Five things Trotskyists should know about today’s young "anarchists"

Submitted by martin on 4 November, 2011 - 9:55 Author: Yves Coleman

« When I cook for the Occupy the City move­ment in London I contri­bute to change the world. » A guy inter­vie­wed on RFI radio.

The fol­lo­wing is an exten­ded ver­sion of my brief inter­ven­tion at the AWL’s congress [22-23 October 2011].

I would like first to thank the AWL for its invi­ta­tion. As far as I know, the AWL is the only orga­ni­sa­tion in the European Far Left which is trying to seriously debate with other refor­mist or revo­lu­tio­nary cur­rents. I don’t share the AWL’s dog­ma­tic reve­rence toward Leninism and Trotskyism but at least we have some­thing impor­tant in common : the belief that dis­cus­sions can be useful and fruit­ful as long as they are not led along sec­ta­rian and slan­de­rous lines. So I ack­now­ledge your effort to deal with other cur­rents of thought, even when I disa­gree totally with you.

Anarchist com­ra­des should remem­ber the vir­tues of poli­ti­cal deba­tes as Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, to quote only two famous exam­ples, par­ti­ci­pa­ted to deba­tes with socia­lists (marxists) and were won over… anar­chism through such deba­tes !

So this is not where our disa­gree­ment regar­ding today’s « anar­chism » lies. It seems to me that your arti­cles in Workers Liberty were too much cen­te­red on « old-style » 19th-cen­tury anar­chism and not on today’s diverse, confu­sed, liber­ta­rian and anar­chist cur­rents. (A tra­di­tio­nal anar­chist told me once that liber­ta­rians – « liber­tai­res » in French is a broadly accep­ted term among the left­wing intel­li­gent­sia – were soft-core anar­chists, gene­rally in their 40’s or 50’s, almost refor­mist, and anar­chists were young hard­core revo­lu­tio­na­ries…)

Publishing in France a jour­nal (Ni patrie ni fron­tières) which, for almost 10 years, has publi­shed many anar­chist and Marxist texts toge­ther in the same issue and on the same theme to sti­mu­late debate and poli­ti­cal reflec­tion, I have had the occa­sion of mee­ting many young « anar­chists » in book fairs, confe­ren­ces, etc. What stroke me is how much (gene­rally) they ignore « their » clas­sics : Proudhon, Bakounine, Stirner or Kropotkine. There are cer­tainly much more points to be dis­cus­sed but I would like in this arti­cle to under­line only five.

1. Trotskyists when they dis­cuss with young « anar­chists » today should rea­lize that they did not receive, and dont value, the same « trai­ning ».

Trotskyists gene­rally are trai­ned in « Party schools » where they learn about the his­tory of the wor­kers move­ment and learn the basic laws of Marxist « science ». At least that was the tra­di­tion until the 70’s and 80’s in France in Trotskyist groups. And in gene­ral the Trotskyist press still puts the stress on the impor­tance of a his­to­ri­cal culture – wha­te­ver biased it is. That has also hap­pe­ned (among anar­chist lines, obviously) in the Spanish CNT before World War II, or in some tra­di­tio­nal anar­chist groups before the 1960s, but this is no more true as far as I know in Europe. Young European « anar­chists »’ poli­ti­cal culture is much more diverse : it deri­ves from all sorts of radi­cal or mar­gi­nal films or docu­men­ta­ries, semi-poli­ti­cal comics and music, from the no global move­ment lit­te­ra­ture, from all sorts of tiny book­lets repro­du­ced in « info­kiosks », etc.

I must also say that for those anar­chists with a solid back­ground in revo­lu­tio­nary his­tory, there is abso­lu­tely no for­get­ting nor is there is the sligh­test wish to mini­mize the deeds and thoughts of the his­to­ri­cal figure known as Leon Trotsky. You are not going to per­suade these anar­chists about any­thing concer­ning Kronstadt 1921 or Nestor Makhno, because the role of Trotsky in sup­pres­sing these revo­lu­tio­nary move­ments is both well known and well docu­men­ted. The Trotskyists’ lies, slan­ders, and dis­tor­tions about these his­to­ri­cal epi­so­des mean that anar­chists with a grasp of the his­to­ri­cal record will be immune to your over­tu­res, and with good reason. They see clas­si­cal Trotskyism as part of the pro­blem, and in no way part of the solu­tion.

2. Trotskyists should rea­lize that young « anar­chists » today want ACTION NOW.

And by « action now » they don’t mean a long « pri­mi­tive accu­mu­la­tion » of mili­tants (or cadres) to build the Party, a pro­cess tra­di­tio­nal Trotskyists fancy so much. The most « phy­si­cal » and some­ti­mes « macho » anar­chists want to confront phy­si­cally the cops, to throw Molotov cock­tails, to smash the face of fas­cists, to des­troy the head­quar­ters of some bour­geois party, etc. The more « pea­ce­ful » ones (but it can also be the same as the first ones) want to build new human rela­tion­ships here and now. That means orga­ni­zing squats or com­mu­nes ; ques­tio­ning the gender rela­tion­ships now and not in a dis­tant future, under com­mu­nism ; culti­va­ting vege­ta­bles to have a heal­thy food and build col­lec­tive links ; recu­pe­ra­ting good food in super­mar­kets dust­bins to dis­tri­bute it and/or cook it ; coo­king food for home­less or poor people ; sup­por­ting ille­gal wor­kers strug­gles concre­tely ; occu­pying unem­ploy­ment agen­cies ; orga­ni­zing unem­ployed or pre­ca­rious wor­kers ; crea­ting coo­pe­ra­ti­ves ; dis­cus­sing all sorts of ways of chan­ging their daily life here and now.

3. Trotskyists should rea­lize that young « anar­chists » are not loo­king for an explai­ning-eve­ry­thing science as Trotskyists are.

