differenct functions, gave a concrete
conception of a society regenerated by a Social revolution. There
remained only to add to these two modes of organization a third,
which we saw rapidly developing during the last fifty years...
the thousands upon thousands of free combines and societies growing
up everywhere for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable
needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection,
for the propaganda of ideas, for art, for amusement, and so on...
an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups
and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national
and international... (which) substitute themselves for the State
and in all its functions... all of them covering each
other, and all of them always ready to meet the new needs by new
organizations and adjustments. [15]
Kropotkin’s federalism aspires to the “...complete independence
of the Communes, the Federation of Free Communes and the Social
Revolution in the communes, that is, the
form of associated productive groups
in the place of the state organization....”
(Martin Buber, Pathways in Utopia) The miniature municipal
states, fashioned after the national States in which elected officials
of political parties—lawyers, professionals, and politicians but
not the workers, control social life will
also be eliminated. For a Social Revolution that does not reach
local and even neighborhood levels leads inevitably to the triumph
of the counter–revolution.
For Kropotkin, the “‘Commune’ is no longer a territorial agglomeration;
but ... a synonym for the grouping of equals, knowing no borders,
no walls. The social Commune... will cease to be clearly defined.
Each group of the Commune will necessarily be attracted to similar
groups of other Communes; they will group together, federate with
each other, by bonds at least as solid as those tying them to their
fellow townsmen; (they will) constitute a Commune of interests,
of which members will be disseminated through a thousand cities
and villages.
Each individual will find satisfaction of his needs only in grouping
together with other individuals having the same tastes and living
in a hundred other Communes.”[16]
The following excerpt from El Communism Libertario gives
some of Dr. Isaac Puente’s ideas on the political and economic organization
of society. Puente, a medical doctor, was an important anarchist
thinker and an activist who was imprisoned and then murdered by
the fascists while fighting on the Saragossa front in the Spanish
Civil War, 1936–1939.
Libertarian Communism is the organization of society without
the State and without capitalist property relations. To establish
Libertarian Communism it will be necessary to invent artificial
forms of organization. The new society will emerge from the ‘shell
of the old’. The elements of the future society are already planted
in the existing order. They are the syndicate (union) and the
Free Commune (sometimes called the ‘free municipality’) which
are old, deeply rooted, non–Statist popular institutions spontaneously
organized and embracing all towns and villages in urban and in
rural areas. The Free Commune is ideally suited to cope successfully
with the problems of social and economic life in libertarian
communities. Within the Free Commune there is also room for cooperative
groups and other associations, as well as individuals to meet
Lheir own needs. (Providing, of course, that they do not employ
hired labor for wages.) ... The terms ‘Libertarian’ and
‘Communism’ denote the fusion of two inseparable concepts, the
indispensable pre–requisites for the Free Society: collective
and individual liberty.
Workers Control
The anarchist’s insistence on workers’ control—the idea of self–management
of industry by workers’ associations “in accordance with their
different functions”, rests on very solid foundations. This
tendency traces back to Robert Owen, the first International Workingmens’
Association, the Guild Socialist movement in England and the pre–World
War I syndicalist movements.
With the Russian Revolution, the trend towards workers’ control
in the form of free soviets (councils) which arose spontaneously,
was finally snuffed out with the Kronstadt massacre of 1921. The
same tragic fate awaited the workers’ councils in the Hungarian,
Polish and East German risings around 1956. Among the many other
attempts that were made, there is of course the classic example
of the Spanish Revolution of 1936, with the monumental constructive
achievements in the libertarian rural collectives and workers’ control
of urban industry. The prediction of the News Bulletin of the reformist
International Union of Food and Allied Workers Association (July
1964) that “... the demand for workers’ control may well become
the common ground for advanced sectors in the labor movement both
‘east’ and ‘west’...” is now a fact.
