The bankruptcy of ultraleftism

This is a very obscure pamphlet which I review mostly to show that I´m Number One when it comes to obscure pamphlets. Trust me, not even Amazon sells this one! 

“The Bankruptcy of Syndicalism and Anarchism” was published in 1979 by Workers for Proletarian Autonomy and Social Revolution. It was distributed in the UK years later by a mysterious outfit codenamed BM Blob. The pamphlet is very “in house”, even for yours truly, and deals with internal conflicts within the CNT, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist labor union resurrected after the death of Franco and the reintroduction of democracy in Spain. The CNT split soon after its resurrection (the defectors later adopted the name CGT). 

The authors, an otherwise unknown group of anarchists or Left Communists, oppose both factions. They describe the CNT as a chaotic mayhem of petty bureaucrats, careerists and competing cliques. The intramural CNT polemics seems to have been very acerbic. Factional opponents were accused of being “former” fascists, Trotskyites or “former priests” (sic) as a matter of course. Well, one CNT leader in Catalonia apparently *was* a priest! Little of substance is said about the CNT-CGT split, which concerned whether or not the anarcho-syndicalists should stand in the so-called union elections. CGT was for, the more orthodox anarchist CNT was against (and hence couldn´t really function as a union in the first place). 

The ultraleftists who published this pamphlet might be excused for thinking that Spain would soon see another revolution – I assume the political situation in the years immediately after Franco´s death was still unstable (think ETA and the attempted coup in 1981). Today, ultraleftism is even more bankrupt than syndicalism and I wouldn´t be surprised if these merchants of the ra-ra-revolutionary word are themselves standing in union elections. Or, more likely, work at some college…

In defense of the National Defense Council

Really existing anarchist Cipriano Mera 

This is an interesting article on the Spanish Civil War, published by British anarchist Stuart Christie's publishing venture ChristieBooks. Stuart Christie is mostly known for his failed attempt to assassinate Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in 1964. At the time, Christie was only 18 years old! Later, he worked with Albert Meltzer, another well known British anarchist. But enough about Christie. What about the article itself?

“The Final Weeks of the Spanish Republic” is written by Ignacio Iglesias (Andres Suarez), who was a member of the POUM during the Spanish Civil War. The POUM was a Marxist and anti-Stalinist party. The Communist Party of Spain (the Stalinists) regarded POUM as adversaries, accused the party of being “Nazis” and murdered many of its militants. Exiled in France, Iglesias broke with the POUM in 1953 and apparently became a pro-American “Cold War liberal”. However, he seems to have kept a nostalgic attachment to his old party.

Iglesias' article deals with the “civil war within the civil war” in 1939, when the Republican side split as Franco's troops were advancing on Madrid. The non-Communist components of the Popular Front, including General Miaja and Colonel Casado, overthrew pro-Communist Prime Minister Juan Negrín and his cabinet. The non-Communists set up the National Defense Council and initiated peace negotiations with Franco. In response, Communist troops left the front line and descended on Madrid, trying to overthrow the Council by force. The Communists were defeated after heavy fighting by troops under the command of Cipriano Mera, a well known militant of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and the anarchist FAI. Since the National Defense Council eventually surrendered to Franco, the Communists have depicted Miaja, Casado and Mera as traitors, while claiming that the Communist Party and its ally Negrín wanted to continue the anti-fascist resistance.

Iglesias argues at length that Negrín and the Stalinists (including the Soviet advisors) had already decided to leave Spain, and that all talk about “resistance” from their side was a sham. Less persuasively, he also claims that the non-Communist coup was deliberately provoked by Negrín and the Communist Party, so that the non-Communists would be forced to surrender to Franco and thereby discredit themselves, while the Communists and their allies would mutter a few words in protest and then abscond unscathed. Iglesias can't explain why, if this was the case, the Communist troops around Madrid attacked the National Defense Council in a serious attempt to restore Negrín's authority.