They have a spon­ta­neous dis­trust of « Marxist-Leninist » Stalinism (which is a rather good thing) but they also think Marx, Lenin and Trotsky are boring guys who lived 70, 100 or 150 years ago and can’t deal with today’s rea­li­ties. They obviously hate Lenin and Trotsky for Cronstadt, the repres­sion of anar­chists in Russia, etc., but more than eve­ry­thing they are not loo­king for a cohe­rent, scien­ti­fic point of view as Trotskyists loudly claim to be. They are ins­pi­red by dif­fe­rent, hete­ro­ge­neous, eco­no­mic, socio­lo­gi­cal ideas, which seem to you, Marxists, totally inco­he­rent and some­ti­mes even reac­tio­nary. They can be ins­pi­red by post­mo­dern, confu­sed mul­ti­cultu­ra­list, trendy intel­lec­tuals, as well as by obs­cure vegan or pre-eco­lo­gist thin­kers. But you can be often fooled because when they write about « eco­nomy » (which every Marxist knows is not a sepa­rate rea­lity but inter­lin­ked with human social rela­tions) they often use a vague Marxist voca­bu­lary which may lead you to think they are easy to « win » to your belo­ved Marxist Science. A total illu­sion.

Generally, the anar­chist press values much more « anec­do­tes » about pri­vate life, small-scale expe­rien­ces, than most Trotskyist news­pa­pers. Young anar­chists value more crea­tive forms of pro­pa­ganda : street thea­ter, humo­rous videos on the Net, large cultu­ral events, which they think are as effec­tive as tra­di­tio­nal mee­tings, news­pa­pers, or lea­flets. This is linked with the tra­di­tion of the « ate­neos » (sorts of cultu­ral cen­ters-libra­ries, etc.) in the Spanish CNT.

4. Trotskyists should rea­lize young « anar­chists » want to be active in their own milieu, own dis­trict, own living place or work place and see concrete results of their action now.

That means they dont give a damn about sel­ling papers or dis­tri­bu­ting lea­flets if it’s not linked to a concrete change in people’s life. It means that they dont fancy going miles away from their home to dis­tri­bute lea­flets to people they have never met. Or if they do go far away, it’s much more to learn about unk­nown rea­li­ties than to pro­pa­gate a spe­ci­fic ideo­logy to sup­po­sedly igno­rant wor­kers, pea­sants or oppres­sed people.

What they do and pro­pose, even on the base of confu­sed slo­gans and poli­tics, reso­na­tes among young pre­ca­rious wor­kers or stu­dents, influen­ced by the no global ideo­logy (the « Indignados » is a good exam­ple) and they are like a fish in water in these social move­ments because they dont want to impose an ideo­logy (even if in fact they have a confu­sed one).

5. Trotskyists should also know that young anar­chists have a dif­fe­rent view of mili­tancy as regards their pro­fes­sio­nal status.

Trotskyists tra­di­tion­naly tried to get jobs in big fac­to­ries and big com­pa­nies. And they have suc­cee­ded some­ti­mes to get posi­tions inside the trade unions bureau­cracy in the public sector or less often in the pri­vate sector. Young anar­chists are often very pre­ca­rious as all the mem­bers of their gene­ra­tion, work in call cen­ters, tem­po­rary jobs, and not so keen to work in big fac­to­ries or com­pa­nies which anyway are down­si­zed eve­ryw­here at least in Europe. That may also explain why they are not inte­res­ted in long-term stra­te­gies in buil­ding ten­den­cies inside trade unions, in trade union rou­tine, and much more in direct action in their neigh­bo­rhood, more than at their work­place which is always chan­ging. There also some anar­chists (not all of them of course, because some anar­chists have… Trotskyist tac­tics of infil­tra­ting the trade union bureau­cracy) who think that trade unions repre­sent bar­riers and breaks on forms of self-orga­ni­za­tion among wor­kers, and in many cases are overtly hos­tile to any auto­no­mous cur­rents that have emer­ged among radi­cal wor­kers.

This little arti­cle may give you the impres­sion that young « anar­chists » are hot-blood, hyper sen­si­tive, empa­thic and funny indi­vi­duals, while Trotskyst are cold blood, insen­si­tive, indif­fe­rent and boring per­sons.

Well there is a bit a truth in these mutually shared cli­chés. So if Trotkyists want to dis­cuss seriously with today’s young anar­chists they (as well as their orga­ni­sa­tions) should start by ques­tio­ning them­sel­ves a bit…. Well a lot in fact, along the lines I have just des­cri­bed. Who knows, some­thing inte­res­ting may happen…

Y.C., Ni patrie ni fron­tières

P.S. Thanks to David for his ins­pi­ring com­men­ta­ries.

Comments

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 05/11/2011 - 15:20

I said it here many times b4, and ignorance is bliss 4 anarchists (&AWL too?): in his trotsky-biographie, the historian pierre broue, who saw the secret documents of the kremlin, posted a letter exchange which leaders of the kronstadt revolt had with "the whites", who instructed them better to pose as critical communists.
the "social revolutionarys"" twice tried to murder lenin. the hadnt been banned without reason.

2. in spain, this self-declared super-revolutionairees (anarchists) joined the stalinist "united people´s front".
with 2 millio followers they had neither been able nor willing, to stop the stalinists.
this is because even historical events as the failed novemberrev. in germany 1918, not lead by an rev. party, or the revolution in iran stolen by the islamists did made it clear 4 the anarchists, that the spontaneity of the masses wont do and that a rev. party is needed.
funny enough 2 believe, that a trade-union could lead a socialist revolution, which is no revolutionary, but socialdemocratic position.
thats why anarchists nowhere in history ever led a revolution.

