On Anarchist Revolution
June 25, 2003
On April 18th, 2001 an insurrection in Beni-Douala in the Kabylia region of Algeria erupted as a result of the murder of a high school boy by the police. (1) Algeria is a military dictatorship and the police have a long history of brutality. The insurrection soon spread to the rest of Kabylia and later, though it remained centered in Kabylia, to other parts of Algeria. By early may the movement had started to organize itself in what they called aarchs. Aarchs are village and neighborhood assemblies. They are horizontal, directly democratic organizations where everyone has an equal say in decisions. There are no leaders. Different aarchs coordinate their actions through a system of mandated and recallable delegates. Each delegate is bound to a "code of honor," or mandate, which insures that decision making power stays with the aarchs. Delegates are instructed by the aarch that they come from on how to deal with any issue. They are given binding instructions, committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their aarch, within which they have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their aarch can instantly recall them and have their decisions revoked. Decision-making power stays in the aarchs; delegates simply convey and implement those positions. Delegates do not have any authority or special privileges. The movement is thus organized horizontally from the bottom up, with control staying in the aarchs. (2)
The aarchs are one form of what I call popular assemblies. These are gatherings of people who meet to organize in a non-hierarchical manner and challenge the status quo. There are no leaders telling everyone what to do but rather all participants have an equal say in decisions. Decision-making is generally done through some form of consensus or direct democracy. A system of mandated and recallable delegates is used to coordinate actions between different assemblies while keeping decision-making power in the assemblies.
This system of assemblies and mandated delegates has sprung up many times throughout history, not just in Algeria. It is the embryo of anarchy. Anarchism is frequently misrepresented by the media and others as being complete chaos; anarchists are often portrayed as madmen throwing bombs to promote destruction and carnage. These images of anarchy and anarchists are completely false. Anarchists do not believe in chaos or mindless destruction but rather advocate a society in which everyone has control over their own life and an equal say in all decisions that involve them. Anarchy comes from the Greek and literally means "no rulers." Anarchists are opposed to all forms of domination including government, capitalism, patriarchy and white supremacy. An anarchist society would be organized through a system of popular assemblies similar to the aarchs.
We build the structure of the new society within the shell of the old. The initial framework of anarchy is created within the old society during the struggle against hierarchy. There is an organic connection between what is and what should be. Organs of self-management, popular assemblies, are formed under the old society and wage class war against the institutions of the old society (government, capitalism etc.). As the old society is destroyed the same non-hierarchical organizations that fought against it take over the running of society. The means one uses determines the ends you get. We should therefore organize on the same principles in which we would like to see the future society built. The struggle against hierarchy is the school of anarchy. The same process of using non-hierarchical organizations to wage class war brings about a new consciousness as workers become used to organizing in such a way. By the time the revolution is completed most people will already have experience organizing and coordinating their actions on a large scale without hierarchy.
Historically there have been four main types of popular assemblies:
Village Assemblies
Neighborhood Assemblies
Worker Assemblies
University Assemblies
Village assemblies have appeared in societies in which there are still large numbers of peasants; they obviously do not appear in fully industrialized societies where there are no villages. The villagers in a society meet on a regular basis to organize the struggle against the landlords & government and (eventually) their village in a non-hierarchical manner. Usually they expropriate (or attempt to expropriate) the land of the large landlords and put in place some form of non-hierarchical communal production. Village assemblies have appeared in many peasant rebellions including the Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian revolutions. Often these assemblies are based on the communal village assemblies that existed in many peasant societies, but radicalized and fighting against the landlords. Normally these communal assemblies are highly patriarchal & ageist and do not actively organize against the landlords; in times of rebellion they tend to become less hierarchical (losing their sexist & ageist tendencies).
Neighborhood assemblies have appeared in cities. Everyone, or nearly everyone, living in a particular area meets together on a regular basis to organize their struggle against the state & ruling class and (eventually) organize their neighborhood in a non-authoritarian fashion. Some aarchs in Algeria are neighborhood assemblies (in the cities) and others are village assemblies (in the rural areas). During the French revolution the Sans-Coulottes (poor people) formed neighborhood assemblies called sections that organized against the Monarchy and later the Republic.