Although the purged Bolshevik ‘left oppositionist’, Victor Serge,
refers to the economic crisis that gripped Russia during the early
years of the revolution, his remarks are, in general, still pertinent
and incidentally illustrate Kropotkin’s theme:
...certain industries could have been revived [and] an enormous
degree of recovery achieved by appealing to the initiative of
groups of producers and consumers, freeing the state strangled
cooperatives and inviting the various associations to take over
management of different branches of economic activity... I was
arguing for a Communism of Associations—in contrast to Communism
of the State—the total plan not dictated on high by the State,
but resulting from the harmonizing by congresses and special
assemblies from below.[17]
Augustin Souchy, veteran Anarcho–Syndicalist activist, theoretician,
one time Secretary of the anarcho–syndicalist International Workingmens’
Association and actively involved with the Spanish National Confederation
of Labor, wrote that
...during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) the Spanish workers
and peasants were establishing what could by loosely called ‘Libertarian
Syndicalist Socialism’: a system without exploitation and injustice.
In this type of libertarian collectivist economy, wage slavery
is replaced by the equitable and just sharing of labor. Private
or State Capitalism (or State “Socialism”) is replaced
by the workers’ factory council, the union, the industrial association
of unions up to the national federation of industrial unions.
[18]
It is essentially a system of workers’ self–management
at all levels.
“After the Revolution”
The anarchist thinkers were not so naive as to expect
the installation of the perfect society composed perfect individuals
who would miraculously shed all their ingrained prejudices and old
habits on the day after the revolution. They were primarily concerned
with the immediate problems of social reconstruction that will have
to be faced in any country — industrialized or not.
They are issues which no serious revolutionary has the right to
ignore. It was for this reason that the anarchists tried to work
out measures to meet the pressing problems most likely to emerge
during what Malatesta called “the period of reorganization
and transition.” We summarize Malatesta’s discussion of some
of the more important questions. [19]
Crucial problems cannot be avoided by postponing them to the distant
future—perhaps a century or more—when anarchism will have been
fully realized and the masses will have finally become convinced
and dedicated anarchist–communists. We anarchists must have our
own solutions if we are not to be relegated to the role of useless
and impotent grumblers, while the more realistic and unscrupulous
authoritarians seize power. Anarchy or no anarchy, the people must
eat and be provided with life. The cities must be provisioned and
vital services cannot be disrupted. Even if poorly served, the people
in their own interests would not allow us or anyone else to disrupt
these services unless reorganized in a better way; and this cannot
be achieved in a day.
The organization of the anarchist–communist society on a large scale
can only be achieved gradually as material conditions permit, and
as the masses convince themselves of the benefits to be gained and
as they gradually become psychologically accustomed to radical alterations
in their way of life. Since free and voluntary communism (Malatesta’s
synonym for anarchism) cannot be imposed, Malatesta stressed the
necessity for the coexistence of various economic forms, collectivist,
mutualist, individualist—on the condition that there will be no
exploitation of others. Malatesta was confident that the convincing
example of successful libertarian collectives will
attract others into the orbit of the collectivity...
for my part I do not believe that there is ‘one’ solution to the
social problem, but a thousand different and changing solutions,
in the same way as social existence is different in time and space...
[20]
“Pure” Anarchism
is a Fiction
Aside from the ‘individualists’ (a very ambiguous
term) none of the anarchist thinkers were “pure” anarchists.
The typical “pure” anarchist grouping, explains George
Woodcock, “is the loose and flexible affinity group” which
needs no formal organization and carries on anarchist propaganda
through an “invisible network of personal contacts and intellectual
influences.” Woodcock argues that “pure” anarchism
is incompatable with mass movements like anarcho–syndicalism because
they need
stable organizations precisely because it moves
in a world that is only partly governed by anarchist ideals ...and
make compromises with day–to–day situations... [It] has to maintain
the allegiance of masses of [workers] who are only remotely conscious
of the final aim of anarchism. [21]
If these statements are true, then “pure”
anarchism is a pipe dream. First, because there will never be a
time when everybody will be a “pure” anarchist, and humanity
will forever have to make “compromises with the day–to–day
situation.” Second, because the intricate economic and social
operations of an interdependent world cannot be carried on without
these ‘stable organizations,’ even if every inhabitant were a convinced
anarchist, “pure” anarchism would still be impossible
for technical and functional reasons alone. This is not to say that
anarchism excludes affinity groups. Anarchism envisions a flexible,
pluralist society where all the needs of mankind would be supplied
by an infinite variety of voluntary associations. The world is honeycombed
with affinity groups from chess clubs to anarchist propaganda groups.