3. in fact, the author tells us, that nowadays young anarchists know less than ever and more than ever seem to see battles with the police as the revolution or replacement for it. the outcome always is like this: in greece a week ago, a worlker was murdered (and many injured) by attacks out of the anarchist block. trade-unionists who "arrested" them, found documents who proofed them as police-provokateurs among 2 of them.
the stalinist KKE spoke of "anarcho-fascists" (some weeks ago during an demonstration, anarchists did set a bank on fire- 3 persons cudnt escape no more and burnt alive.)
sure, we can say, the KKE-verdict is 2 hard and shouldnt generalise. sure, we can claim, that this have not been anarchists, but police-provocateurs. but this does at least still raise the quest, why always the structures of the anarchists make it so easy 4 the police, to infiltrate them.
also in germany we could several times watch the interaction between "black block" and police during demonstrations.

I wished that AWL would close their "weak" side towards anarchism. But thats just the other side of reformism or pro-imperialism.

Submitted by guenter on Wed, 09/11/2011 - 14:34

Once again its typical, that there are no replies 4 the mentioned facts..

Submitted by guenter on Tue, 15/11/2011 - 00:56

a) the "rebuttals "jordan does mention probably had been written b4 pierre broue checked the latest ex-secret documents of the cremlin about kronstadt. that anarchists dont wanna hear that- very clear. that AWL dont want either- a shame!

b) jordan simply steals away with sayin that he isnt responsible 4 other anarchists actions, cause its a broad ideology. yes, one which can so easyly be infiltrated by police-provocateures. if it happened once or twice what i discribed above- another story. but most of the time its the same old story with the contraproductive anarchist actions.
even on a big worldwide gay website (1 mio members)where i use to write, i made the experience with a huge anarchopunk-club in there (the site is compiled with hundreds of clubs around specific themes) , that this club dictatorial -without warning or discussion- expelled marxists but no rightwingers, and worked together many times with an well-known agent provocateur.

Submitted by stuartjordan on Tue, 15/11/2011 - 13:40

Having spent some of my early years in the anti-capitalist movement and then working closely with anarchist comrades in projects such as workers climate action and precarious workers solidarity initiatives, I recognise a lot of what Yves says is accurate and probably a better way to approach the discussion than harking back to historical arguments between Marx and Bakunin.

However, the historical arguments are useful because there are continuities within the tradition. This is so despite the fact that hardly any anarchists I know have actually read any of their classic text. For instance, lots of anarchists in their various ways engage in conspiracies like Bakunin's "secret pilots", live their lives as one long "propaganda of the deed" and like Proudhon have a thing about co-ops. You could argue that this is a very unbalanced view of contemporary anarchism, that is just taking a pick-and-mix approach to the classic texts and trying to map it onto the hybrid movement now.

Fine, but this then points to another feature of anarchism, which is that it is difficult to pin down exactly what it is. This is no accident. The trotskyist movement has formed out of political arguments, ideas have been crafted and factions have been built by reams of polemic. We are interventionists into the labour movement, into the left and into our own organisations. We constantly try to understand the world better and then win people to our understanding. The anarchist movement is anti-interventionist. This seems to me to be the defining feature that unites all the anarchists that I know. Although they may wish that people shared their ideas, they do not believe in trying to convince anyone.

When a few of the AWL comrades got involved in Climate Camp we used to joke about how healthy all the anarchists looked compared to us cynical and battle-weary trots. There is something in this. These people did not worry about the ideological argument, they did not feel they needed to steel themselves for the big debates in the labour movement. Instead they just lived their virtuous lives and tried to lead by example. Often without the pressure to convince people, they were more persuasive and more articulate than the Trotskyists around them. Their "hyper-sensitive, empathetic, funniness" I think is due to a keener sense of their limitations as individuals and less ambition. None of the anarchists are planning to become great political leaders and as a consequence are more at ease and less stressed about the state of the world.

Ultimately, while this is good for the individuals it is not good for the movement. It is ideas, not virtuous or courageous acts, that will change the world. The fight for socialist ideas is not easy, especially when capitalist ideas are so prevalent. In such circumstances the healthy thing to do is to tend your garden and form an art collective. However, if you believe in class struggle, that capitalism will create the conditions of its own demise, then you need to organise to propagandise for a set of ideas that will lead the working-class to victory. Even in the bad times socialists need to organise to be a living memory for the class. To be the bearers of these ideas is a task of some importance. The burden of that task often causes a lot of stress and difficulty both for individuals and for the broader movement. But we live in circumstances not of our choosing. If we are to learn anything from the anarchist movement then it is how to maintain our health, sense of humour and creativity whilst staying true to the primary task of winning people to revolutionary ideas. I am sure that if Trotskyists could learn how to replicate some of the more attractive features of the anarchist movement, then we would be all the more effective in our propaganda work.

Submitted by guenter on Tue, 15/11/2011 - 13:59

If we are to learn anything from the anarchist movement then it is how to maintain our health, sense of humour and creativity

stuart, why do u need the anarchists to learn this? i said something like this above -and more- in my greeting note to an AWL-congress a year ago or two, its printed somewhere there.
i see ur long theoretical statement like an dance around eggs.
carefully u tried not 2 touch the facts which i listed from various countries about several concrete experience with anarchists as police-provocateurs; most of all the point, that a leftwing trade-unionist was murdered out of an anarchist bloc during the general strike (this was nowhere mentioned in the greek-articles here!!!) and that a few weeks ago, 3 workers burned alive in a bank, set on fire by anarchists during an demonstartion in greece. that nobody want to touch on all this -how often shall i point to these facts?- is an incredible behaviour of AWL, who opens his door more wide 2 various non-socialist ideologies.

Submitted by danrawnsley on Tue, 15/11/2011 - 18:42

What do you want Guenter? Should we ban anarchists from posting on our site? Should we drive them out of the movement? Should we scream 'agent provocateur' every time an anarchist screams 'Kronstadt'?

Submitted by AWL on Wed, 16/11/2011 - 12:10

Jordan, I'd object to you writing that the way Guenter writes is "painful to read", firstly because English is not Guenter's first language (his English style is a lot better than my German!) and secondly because it's totally irrelevant and comes across as abuse.