Worker assemblies or workplace assemblies form based around the workplace. Workers come together to struggle against their bosses and (eventually) take over their workplace. The worker assembly then runs the workplace. Obviously these are only formed in societies where some degree of industrialization has been implemented. Worker assemblies have been created during many working class uprising including the Russian, Spanish and Iranian revolutions.
University assemblies or student assemblies appear only in societies that have a high percentage of their population that goes off to college as students. These are less common then the other three types. A good example of these assemblies comes from the May-June 1968 uprising in France. During the uprising students formed their own popular assemblies that challenged the rule of the capitalists and the state.
These assemblies coordinate their activities through the use of mandated and recallable delegates as described earlier in the case of the aarchs. Thus workers councils coordinate the worker assemblies, neighborhood councils coordinate the neighborhood assemblies, etc. These councils are different from representative institutions in that delegates, unlike representatives, cannot take any position they want after being elected and do not have authority over others. Decision-making power stays with the popular assemblies; delegates simply act as contact people to facilitate coordination between the different assemblies. If at any time a delegate violates his or her mandate (does not do what the popular assembly instructed him/her to do) then s/he is immediately recalled and the delegate's decisions revoked. Councils are thus controlled by the assemblies they coordinate. They are organized from the bottom up, based on decentralized direct democracy.
In addition to these four types of popular assemblies there are also various organizations that are organized along non-hierarchical lines, sometimes with their own assemblies and spokescouncils. These include not only clubs and specific interest associations but also organizations such as syndicalist unions and anarchist confederations designed to move society in a more anarchistic direction. Sometimes non-anarchist political organizations use non-hierarchical forms of organizing not because they advocate anarchy but because they find them effective. These non-hierarchical organizations exist even in extremely authoritarian societies, although they are usually marginalized. In authoritarian societies the major activities of society is done through hierarchical organizations such as the state or corporations. The hierarchical organizations dominate while the non-hierarchical organizations are marginal. In an anarchist society this would be reversed - non-hierarchical organizations such as worker and neighborhood assemblies would dominate while hierarchical organizations would be marginal. Pure anarchy would have no hierarchy of any sort. Non-hierarchical political organizations (either specifically anarchist ones or coalition groups) can distribute propaganda and carry out direct action against the dominant hierarchical institutions. They can thus weaken the system and possibly improve the short-term situation of the oppressed.
Popular assemblies often come about spontaneously as the result of an economic or political crisis; this has happened many times throughout history. Usually this is in the aftermath of some sort of popular uprising; the popular assemblies serve as a means of organizing and continuing the struggle. For example, popular assemblies appeared in Russia shortly after the February revolution, in Argentina after the December 2001 uprising and in Spain after workers defeated a fascist coup. They create a situation of "double power" where non-hierarchical organizations, the popular assemblies, clash with the formerly dominant hierarchical institutions on a large scale. Non-hierarchical organization is no longer marginal but is in direct conflict with the old hierarchical organizations (the state, corporations, etc.). The popular uprising(s) that precede the establishment of a "double power" situation mark the start of the social revolution. The politicians obviously will not just vote themselves out of office nor will the majority of capitalists just step down out of the good of their hearts, hence they must be overthrown in a revolution. Revolution does not have to be violent or bloody, although it is likely that there would be at least a small amount of violence involved. Most violence in revolutions is the result of the state; an anarchist revolution wouldn't be much more violent than maintaining the status quo (which itself is extremely violent). It is possible for anarchist organizations prior to the revolution to act as a catalyst to bring about a situation of "double power" and the organizing done prior to the revolution will certainly affect the outcome of the revolution.
Revolution in the "first world" at present appears extremely unlikely, at least in the short-term. However, there is a considerable amount of resistance to the empire in the "third world." It is not at all unreasonable to talk of revolution in places like Argentina, Bolivia or Algeria. Rebellions in those places have already created self-managed social structures that are basically the embryo of anarchy (such as the aarchs). So far most of those have been defeated, but they are being formed on a much greater scale than in the past. Over the past several years situations of "double power" have emerged, and been beaten back, repeatedly in many "third world" countries. Like the 1905 revolution in Russia, this hopefully represents a prelude to a larger, international revolution that will erupt in a few decades.