Iglesias argues that further resistance to Franco was futile in any case, and that a massive evacuation of Republican civilians to France was the only option left in 1939. He claims that the Stalinist and pro-Stalinist leaders saved their own necks, and those of their most important cadres, while leaving the civilian population and many soldiers to fend for themselves. The author also claims that the National Defense Council was more serious about organizing an evacuation, but that the Communist attack on Madrid made this impossible. Finally, Ignacio Iglesias points a finger at Stalin, arguing that Soviet arms shipments to the embattled Republic had come to a halt already in late 1938. Communist claims that large quantities of Soviet military aid had reached France and awaited shipment to Spain is sheer propaganda. Besides, what would have happened to the rump Spanish Republic if it had survived, only to be confronted with the Hitler-Stalin pact? Iglesias believes that the Soviets would have sacrificed Spain to Hitler's ally Franco…

Thus, the author's thesis is that the Communist Party of Spain and its allies share a large portion of responsibility for the defeat of the Republic and its Popular Front government. The point of “The Final Weeks of the Spanish Republic” is to counter the Stalinist narrative, in which the Communist Party of Spain and its fellow travelers are the only consistent anti-fascists, whereas other leftist forces are traitors or worse. This presumably also explains why ChristiePress has translated and published this little work. I suppose they want to defend the reputation of fellow anarchist Cipriano Mera.

“The Final Weeks of the Spanish Republic” isn't suited for the general reader. You probably won't understand the pamphlet, unless you know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and the political mythology and counter-mythology that has grown up around it, especially on the left. How much did you understand of my review? Let that guide you when you decide whether or not Ignacio Iglesias is worth your time!

Anarchism for teenagers

At least in Sweden, Daniel Guérin's book "Anarchism: From Theory to Practice" is *the* book everyone interested in anarchism reads. I know from personal experience than all teenagers who consider themselves anarchists read it, or at least used to read it when I was in high school. I also read it and found it interesting and well-written. I think it was the first political book I ever read!

Guérin was a French left-wing intellectual, and wrote several books that are relatively well-known in leftist circles, including "Fascism and Big Business" and "Negroes on the march". He belonged to the PSOP, a rather small socialist party in France, roughly similar to the Spanish POUM and the British ILP. Later, he became an anarchist of the "platformist" current, which emphasizes class struggle rather than alternative lifestyles, and calls for a centralized revolutionary organization, something many other anarchists consider anathema. (The founders of platformism were Peter Arshinov, Nestor Makhno and Ida Mett. See my review of Arshinov's book on the Makhnovists for a background.)

"Anarchism: From Theory to Practice" was first published in 1965. However, the anarchist political myths are still the same, and the book can therefore still be read by students of intellectual history (or budding anarchists, perhaps). Guérin describes the main anarchist thinkers of the 19th century: Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner and Krapotkin. He attempts a kind of synthesis of their rather disparate ideas. Other anarchists mentioned include Malatesta and the perhaps lesser known Diego Abad de Santillan. The section on the history of anarchism concentrates on those anarchists that were active in the labour movement and called for class struggle, rather than on hippies, religious communes or terrorists. All the usual anarchist stories are included: the French CGT, the Spanish CNT and the Spanish revolution, Makhno, Kronstadt... There is also a chapter criticizing "workers self-management" in Algeria and Yugoslavia. Today, this part of the book looks curious, but back in 1965, many left-wingers probably saw these nations as some kind of libertarian alternatives to Soviet Communism. In Sweden, the more moderate wing of anarcho-syndicalism was certainly positive towards Tito's Yugoslavia.

While Guérin isn't entirely uncritical of the anarchist tradition, "Anarchism" is nevertheless a work of propaganda, and should be read with that in mind. I find it interesting for the reason I mentioned earlier: many people got their first positive exposure to anarchism from this book.

PS. Perhaps I must point out, that I'm not an anarchist...

A weak response to primitivism

Brian Oliver Sheppard's book "Anarchim vs. primitivism" is an attack on anarcho-primitivism or neo-primitivism, written from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective. The primitivists are a current within the anarchist milieu which argues that abolishing the state and capitalism isn't enough. They also want to abolish most or all technology, and move society back to a pre-industrial stage. The most extreme primitivist, John Zerzan, wants to go all the way back to the Palaeolithic and perhaps the Neanderthals. More moderate primitivists are apparently ready to settle for a libertarian version of the Iron Age or the Middle Ages.