Guenter, sorry if I've misunderstood, but are you saying that we should ban comrades in our organisation (like Martyn) from discussing the Bolshevik tradition?

Sacha

Submitted by AWL on Thu, 17/11/2011 - 10:45

Hi Jordan,

I don't have time to reply properly now, but for the record - and he will have no problem with me saying this - Guenter is not an AWL member.

I suggest we all make an effort to remain calm and comradely, and continue debating the substantive issues.

Sacha

Submitted by guenter on Thu, 17/11/2011 - 21:13

stuarts rant against me is full of nonsense. first, i have the probs with english, he denies. sacha said it right. second, for coming to his abusive conclusion, that i must be "a troll", he has to falsificate what i said. nowhwere i labeled the anarchists as fascists. as any1 can see in my statement, i even defended them against the generalisation of the KKE (CP of greece) when they spoke about "anarcho-facists". I only said, they shall request their structures and tell the left, why of all the left groups, the anarchist structures are so often so much penetrated by police-agents.
till now, i didnt hear from him that he clearly condemned that again (3 weeks after anrchos set a bank on fire, with 3 workers death) a worker, trade-unionist and CP-member, was murdered by policce-agents out of the anarchist block.
and nobody here did yet put the spotlight on it- if i dont do it. where was the AWL posting an article with the headline "another worker murdered by anarchists in greece" ?

And this is also the answer 2 u, sacha, when u asked:

Guenter, sorry if I've misunderstood, but are you saying that we should ban comrades in our organisation (like Martyn) from discussing the Bolshevik tradition

of course not- my point was simply, that the AWL is much 2 friendly with anarchists and does waste 2 much time 4 them, while ignoring many points of anarchist practice, which happens all the time: the inter-action with police and "black-block" in many countries are NOT at all so rarely, as stuart tried 2 paint it, when he said, that some leading nazis having been vegetarians, dont make all vegetarians a nazi. thats right (iam myself a vegetarian), but all what happened now over decades with the role of anarchists, was a bit more often a counterrevolutionary role, than just a very few times! And ONLY in this CONTEXT i argued against THIS type of "long theoretical articles" who are only there, to ignore the PRRACTICE of anarchism and "dance around" the facts, as i said.(or is it "beating around the bush" in english?) otherwise iam the last one on earth, who has anything against "long theoretical articles", as sacha can testify, i think.

Submitted by guenter on Thu, 17/11/2011 - 21:17

P.S.: also i didnt request ur personal genuinity, stuart, but u requested mine, what shows me, that ur intuition or sensitivity in guessing out someone, is bad.

Submitted by guenter on Fri, 18/11/2011 - 20:15

you made a lot of unnecessary interpretations. i wasnt sarcastic at all. and when u say

You were sloppily (and what appeared to be viciously) lumping all anarchists together under this banner with no regard to the internal conflicts within anarchism

then i say, that i dont even have the time to keep track about all the differences in-between the several trotskyte groups, and that anarchist groups have no importance 4 me and i have better things to do than to study all the internal conflicts of all the little anarchist sects too.
anarchists never understood -all of them- that a rev. party is needed, and thats why they never ever in history led an revolution and never will and thats it.
and if u again come up with "not all jews are bankers", i had already replied this type of argument when u said, hitler being an vegetarian dont make all vegetarians fascist.
i repeat, the contraproductive role anarchists played was far too often, as to single this out like an fascist vegetarian and label it as an exception. its not. its exactly ur "broad" ideology which makes it possible 4 many different subjects to hide behind, and most anarchists seem 2 see battles with the police as an substitute 4 an real revolution.
you didnt really refute any of my "poor" arguments yet.
and yes, anarchism -nothing more than extreme liberalism- is just the flipside of reformism. (same as the anarchosyndicalist position about trade-unions doin´the revolution, is only a more radical sounding side of socialdemocratic trade-unionism. but this was all said before. why must i repeat it?)
its no accident (or incident, in english?) that so very many ex-anarchists did later turn out as bourgeois politicians and ministers.
if pointing out all this truth, does make me an troll in ur (arrogant?) eyes, then i will gladly be one.

and shame about all AWLérs who have no clear position about or against anarchism. they shall decide: marxism or anarchism? both shall not be mixed, and lets remember that the anarchists left the "1st workersinternational" cause of their hostility against marx.

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 15:09

LOL-an anarchist tries to teach some1 a "comprehensive philosophical education"-thats news. Actually iam quite familar with phlosophy.
iam not willing to continue to discuss with some1 who denounces the mentioned historical and moreover nowadays facts i presented as a "prettymuch worthless opinion" and still tries to label as ekseptions (or exceptions?) what happens all the time in many countries!!! first get the worker-murderer of the "black blocks" under controll then in the anarchist movement(s), b4 u try to "teach" here, or this might be just another provocation.

I CHALLENGE THE AWL TO TAKE A CLEAR STAND AGAINST HIS CONTINUED DOWNPLAYING OF SEVERAL ANARCHIST CRIMES (FOUR WORKERS MURDERED RECENTLY IN GREECE) AND OTHER CONTRAPRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES OF THEM !!! NO TOLERANCE HERE FOR HIS LAME EXCUSINGS! NO MARXIST PLATTFORMS FOR THEM! AWL SHALL DECIDE IF THEY ADOPT MARXISM OR ANARCHISM

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 15:43

As Bakunin was mentioned positively here, from the many articles of marx and engels about him/them i choosed the one about the bakuninists in spain of 1873- looks like an perfect fore-seeing of the anarchists role in the spanish civil-war of the 19-30ies, which was NOT accidental and so its not, that all this "cant be lumped together with all anarchists", as it is always the "argument" of the anarchist above, whenever confronted with several mistakes and even crimes of anarchists: the problem lays within their ideology itself!