They are formed, dissolved and reconstituted according to the fluctuating
whims and fancies of the individual adherents. It is precisely because
they reflect individual preferences that such groups are
the lifeblood of the free society.
But the anarchists have also insisted that since the necessities
of life and vital services must be supplied without fail and cannot
be left to the whims of individuals, they are social obligations
which every able bodied individual is honor–bound to fulfill, if
he expects to enjoy the benefits of collective labor. The large
scale organizations, anarchistically organized, are not
a deviation. They are the
very essence of anarchism as a viable social order.
There is no “pure” anarchism. There is only
the application of anarchist principles to the realisties of social
living. The aim of anarchism to stimulate forces that propel society
in a libertarian direction. It is only from this standpoint that
the relevance of anarchims to modern life can be properly assessed.
Automation Could Expedite
Anarchism
We consider that the constructive ideas of anarchism
are rendered even more timely by the cybernetic revolution still
in its early stages, and will become increasingly more relevant
as this revolution unfolds. There are, even now, no insurmountable
technical–scientific barriers to the introduction of anarchism.
The greatest material drawback to the realization of
the ideal of “To each according to his needs from each according
to his ability” has been the scarcity of goods and services.
“...Cybernation, a system of almost unlimited productive capacity
which requires progressively less human labor ... would make possible
the abolition of poverty at home and abroad. ..”[22] In a consumer
economy where purchasing power is not tied to production, the wage
system becomes obsolete and the preconditions for the realization
of the socialist ideal immeasurably enhanced.
When Kropotkin in 1899 wrote his Fields, Factories and Workshops,
to demonstrate the feasability of decentralizing industry to achieve
a greater balance between rural and urban living, his ideas were
dismissed as premature. It is now no longer disputed that the problem
of scaling down industry to manageable human proportions, rendered
even more acute by the pollution threatening the very existence
of life on this planet, can now be largely solved by modern technology.
There is an enormous amount of literature on this topic. (Murray
Bookchin has done an enormous amount of research on this subject—see
his Post–Scarcity Anarchism (Ramparts Press, 1971) The
following are a few examples:
MarshallMcluhan writes: electricity does not
centralize but decentralize...electric power, equally available
in the farmhouse and the executive suite, permits any place to be
a center, and does not requre large aggregations...airplane
and radio permit the utmost continuity and diversity in spatial
organization... (p. 47–48)... by electricity, we everywhere resume
person–to–person relations on the smallest village scale...it
is a relation in depth, and without delegation of functions and
powers... (p. 225) ... in the whole field
of the electric revolution this pattern of decentralization appears
in multiple guises ... (Understanding Media,
emphasis added)
Franz Schurman in The New American Revolution, 1971, advocates
an “anarcho–syndicalist solution based on decentralized
associations ...”
Christopher Lasch, discussing R.A. Dahl’s Authority in the
Good Society (New York Review of Books, Oct. 21, 1971) writes,
Self–management will transform corporate employees from corporate
subjects to citizens of the enterprise... self–management
will not be introduced from above but from below...He(Dahl)...denies
that workers will not be able to run industry in
the interest of society
The reviewers of John M. Blair’s critique of economic centralization
(New York Times Book Review, Sept. 10, 1972) find that Blair’s researches
are most impressive in debunking the myth that large scale, centralized
enterprises are more efficient...the largest railroad in America,
Penn Central, couldn’t keep track of its boxcars... The most successful
of all industrial behemoths, General Motors, long ago decentralized
its operations; only the profits are concentrated.
Blair’s point is re–enforced by a well–known English economist,
E.F. Schumacher in Small is Beautiful, “The achievement of
Sloan of General Motors was to structure the gigantic firm in such
a manner that it became, in fact, a federation of reasonably
sized firms...”
John Kenneth Galbraith in the New Industrial State wrote, “In
giant industrial corporations autonomy is necessary
for both small decisions and...large questions of policy...the
comparative advantages of atomic and molecular for the generation
of electricity are decided by a variety of scientists, technical,
economic, and planning judgements. only a committtee,
or more prcisely, a complex of committees can combine the knowledge
and experience that must be brought to bear...(p.111).