The more "main line" anarchists write blistering attacks on primitivism with a regularity I find perplexing. Murray Bookchin did it all the time, Chaz Bufe did it too, and now comes Sheppard. One wonders why? The only possible reason is that primitivists and regular anarchists (including anarcho-syndicalists) belong to the same social milieu. This is richly ironic, since the anarcho-syndicalists in particular claim to be oriented to the labour unions and the working class. If so, why bother attacking people like John Zerzan, who most workers or left-wing activists have never even heard of? I've heard of anarcho-primitivism, but that's only because I've read Bufe decades ago!

[SOME GENERAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PAMPHLET]

Personally, I'm neither a classical anarchist nor a primitivist. I suppose most anarchists would consider me an unregenerate statist. (They are right!) Still, I must say that Sheppard's criticism of primitivism is rather weak. While Proudhon, Bakunin and Krapotkin weren't primitivists, their emphasis on decentralization, the peasantry, artisans and local mutual aid does reflect a very early version of industrialism, rather than the full blown version reflected by Marxism and certain forms of syndicalism. Thus, the anarcho-primitivists aren't completely out on a limb when attempting to fuse classical anarchism with eco-radicalism. Sheppard further attacks Dave Foreman and Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber), but they aren't anarcho-primitivists. Both are more "right wing", especially Kaczynski. Foreman, despite his action antics, might not even be particularly radical.

The author's main argument against primitivism is that affluent, modern Westerners don't want to give up their technology. Well, obviously not, but so what? The real question isn't what anybody "wants", but what is actually needed to solve the ecological crisis. Another main argument is that primitivism, if implemented, would lead to the death of billions. While this is certainly true, once again, it misses the point. The real question is whether or not overpopulation is a problem. The author tries to have it both ways, sometimes arguing that it isn't, sometimes proposing various ways to fight overpopulation, for instance by getting rid of natalist religion, giving people access to free contraceptives, etc. Sheppard also loves poiting out that the primitivists don't live as they learn. Thus, Zerzan watches TV, Fifth Estate use computers and Green Anarchist use the web. But the personal hypocrisy or contradictions of the primitivists don't necessarily invalidate their critique of modern civilization. I don't eat organic carrots, nor do I drink rain water, but what does that say about the reality of climate change or the need for organic agriculture? Not much, either way. I eat a lot of candy, too, which would make any moralistic preaching on diabetes from my part somewhat comic, but that doesn't mean diabetes isn't a threat, especially if you do eat a lot of candy...

Sheppard's arguments against the primitivists are based on a kind of middle-class populist "common sense", but these kinds of arguments can be used against anarcho-syndicalism, as well!

[PRIMITIVE PEOPLES]

Sheppard's attacks on the cultures of primitive peoples aren't convincing either. He confuses the Palaeolithic and Neolithic with pre-industrial but hierarchic societies in the Americas at the time of the conquista, even mentioning the Aztecs and the Incas. In passing, he shows his true colours (?) on the woman question: "Iroquois women, for example, made most of the important decisions in their society. (A matriarchal society, it is important to remember, is still of course a hierarchical society.)" Now, we can't have that, can we? For all we know, most or many Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultures were indeed egalitarian and peaceful. Since they were stateless cultures, it's strange that an anarchist like Sheppard rejects them out of hand. (As an unregenerate statist, I'm equally fascinated by the egalitarian, peaceful high culture of the Indus Valley, and the presumably peaceful but hierarchic high cultures of Norte Chico and Minoan Crete.)

[THE ABOLITION OF WORK]

At one point, Sheppard makes fun of the anarcho-primitivist notion that "work" can be abolished in a non-technological society: "As they'd look in disdain over their shoulders at the `workerist' anarchist civilization they have left, they could delight in pursuing the very hard work of foraging and constructing shelter for themselves, deluding themselves that that is not itself work - albeit a hard sort of work not aided by the machinery that anarchists back in the hi-tech society have expropriated from capitalist rule. In the end, the primitivist will be working much harder than his `workerist' cousin, no matter how hard he may try to convince himself that he has liberated himself from toil." While it's certainly true that anarcho-primitivism has a utopian-hippie flavour, much research suggests that Palaeolithic peoples really didn't work very hard. As for hard-working, agricultural tribal peoples, many of them want to keep their traditional lifestyles rather than be swallowed by New Delhi suburban sprawl. Does Sheppard believe this to be an inherently irrational position? Besides, his own viewpoint could also be criticized for being utopian - is it realistic to believe that nobody would work hard in a super-technological society? Is complete automation and robotization really feasible?

[IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL?]

Further, Sheppard believes that modern technology is neutral, and therefore can simply be taken over by the anarcho-syndicalist labour unions and hence be "self-managed" on that basis. This is naïve, certainly for an anarchist! I can understand Marxists who argue like this, since Communist regimes, of course, don't self-manage anything, but run the entire economy from a tightly knit centre. But how can modern technology be "self-managed"? That's not prima facie clear, and even Sheppard believes that some technology is inherently dangerous, such as nuclear power plants. But surely the problem goes deeper than this: a hoe can be dangerous, too, but a nuclear power plant is impossible without an entire centralized structure around it, including a state to make sure nobody sabotages it, not to mention the control necessary to ensure safe storage of the radioactive waste, to stop theft of plutonium, etc. The nuclear power industry *cannot be* self-managed, and most states probably couldn't control it sufficiently either (it's difficult to imagine Jeffersonian America or CNT-run Aragon with nuclear power).

[THE STATE AND ALL THAT]

As you may have gathered by now, I don't think we can get rid of the state, unless civilization collapses entirely, at which point the question will become redundant (and so will Sheppard's criticism of primitivism). It's difficult to envisage an ordered transition from one system to another without some kind of state power, not to mention the need for defence, diplomacy, international trade, etc. In his most lucid moments, even Bakunin seemed to have understood that one cannot abolish the state immediately, and it's interesting to note that he expressed support for the Union during the American Civil War, while criticizing the North for being too centralized. But both the Union and the individual Northern states were...well, states. (Proudhon, by contrast, supported the Confederacy, but that, too, was a state power!)

It's not very likely that Nestor Makhno could have abolished the state had he somehow taken power in the Ukraine. Rather, the Ukraine would have become a new state, perhaps a more radical version of Stamboliski's Bulgaria. The CNT-FAI didn't even try in Spain. After all, they joined the popular front! Had CNT somehow managed to take sole power, Spain would either have become something akin to Sandinista Nicaragua or Tito's Yugoslavia, depending on how the CNT would have treated the other political currents after an anarchist take-over. Occasionally, even Sheppard hints at some higher authority at work in his supposedly self-managed society: "But an anarchist society worthy of the name would not allow those holding religious beliefs to impose them upon others, nor would religious beliefs be allowed to influence decisions of production and distribution." Who's to stop that, I wonder? (And what would happen to the Amish?)

[A STRANGE IDIOSYNCRASY]

Final point. What on earth does Brian Sheppard have against permaculture? :-D

[SUMMARY]

In sum, I can't say that "Anarchism vs. primitivism" have managed to conclusively refute primitivism. The future may not be primitive, but then, anarcho-syndicalism has also seen its better days, hasn't it?

Thanks for telling us in advance

The International Communist Current (ICC) is a small, super-sectarian and super-theoretical left-wing organization with a (surprising) presence in 16 countries around the world. The ICC's program is a version of "ultraleftism" or "Left Communism", an ideology usually associated with Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter and Amadeo Bordiga. In fact, the ICC is probably even more sectarian!

In true ultraleftist fashion, the International Communist Current rejects all labour unions, labour parties, democratic and national liberation struggles, partial nationalizations, feminism, gay liberation and most other left-wing groups. This narrows the scope of possible activities considerably. The ICC also opposes all really existing socialist countries, seeing them as "state capitalist". Instead, the ICC fights for "the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale...the international power of the workers' councils...the construction of a world human community". However, it's not clear how the ICC wants to bring this happy state of affairs around. The main activity of this little group seems to be abstract propaganda. Their written material is notorious for impenetrable theoretical articles, bombastic headlines and (occasionally) home-spun conspiracy theories about police agents, Freemasons and "clans", all out to get the ICC.