The Bakuninists at Work
An account of the Spanish revolt in the summer of 1873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written: in September-October 1873;
First published: in Der Volksstaat, Oct. 31, Nov. 2 & 5, 1873;
Source: Engels, Internationales aus dem Volksstaat (1871-1875), Berlin, 1894;
First published in English: K. Marx, F. Engels, Revolution in Spain, Lawrence & Wishart, International Publishers, 1939;
Transcribed: by director@marx.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: This series of articles was written in the wake of the events in Spain during the summer of 1873, which were the culmination of the Spanish bourgeois revolution of 1868-74. Engels focused his attention on the involvement of the Spanish Bakuninists in the abortive cantonal revolts July-September) organised in the south and south-east of the country by the Intransigents, an extremist republican grouping that advocated the partition of Spain into independent cantons. The Intransigents and their Bakuninist allies were dissatisfied with the radical social measures undertaken by the Left republican government of Pi y Margall (sale of state and Church lands, establishment of mixed commissions to regulate labour conditions, a free regime in the colonies, etc.) and with the Constitution drawn up by the Cortes, which proclaimed a federative republic. They weakened the republican camp by forcing Pi y Margall to resign on July 18, 1873, and thus paved the way for the establishment of a military dictatorship in Spain early in 1874 and then for the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.

Engels drew his information from the periodical press and various documents of the Spanish sections of the International, above all from a report submitted by the New Madrid Federation to the Geneva Congress of the International held on September 8-13, 1873.

Following the publication in Der Volksstaat, Engels' series of articles came out as a pamphlet entitled Die Bakunisten an der Arbeit. Denkschrift über den letzten Aufstand in Spanien (Leipzig, November 1873); in April-May 1874 it was published in the New York Arbeiter-Zeitung (Nos. 11-13 and 15-16). In 1894 The Bakuninists at Work was included in the collection of Engels' articles Internationales aus dein "Volksstaat" (1871-75) published by Vorwärts Publishers in Berlin. For that publication Engels provided the Preliminary Remark (see present edition, Vol. 27) and made several corrections.

The work was published in English for the first time in K. Marx, F. Engels, Revolution in Spain, Lawrence & Wishart, International Publishers, London-New York, 1939.

The text published in Der Volksstaat in 1873 and the reprint of the same year had no author's note, but a reference in brackets: "see the article 'Cagliostro Bakunin' in Der Volksstaat, No. 87 et seqq." This anonymously published article contained a brief summary in German of Marx's and Engels' The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association with excerpts from different chapters. It was written by Adolf Hepner and published in Der Volksstaat, Nos. 87-90 of September 19, 21, 24 and 26, 1873. Engels referred to it because a full German translation of the work about the Alliance was then just being prepared.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I
The report just published by the Hague Commission on Mikhail Bakunin's secret Alliance has revealed to the working world the underhand activities, the dirty tricks and phrase-mongery by which the proletarian movement was to be placed at the service of the inflated ambition and selfish ends of a few misunderstood geniuses. Meanwhile these would-be-great men have given us the opportunity in Spain to see something of their practical revolutionary activity. Let us see how they put into practice their ultra-revolutionary phrases about anarchy and autonomy, about the abolition of all authority, especially that of the state, and the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers. We are at last able to do this, since, apart from the newspaper reports about the events in Spain, we now have the report of the New Madrid Federation of the International [La Nueva Federacion Madrileña á los delegados al sexto Congreso general. Madrid 24 de agosto de 1873] presented to the Geneva Congress. 2]

As we know, at the time the split in the International occurred the odds were in favour of the members of the secret Alliance in Spain; the great majority of Spanish workers followed their lead. When the Republic was proclaimed in February 1873, the Spanish members of the Alliance found themselves in a quandary. Spain is such a backward country industrially that there can be no question there of immediate complete emancipation of the working class. Spain will first have to pass through various preliminary stages of development and remove quite a number of obstacles from its path. The Republic offered a chance of going through these stages in the shortest possible time and quickly surmounting the obstacles. But this chance could be taken only if the Spanish working class played an active political role. The labour masses felt this; they strove everywhere to participate in events, to take advantage of the opportunity for action, instead of leaving the propertied classes, as hitherto, a clear field for action and intrigues. The government announced that elections were to be held to the Constituent Cortes. [May 10, 1873] What was the attitude of the International to be? The leaders of the Bakuninists were in a predicament. Continued political inaction became more ridiculous and impossible with every passing day; the workers wanted "to see things done". [J. W. Goethe, Zueignung. -- Ed.] The members of the Alliance on the other hand had been preaching for years that no part should be taken in a revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class, that political action of any kind implied recognition of the State, which was the root of all evil, and that therefore participation in any form of elections was a crime worthy of death. How they got out of this fix is recounted in the already mentioned Madrid report:

"The same people who rejected the Hague resolution on the political attitude of the working class and who trampled under foot the Rules of the [International Working Men's] Association, thus bringing division, conflict and confusion into the Spanish Section of the International; the same people who had the effrontery to depict us to the workers as ambitious place-hunters, who, under the pretext of establishing the rule of the working class, sought to establish their own rule; the same people who call themselves autonomists, anarchist revolutionaries, etc., have on this occasion flung themselves into politics, bourgeois politics of the worst kind. They have worked, not to give political power to the working class -- on the contrary this idea is repugnant to them -- but to help to power a bourgeois faction of adventurers, ambitious men and place-hunters who call themselves Intransigent (irreconcilable) Republicans.

"Already on the eve of the general election to the Constituent Cortes the workers of Barcelona, Alcoy and other towns wanted to know what political line they should adopt in the parliamentary struggle and other campaigns. Two big meetings were therefore held, one in Barcelona, the other in Alcoy; at both meetings the Alliance members went out of their way to prevent any decision being reached as to what political line was to be taken by the International" (note bene: by their own International). "It was therefore decided that the International, as an association, should not engage in an, political activity whatever, but that its members, as individuals, could act on their own as the, thought fit and join the part, they chose, in accordance with their famous doctrine of autonomy! And what was the result of the application of this absurd doctrine? That most of the members of the International, including the anarchists, took part in the elections with no programme, no banner, and no candidates, thereby helping to bring about the election of almost exclusively bourgeois republicans. Only two or three workers got into the Chamber, and they represent absolutely nothing, their voice has not once been raised in defence of the interests of our class, and they cheerfully voted for all the reactionary motions tabled by the majority."