The effect of the denial of autonomy and the inability
of the technostructure (corporate centralized industry)
to accomodate itself to changing tasks has been visibly
deficient operations... the larger and more complex organization
are, the more they must be decentralized...”
(emphasis in all above quotes has been added)
One of the major obstacles to the establishment of the free society
is the cumbersome, all pervasive, corporate–statist apparatus manned
by an entrenched bureaucratic elite class of administrators, managers
and officials who at all levels exercise de facto control over
the operations of society. This has up till now been regarded as
an unavoidable evil, but thanks to the development of computerized
technology, this byzantine apparatus can now be dismantled.
Alan Toffler (Future Shock,1970, p. 141) summing up the evidence,
concludes that “far from fastening the grip of bureaucracy
on civilization more than before, automation leads to its overthrow...”
Another source, quoting Business Week, emphasizes that
...automation not only makes economic planning necessary—it
also makes it possible. The calculations required for planning
on nationwide scale are complicated and difficult, but they can
be performed by the new electronic computers in an amazingly short
time...
The libertarian principle of workers’ control will not be invalidated
by changes in the composition of the work force or in the nature
of work itself. With or without automation, the economic structure
of the new society must be based on self–administration by the people
directly involved in economic functions. Under automation millions
of highly trained technicians, engineers, scientists, educators,
etc, who are already organized into local, regional, national, and
international al federations will freely circulate information,
constantly improving both the quality and availability of goods
and services and developing new products for new needs.
By closely intermeshing already existing networks of associations
with the producer the consumers will make their wants known and
be supplied by the producers. The innumerable variety of super–markets,
chain stores and service centers of every description now blanketing
the country, though owned by corporations or privately, are so structured
that they could be easily socialized and converted into cooperative
networks. In general, the same holds true for production, exchange,
and other branches of the economy. The integration of these economic
organisms will undoubtedly be greatly facilitated because the same
people are both producers and consumers.
The progress of the new society will depend greatly upon the extent
to which its self–governing units will be able to speed up direct
communication — to understand each other’s problems and better
coordinate activities. Thanks to modern communications technology,
all the essential facilities are now available: tape libraries,
“computer laundromats”, closed television and telephone
circuits, communication satelites and a plethora of other devices
are making instant, direct communication on a world scale accessable
to all (visual and radio contact between earth and moon within seconds!).“Face–to–face
democracy”—a cornerstone of a free society, is already foreshadowed
by the increasing mobility of peoples.
There is an exaggerated fear that a minority of scientific and technical
workers would, in a free society, set up a dictatorship over the
rest of society. They certainly do not now wield the power generally
attributed to them. In spite of their ‘higher’ status, they are
no less immune to the fluctuations of the economic system than
are the ‘ordinary’ workers (nearly 100,000 are jobless). Like lower
paid workers, they too, must on pain of dismissal obey the orders
of their employers.
Tens of thousands of frustrated first–rate technical and scientific
employees, not permitted to exercise their knowledge creatively,
find themselves trapped in monotonous, useless and anti–social tasks.
And nothing is more maddening than to stand helplessly by, while
ignoramuses who do not even understand the language of science,
dictate the direction of research and development. Nor are these
workers free to exercise these rights in Russia or anywhere else.
In addition to these general considerations, there are two other
preventative checks to dictatorship of the techno–scientific elite.
The first is that the wider diffusion of scientific and technical
training, providing millions of new specialists, would break up
any possible monopoly by a minority and eliminate the threat of
dictatorship. “The number of scientists and technologists in
this country has doubled in little more than ten years and now forms
twenty percent of the labor force—this growth is much faster than
that of the population...” (New York Times, December 29, 1970)
The second check to dictatorship is not to invest specialists or
any other group with political power to rule over others. While
we must ceaselessly guard against the abuse of power, we must never
forget that in the joint effort to build a better world, we must
also learn to trust each other. If we do not, then this better world
will forever remain a utopia.