The role of revolutionaries in the core of the empire is to sabotage it so that the much greater resistance in the periphery can succeed. By "sabotage" I mean not only literal sabotage but anything which interferes with the ability of imperialism to crush "third world" revolutions. This includes increasing the social costs of their imperialist adventures. If invading other countries results in large amounts of unrest or the radicalization of a significant amount of the population, or otherwise hurts the capitalists' ability to rule, then they are less likely to invade. For example, during the Russian Revolution Britain was unable to launch a full-scale invasion of Russia and had to limit their intervention due to unrest in their own country. The ruling class believed that a full-scale war would result in revolution and so the military intervention was less then it would have been. France sent troops to attack the revolutionary government in Russia, but French soldiers mutinied and refused to invade. Once there has been revolution in the periphery the empire will begin to collapse and then it will be more realistic to talk of revolution in the heart of the empire. Building revolutionary movements in the core is one way of sabotaging imperialism. A revolutionary movement will be much more effective at opposing imperialism than a reformist one.
Revolutionary movements in the "third world" are far stronger than those in the "first world." There are mass rebellions and insurrections on a regular and widespread basis throughout most of the periphery. In some places there have even been popular assemblies formed. Revolutions will almost certainly break out where the revolutionary movements are stronger. The "first world" revolutionary movements will be in a position of having to try to prevent their imperialists from crushing the "third world" movements. True, the U.S. can crush revolutions in other countries but they can also crush revolutions in the United States. It would probably be easier to do so since it's their home territory. Revolutions throughout the "third world" will take away the super-profits gained from neocolonialism and thereby intensify the class struggle in the remaining "first world" countries. The defeat of imperialism will probably create a political crisis and successful revolutions in the periphery will provide a good example to inspire more revolutions.
"Double power" cannot last forever - either the popular assemblies will overthrow the old system and create anarchy or they will be defeated, robbed of all power, and disband. In the modern era every time popular assemblies have been formed they have ultimately been defeated. There has been two main ways this has occurred. Sometimes the old regime will be able to defeat them through a combination of reforms and repression. This happened to the Italian factory occupations, the May-June 1968 rebellion in France, the 1956 Hungarian uprising and others. The other way is for some authoritarian group (republicans, fundamentalists, nationalists, Marxists, etc.) to take advantage of the unrest to propel themselves into power, overthrowing the old elite and establishing themselves as the new elite. The new elite then uses similar tactics as the old elite to destroy the popular assemblies. This happened in the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions. We can learn from these defeats so that in the future things go better.
In situations where the old elite stays in power reformists sometimes play a key role in disbanding the assemblies. Reformists seek to make changes by working within the present system. Some only want to modify the present system while others delude themselves into thinking that they can fundamentally alter the system without a revolution. Reformist organizations are usually hierarchical, especially the larger ones. Usually they are connected to the left wing of the ruling elite. Reformist leaders "capitalize on the misery of the people [they] claim to fight for, hoping to act as powerbroker between 'the masses' and the powers-that-be." (3) They attempt to restrict the rebellions of ordinary people to actions they are in control of. This obviously clashes with the goal of a society based on popular assemblies in which ordinary people have control of their own lives. Reformists attempt to channel activity away from revolution and into making minor modifications to the system and putting the reformists in power. They try to delegate power away from ordinary people and into the hands of a few leaders. Once they have achieved whatever minor modifications to the system they set out to make they attempt to put a lid on all rebellions and tell their followers to go home. They restrict the power of the assemblies and then help disband them. This was the role of the Socialist Party during the Italian Factory occupations and of the Communist Party & CGT during the May-June uprising in France.