That is what Bakuninist "abstention from politics" leads to. At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best it can get only a few representatives to parliament and have no chance whatever of winning a parliamentary majority, the workers may sometimes be made to believe that it is a great revolutionary action to sit out the elections at home, and in general, not to attack the State in which they live and which oppresses them, but to attack the State as such which exists nowhere and which accordingly cannot defend itself. This is a splendid way of behaving in a revolutionary manner, especially for people who lose heart easily; and the extent to which the leaders of the Spanish Alliance belong to this category of people is shown in some detail in the aforementioned publication.

As soon as events push the proletariat into the fore, however, abstention becomes a palpable absurdity and the active intervention of the working class an inevitable necessity. And this is what happened in Spain. The abdication of Amadeo ousted the radical monarchists [3] from power and deprived them of the possibility of recovering it in the near future; the Alfonsists [4] stood still less chance at the time; as for the Carlists, they, as usual, preferred civil war to an election campaign. [5] All these parties, according to the Spanish custom, abstained. Only the federalist Republicans, split into two wings, and the bulk of the workers took part in the elections. Given the enormous attraction which the name of the International still enjoyed at that time among the Spanish workers and given the excellent organisation of the Spanish Section which, at least for practical purposes, still existed at the time, it was certain that any candidate nominated and supported by the International would be brilliantly successful in the industrial districts of Catalonia, in Valencia, in the Andalusian towns and so on, and that a minority would be elected to the Cortes large enough to decide the issue whenever it came to a vote between the two wings of the Republicans. The workers were aware of this; they felt that the time had come to bring their still powerful organisation into play. But the honourable leaders of the Bakuninist school had been preaching the gospel of unqualified abstention too long to be able suddenly to reverse their line; and so they invented that deplorable way out -- that of having the International abstain as a body, but allowing its members as individuals to vote as they liked. The result of this declaration of political bankruptcy was that the workers, as always in such cases, voted for those who made the most radical speeches, that is, for the Intransigents, and considering themselves therefore more or less responsible for subsequent steps taken by their deputies, became involved in them.

II
The members of the Alliance could not possibly persist in the ridiculous position into which their cunning electoral policy had landed them; it would have meant the end of their control over the International in Spain. They had to act, if only for the sake of appearances. Salvation for them lay in a general STRIKE.

In the Bakuninist programme a general STRIKE is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started. One fine morning all the workers in all the industries of a country, or even of the whole world, stop work, thus forcing the propertied classes either humbly to submit within four weeks at the most, or to attack the workers, who would then have the right to defend themselves and use this opportunity to pull down the entire old society. The idea is far from new; this horse was since 1848 hard ridden by French, and later Belgian socialists; it is originally, however, an English breed. During the rapid and vigorous growth of Chartism among the English workers following the crisis of 1837, the "holy month", a strike on a national scale was advocated as early as 1839 (see Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England, Second Edition [1892], p. 234) and this had such a strong appeal that in July 1842 the industrial workers in northern England tried to put it into practice. -- Great importance was also attached to the general STRIKE at the Geneva Congress of the Alliance held on September 1, 1873, [6] although it was universally admitted that this required a well-formed organisation of the working class and plentiful funds. And there's the rub. On the one hand the governments, especially if encouraged by political abstention, will never allow the organisation or the funds of the workers to reach such a level; on the other hand, political events and oppressive acts by the ruling classes will lead to the liberation of the workers long before the proletariat is able to set up such an ideal organisation and this colossal reserve fund. But if it had them, there would be no need to use the roundabout way of a general STRIKE to achieve its goal.

No one with any knowledge of the secret springs of the Alliance can doubt that the idea of using this well-tried method originated in the Swiss centre. Be that as it may, the Spanish leaders saw in this a way of doing something without actually delving in "politics" and they gladly took it. The miraculous qualities of a general STRIKE were everywhere propounded and preparations were made to start it at Barcelona and Alcoy.

Meanwhile the political situation was steadily heading for a crisis. Castelar and his associates, the old federal republican braggarts, were frightened by the movement, which had outgrown them. They were obliged to hand over the reigns of government to Pi y Margall [June 11, 1873], who sought a compromise with the Intransigents. Of all the official republicans, Pi was the only Socialist, the only one who realised that the republic had to depend on the support of the workers. He promptly produced a programme of social measures which could be carried out immediately and would not only benefit the workers directly but eventually lead to further steps, thus at least giving the first impetus to the social revolution. But the Bakuninist members of the International, who were obliged to reject even the most revolutionary measures if they emanated from the "State", preferred to support the most preposterous swindlers among the Intransigents rather than a minister. Pi's negotiations with the Intransigents dragged on. The Intransigents began to lose patience, and the most hot-headed of them started a cantonal uprising in Andalusia. The leaders of the Alliance now had to act too if they did not want to trail in the wake of the intransigent bourgeois. And so a general STRIKE was ordered.

Presently, among other things, a poster was issued in Barcelona stating:

"Workers! We are calling a general STRIKE to show the profound abhorrence we feel on seeing the government using the army fight our brother workers, while neglecting the struggle against the Carlists", etc. [Engels probably quotes from La Solidarité Révolutionnaire, No. 6, July 16, 1873. -- Ed.]