The True Relevance of Anarchism
I have tried to show that anarchism is not a panacea that will
miraculously cure all the ills of the body social, but rather, a
20th century guide to action based on a realistic conception of
social reconstruction. The well–nigh insuperable material obstacles
to the introduction of anarchism—scarcity of goods and services
and excessive industrial–managerial centralization—have or can
be removed by the cybernetic–technical revolution. Yet, the movement
for emancipation is threatened by the far more formidable political,
social and brain–washing techniques of “The Establishment”.
In their polemics with the Marxists, the anarchists insisted that
the political state subjects the economy to its own ends. A highly
sophisticated economic system, once viewed as the prerequisite for
the realization of socialism, now serves to reinforce the domination
of the ruling classes with the technology of physical and mental
repression and the ensuing obliteration of human values. The very
abundance which can liberate man from want and drudgery, now enables
the state to establish what is, in effect, a nationalized poorhouse,
where the millions of technologically unemployed—forgotten, faceless
outcasts on public “welfare,” will be given only enough
to keep them quiet. The very technology that has opened new roads
to freedom, has also armed states with unimaginably frightful weapons
for the annihilation of humanity.
While the anarchists never underestimated the great importance of
the economic factor in social change, they have nevertheless rejected
fanatical economic fatalism. One of the most cogent contributions
of anarchism to social theory is the proper emphasis on how political
institutions, in turn, mold economic life. Equally significant is
the importance attached to the will of man, his aspirations, the
moral factor, and above all, the spirit of revolt in the shaping
of human history. In this area too, anarchism is particularly relevant
to the renewal of society. To indicate the importance attached to
this factor, we quote a passage from a letter that Bakunin wrote
to his friend Elisee Reclus:
...the hour of revolution is passed, not because of the frightful
disaster [the Franco–Prussian War and the slaughter of the Paris
Commune, May 1871] but because, to my great despair, I have found
it a fact, and I am finding it every day anew, that revolutionary
hope, passion, are absolutely lacking in the masses; and when these
are absent, it is vain to make desperate efforts...
The availability of more and more consumer goods plus the sophisticated
techniques of mass indoctrination has corrupted the public mind.
Bourgeoisification has sapped the revolutionary vitality of the
masses. It is precisely this divorce from the inspring values of
socialism, which to a large extent, accounts for the vanality and
corruption in modern labour and socialist movements.
To forge a revolutionary movement, which, inspired by anarchist
ideas, would be capable of reversing this reactionary trend, is
a task of staggering proportions. But therein lies the true relevance
of anarchism.
References
1 – Influences Bougueses en el Anarquismo, Soidaridad
Obrera, Paris, 1959.^
2 – The Nation, November 16, 1970.^
3 – Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas, Freedom Press,
London, 1965^
4 – Quoted in a letter to a friend^
5 – Federalism–Socialism–Anti–Theologism^
6 – Anarchism, World Publishing, Cleveland, 1962,
p.469, 473.^
7 – L’anarchisme, Gallimard, Paris, 1965, p.180, 181.^
8 – Anarchy, #25, March 1963, London.^
9 – General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, Freedom
Press, London, 1923, p.89.^
10 – Revolutionary Pamphlets, Vanguard Press, New York,
1927, p. 76, 77.^
11 – After the Revoluton, Greeberg Publiser, New York,
1937, p.85, 100.^
12 – The Age of Dicontinuity, Harper and Row, New York,
1968, p. 212, 217, 222, 226, 251, 252.^
13 – Beyond the Welfare State, Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1968, p.102, 97, 108.^
14 – Op. cit. #9, p.90.^
15 – Revolutionary Pamphlets, Dover Publication, 1970
edition, pp.166–7, 168, 284, 285.^
16 – Words of a Rebel, quoted by P. Berman in Quotations from
the Anarchists, New York, 1972, p.171.^
17 – Memoirs of a Revolutionary, Oxford University Press,
London, 1967, pp.147–8.^
18 – Nacht Uber Spanien, Verlag die Freie Gesellschaft,
Dermstadt–land, 1954?, p.164.^
19 – Op. cit. #3, p.100.^
20 – Ibid. p.99, 151.^
21 – Anarchism, p.273.^
22 – Manifesto...Committee for the Triple Revolution,
quoted in Liberation magazine, N.Y., April 1964.^
Subject Headings
|