International Review no. 15, published in 1978, is relatively light reading by ICC standards. Three articles are of particular interest. "The State in the Period of Transition" deals with the withering away of the state in Marxist theory (and the lack of the same in Marxist practice). The author, ICC founder Marc or MC, reaches the conclusion that the working class shouldn't identify with the revolutionary state, but see it as a necessary and temporary evil. The state must be controlled at all times by the workers' councils, which are not part of the revolutionary state itself. Nor should the revolutionary party take power "on behalf of the workers". The party should be a current within the workers' councils, neither more nor less. Only in this manner can the state be forced to eventually wither away. Thus, the withering away of the state is not an automatic process, but a conscious act from the side of the proletariat (at least according to the author). Marc's conceptions sound council communist or semi-anarchist, and he was roundly denounced by the more statist Bordigists for having abandoned the Marxist view of the state. (The Bordigists are more fond of Trotsky's work "Terrorism and Communism"!)

"On the National Question: Reply to Solidarity" is a polemic against Solidarity, a more "soft" ultraleftist group in Britain. The ICC attacks national liberation struggles, democratic revolutions and really existing socialism as "bourgeois", "capitalist" and "imperialist". Conversely, they defend the Russian revolution as proletarian, while the meeker Solidarity apparently saw it as too authoritarian!

The most interesting piece in this issue of the IR is titled "Spain 1936: The Myth of the Anarchist Collectives". The article attempts to demystify the collectives set up by the CNT during the Spanish Civil War, which play a prominent part in anarchist political mythology as a "libertarian socialist" alternative to authoritarian Communism. The ICC almost gleefully point out that the collectivized plants and farms were integrated parts of the Spanish Republic's war economy, and often had the explicit approval of the proper authorities or the former bosses. Nor were they particularly decentralized, since the economy in the Republican areas was controlled by crypto-governmental "high economic councils". Of course, the ICC also mentions the salient fact that the CNT were part of the government of the People's Front and its administration, together with the "bourgeois" republicans, Social Democrats and Stalinists.

The article on Spain also shows the murkier side of the ICC's message. That ultraleftists refuse to support the Spanish Republic against Franco is hardly surprising - they want the workers to "destroy" both the Republic and the fascists simultaneously (no less). But how is this to be concretely accomplished? The article contains a lot of complaints about low wages, overtime, rationing and corruption in the Republican zone. (Durruti is referred to as a "satrap".) Had the ICC been present in Spain in 1936-39, they would presumably have stirred up petty discontent, and all kinds of trouble-makers, on the Republican side. In other words, they would have acted in a way impossible to distinguish from fifth columnists and agent provocateurs...

International Review's article on the collectives doesn't just expose the utopian myths of the anarchists but also the real role played by the ultraleft.

Thanks for telling us in advance, "comrades".

I AM the Anti-Christ, I AM an anarchist

Originally posted at another site to troll the anarchists - everything I say is true, btw. Come at me, Antifa, tweet at me! 

Mikhail Bakunin attempted to create a super-authoritarian organization with the cultic sociopath Nechayev. Their vision of the future sounded like a cross between ancient Sparta and modern North Korea. Meanwhile, Proudhon was busy supporting the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War.

In 1933, the CNT boycotted the Spanish general elections, thereby securing the election of an authoritarian right-wing government.

In 1939, the CNT supported General Miaja's coup against Negrin, who wanted to continue resistance against Franco. Miaja wanted to surrender to the fascists. The CNT's Cipriano Mera fought and defeated republican troops who still opposed Franco.

During the 1990's, the Class War Federation started supporting paedophilia. Previously, they had opposed a general strike against Thatcher and called Mandela's imprisonment "no big deal".

Oh, I forgot...in 1975, we got the Sex Pistols!!!

If you find all this to your liking (not to mention Kropotkin's support for World War I), by all means, go ahead and join the punks who riot, occupy Wall Street and listen to really bad music. In short, be an anarchist. This is the product for you, partner!

If not...well, how about reading a good book about what actually happened in 1936-39, or what Bakunin was *really* up to?

No? "That is not my kind of anarchism". No, of course not. I mean, Bakunin would never have listened to the Sex Pistols...

HA HA HA HA.