The workers of Barcelona -- Spain's largest industrial city, which has seen more barricade fighting than any other city in the world -- were asked to oppose the armed government force not with arms in their hands, but with a general strike, that is, a measure directly involving only individual bourgeois, but not their collective representative -- the State power. During the period of peacetime inaction, the workers of Barcelona had been able to listen to the inflammatory phrases of mild men like Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas; but when the time came to act, when Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas first announced their fine election programme, then proceeded to calm passions, and finally, instead of issuing a call to arms declared a general STRIKE, the workers actually despised them. Even the weakest Intransigent showed more energy than the strongest member of the Alliance. The Alliance and the International, which was hoodwinked by it, lost all influence and when these gentlemen called for a general STRIKE claiming that this would paralyse the government the workers simply ridiculed them. What the activities of the false International did achieve, however, was that Barcelona took no part in the cantonal uprising. Barcelona was the only town whose participation could have provided firm support for the working-class element, which was everywhere strongly represented in the; movement, and thus held out the prospect of the workers ultimately controlling the entire movement. Furthermore, with the participation of Barcelona, victory would have been as good as won. But Barcelona did not raise a finger; the workers of Barcelona, who had seen through the Intransigents and been cheated by the Alliance, remained inactive, thus allowing the Madrid government to secure the final victory. All of which did not prevent Alerini and Brousse, members of the Alliance (the report on the Alliance contained further details about themb), from stating in their paper, the Solidarité Révolutionnaire:

"The revolutionary movement is spreading like wildfire throughout the peninsula ... nothing has as yet happened in Barcelona, but the revolution is permanent in the market place!"

But it was the revolution of the Alliancists, which consists in beating the big drum and for this reason remains "permanently" in the same "place".

At the same time the general STRIKE became the order of the day in Alcoy. Alcoy is a new industrial town of some 30,000 inhabitants, where the International, in its Bakuninist form gained a foothold only a year ago and spread rapidly. Socialism, in any form, went down well with these workers, who until then had known nothing of the movement; the same thing happens in Germany where occasionally in some backward town the General Association of German Workers [7] suddenly gains a large temporary following. Alcoy was therefore chosen as the seat of the Bakuninist Federal Commission for Spain, [8] and it is the work of this Federal Commission that we are going to see here.

On July 7, a workers' meeting voted for a general STRIKE and on the following day sent a deputation to the alcalde (the mayor) asking him to summon the manufacturers within 24 hours and present to them the workers' demands. Albors, the alcalde, a bourgeois Republican, stalled off the workers, sent to Alicante for troops and advised the manufacturers not to yield but to barricade themselves in their houses. He himself would remain at his post. After a meeting with the manufacturers -- we are here following the official report of the Alliance Federal Commission dated July 14, 1873 ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873] -- Albors, who had originally promised the workers to remain neutral, issued a proclamation in which he "insulted and slandered the workers and sided with the manufacturers thus destroying the rights and the freedom of the strikers and challenging them to fight". How the pious wishes of a mayor can destroy the rights and the freedom of the strikers is not made clear. Anyway, the workers led by the Alliance notified the municipal council through a committee that if it did not intend to remain neutral during the strike as it promised, it had better resign in order to avoid a conflict. The committee was turned away and as it was leaving the town hall, the police opened fire on the peaceful and unarmed people standing in the square. This is how the fight started, according to the report of the Alliance. The people armed themselves, and a battle began which was said to have lasted "twenty hours". On one side, the workers, whose number is given by the Solidarité Révolutionnaire as 5,000, on the other, 32 gendarmes in the town hall and a few armed men in four or five houses in the market place. These houses were burnt down by the people in the good Prussian manner. Eventually the gendarmes ran out of ammunition and had to surrender.

"There would have been less misfortunes to lament," says the report of the Alliance Commission, "if the Alcalde Albors had not deceived the people by pretending to surrender and then cowardly ordering the murder of those who entered the town hall relying on his word. And the Alcalde himself would not have been killed by the justly enraged population had he not fired his revolver point-blank at those who went to arrest him."

And what were the casualties in this battle?

"Although we cannot know exactly the number of dead and wounded" (on the people's side) "we can nevertheless say that they numbered no less than ten. On the side of provokers there were no less than fifteen dead and wounded."

This was the first street battle of the Alliance. For twenty hours, 5,000 men fought against 32 gendarmes and a few armed bourgeois, and defeated them after they had run out of ammunition, losing ten men in all. The Alliance may well drum Falstaff's dictum into the heads of its adepts that "the better part of valour is discretion". [Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry IV, Act V, Scene 4. -- Ed.]

Needless to say, all the horror stories carried by the bourgeois papers about factories senselessly burnt down, numerous gendarmes shot down, and of people having petrol poured over them and set on fire, are pure inventions. The victorious workers, even if led by members of the Alliance whose motto is, "to hell with ceremony!", always treat their defeated adversaries far too generously, and so the latter accuse them of all the misdeeds which they themselves never fail to perpetrate when they are victorious.

And so victory had been won.

The Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes jubilantly: "Our friends in Alcoy, numbering 5,000, are masters of the situation."

And what did these "masters" do with their "situation"?

Here the report of the Alliance and its newspaper leave us in the lurch and we have to rely on the ordinary newspaper reports. From these we learn that a "Committee of Public Safety", that is, a revolutionary government, was then set up in Alcoy. To be sure that their Congress at Saint-Imier [9] (Switzerland), on September 15 1872, the members of the Alliance decided that

"any organisation of political, so-called provisional or revolutionary authority, can be nothing but a new fraud and would be just as dangerous for the proletariat as any of the now existing governments". ["Les deux Congres de Saint-lmier", Bulletin de la Federación jurassienne..., No. 17-18, September 15-October 1, 1872, p. 13.]

The members of the Spanish Federal Commission, meeting at Alcoy, had moreover done everything they could to get this resolution adopted also by the Congress of the Spanish Section of the International. And yet we find that Severino Albarracin, a member of this Commission, and, according to some reports, also Francisco Tomas, its secretary, were members of this provisional and revolutionary government, the Committee of Public Safety, of Alcoy!