To combat both possible paths of defeat anarchists should attempt to strengthen the popular assemblies as much as possible, even if other ideologies are more popular within them. At first it is likely that most participants will believe in some variant of reformist ideology and that anarchists will be in a minority; most participants would see the assemblies as just a way of achieving some short-term goal(s). While defending the assemblies we should also attempt to spread our philosophy within them and radicalize the participants. It is likely that the participation in the assemblies and the process of the revolution will itself aid this process since the assemblies themselves posit a new way of running society. Obviously this process of radicalizing the assemblies will be greatly aided if there are already many anarchists prior to the start of the revolution. We should oppose any attempt to subordinate the assemblies to any political party or organization (including anarchist organizations!) in favor of building the power of the assemblies. Any group attempting to use the assemblies to establish themselves as a new ruling class must be opposed. Anarchists should propagate our ideas as much as possible both before and during the revolution so that there is a mass consciousness which opposes the attempts of reformists to sabotage the revolution and of authoritarians to use it to establish themselves as a new elite. Changes in consciousness and in social structure go hand in hand. In almost every case where these networks of popular assemblies appeared and were defeated most participants were not anarchists and did not see them as the embryo of a future stateless society. Not surprisingly, they did not last. "Without a conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused and finally destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power over the masses." (4)
The assemblies should overthrow the old system and take over the running of society. The state should be abolished by disbanding its police and military forces and dissolving the various branches of government. White supremacy and patriarchy should be destroyed at the same time. In the economic realm this means the formation of workplace assemblies and the direct expropriation of the means of production by the workers. Industry is then placed under self-management; worker assemblies take over. All major decisions are made at workplace assemblies of all workers in that workplace. In the past worker assemblies have elected factory committees to take care of coordination and administrative tasks; the factory committees were to simply implement the policies formulated in the worker assemblies where decision-making power stayed. Historically when this expropriation first takes place they continue to produce for a market. Self-managed workplaces sell their products and purchase raw materials on the market. This system of worker-controlled enterprises competing in a stateless market economy is called mutualism.
There are a number of problems with mutualism. It is often difficult to make major changes in the economy without negatively affecting many workers. The present economy is organized to produce a considerable amount of crap that wouldn’t be needed in a post-capitalist society and industry can be made more efficient if organized differently. Should the revolution result in a a civil war or the end of a war the economy will need to switch to wartime or peacetime production. In addition markets have many negative side effects even in mutualism, such as the creation of rich and poor collectives, which should be avoided. For these reasons these self-managed workplaces should federate together so as to coordinate production across the entire economy. This can be done through the formation of workers councils using mandated, recallable delegates as described earlier. This system allows different collectives to coordinate production without relying on either the market or central planning. It is basically decentralized planning - a self-organizing economy. In the very beginning money would probably be kept. People would be paid on the basis of how much they work, although there would be considerable equalization of wages. This is called anarcho-collectivism. There are a number of problems with the collectivist system (as Kropotkin and others have argued), which is why I think this should be taken a set further to anarcho-communism. Money should be abolished and the economy organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." This can be implemented by the worker assemblies & councils, maintaining the self-organizing nature of the economy while doing away with money. This transition should be done as rapidly as possible.
Participation in all of this should be strictly voluntary. Anyone who does not want to participate in a commune or popular assembly should not be forced to do so. Both physical and economic coercion should be avoided. Someone who does not want to participate in the collectives should be given access to enough of the means production (probably a plot of land) so that they can support themselves but no more then they can use by themselves (without slaves/hired labor). Failure to do so would effectively force them to join the collectives. They could also form other social structures if they wanted so long as it is purely voluntary and they aren't oppressing anyone.
Along with the transition to anarcho-communism industry should be gradually decentralized. The present system of centralized industry is wasteful and inefficient. Local production for use is better because it saves resources and labor on shipping things around the world. There is no reason why clothes should be made in places like El Salvador and then shipped to the US; the only reason this is done under capitalism is because it is easier to set up sweatshops in places like El Salvador. Usually it is better to produce things in the general vicinity of where they are going to be used. There are exceptions since some things are easier to produce in certain areas (some places have good land, others good timber, etc) but this has to be balanced with the problems of shipping things around the globe. A sustainable green economy based on local production for use should be implemented.
At first, after an anarchist revolution in fully industrialized societies there would be a dual structure of confederations of worker assemblies and confederations of neighborhood assemblies. As industry is decentralized these could merge together. If the people living in the same area also works together they don't really need to have separate assemblies. At the same time there should also be a radical reevaluation of technology. The present technologies were all designed not to improve people's lives but to generate profit and support hierarchies. Some technologies are harmful and should be abolished (such as nuclear weapons) while others just need to be modified. Technologies should be altered to be more beneficial for everyone, not just a small elite. Once the old system has been overthrown the evolution of a free society could take any number of paths, all up to the people who live in it.
Endnotes
(1) "Insurrection in Algeria" http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/30/5696349
(2) "Apology for the Algerian Insurrection" http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/algeria.html
(3) "Towards a Maximum Anti-War Movement" http://www.huahuacoyotl.com/
(4) Anarcho, "Anarchy in Iraq?" http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/war/iraq/anarchy.html