And what did this Committee of Public Safety do? What measures did it adopt to bring about "the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers"? It forbade any man to leave the city, although women were allowed to do so, provided they ... had a pass! The enemies of all authority re-introducing a pass! Everything else was utter confusion, inactivity and helplessness.

Meanwhile, General Velarde was coming up from Alicante with troops. The government had every reason for wishing to deal with the local insurrections in the provinces quietly. And the "masters of the situation" in Alcoy had every reason for wanting to extricate themselves from a situation which they did not know how to handle. Accordingly, Deputy Cervera, who acted as a go-between, had an easy task. The Committee of Public Safety resigned, and on July 12 the troops entered the town without meeting any resistance, the only promise made to the Committee of Public Safety for this being ... a general amnesty. The Alliance "masters of the situation" had once again extricated themselves from a tight spot. And there the Alcoy adventure ended.

The Alliance report tells us that at Sanlúcar de Barrameda, near Cádiz,

"the Alcalde closed down the premises of the International and his threats and his incessant attacks on the personal rights of the citizens incensed the workers. A commission demanded of the minister observance of the law and the re-opening of the premises which had been arbitrarily closed down. Mr. Pi agreed to this in principle ... but refused to comply in practice. It became clear to the workers that the Government was determined to outlaw their Association; they dismissed the local authorities and appointed others in their place, who re-opened the premises of the Association." ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873.]

"In Sanlúcar ... the people are masters of the situation!" the Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes triumphantly. The members of the Alliance, who here too, contrary to their anarchist principles, formed a revolutionary government, did not know what to do with their power. They wasted time in futile debates and paper resolutions, and when General Pavía, on August 5, after taking Seville and Cádiz, sent a few companies of the Soria brigade to Sanlúcar he encountered ... no resistance.

Such were the heroic deeds performed by the Alliance where it had no competition.

III
The street fighting in Alcoy was immediately followed by a revolt of the Intransigents in Andalusia. Pi y Margall was still at the helm, engaged in continuous negotiations with the leaders of this party with the object of forming a ministry with them; why then did they begin an uprising before the negotiations had failed? The reason for this rash action has never been properly explained, it is however certain, that the main concern of the Intransigents was the actual establishment of a federal republic as quickly as possible in order to seize power and the many new administrative posts that were to be created in the various cantons. The splitting up of Spain had been deferred too long by the Cortes in Madrid, and so they had to tackle the job themselves and proclaim sovereign cantons everywhere. The attitude hitherto maintained by the (Bakuninist) International, which since the elections was deeply involved in the actions of the Intransigents, gave grounds for counting on the Bakuninists' support: indeed, had not the Bakuninists just seized Alcoy by force and were thus in open conflict with the government? The Bakuninists moreover had for years been preaching that all revolutionary action from above was an evil, and everything should be organised and carried through from below. And now here was an opportunity to apply the famous principle of autonomy from below, at least in a few towns. Predictably, the Bakuninist workers fell into the trap and pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Intransigents, only to be rewarded later by their allies with the usual kicks and bullets.

What was the position of the members of the Bakuninist International in all this movement? They helped to evolve its federalist particularism; they put into practice as far as possible their anarchist ideal. The same Bakuninists who in Cordoba a few months earlier had declared that to establish a revolutionary government was to betray and cheat the workers, the same Bakuninists now sat in all the revolutionary municipal governments of Andalusia, but always in a minority, so that the Intransigents could do whatever they wished. While the latter retained the political and military leadership, the workers were put off with pompous phrases or resolutions purporting to introduce social reforms of the crudest and most meaningless sort, which moreover existed only on paper. As soon as the Bakuninist leaders demanded real concessions, they were scornfully repulsed. When talking to English newspaper correspondents, the Intransigent leaders of the movement hastened to dissociate themselves from these so-called "members of the International" and to renounce all responsibility for them, declaring that their leaders and all fugitives from the Paris Commune were being kept under strict police supervision. Finally, as we shall see, the Intransigents in Seville, during the battle with the government troops, fired also on their Bakuninist allies.

Thus it happened that within a few days the whole of Andalusia was in the hands of the armed Intransigents. Seville, Malaga, Granada, Cádiz, etc. were taken almost without resistance. Each town proclaimed itself a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary. committee (junta). Murcia, Cartagena, and Valencia followed suit. A similar attempt, but of a more peaceful nature, was made in Salamanca. Thus, nearly all the large Spanish cities were held by the insurgents, with the exception of Madrid, the capital, which is purely a luxury city and hardly ever plays a decisive role, and of Barcelona. If Barcelona had risen success would have been almost assured, and in addition it would have provided powerful support for the working-class element of the movement. But as we have seen, the Intransigents in Barcelona were comparatively powerless, whereas the Bakuninists, who were still very strong there at the time, used the general STRIKE only for appeasement purposes. Thus Barcelona this time was not at its post.

Nevertheless, the uprising, though started in a senseless way, had a fair chance of success if conducted with some intelligence, even if in the manner of the Spanish military revolts, in which the garrison of one town rises, marches to the next town and wins over the garrison there which had been propagandised in advance, and, growing like an avalanche, advances on the capital, until a successful engagement or the desertion to its side of the troops sent out against it, decides the victory. This method was eminently suited to the occasion. The insurgents had long been organised everywhere into volunteer battalions, whose discipline, it is true, was poor, but certainly no worse than that of the remnants of the old Spanish army, which for the most part had been disbanded. The only reliable troops the government had were the gendarmes (guardias civiles), and these were scattered all over the country. The thing was to prevent the gendarmes from mustering, and this could only be done by boldly giving battle in the open field. No great risk was involved in this since the government could send against the volunteers only troops that were just as undisciplined as they themselves. And if they wanted to win, this was the only way to go about it.

But no. The federalism of the Intransigents and their Bakuninist tail consisted precisely in the fact that each town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not co-operation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack. What was an unavoidable evil during the German Peasant War and the German insurrections of May 1849, namely, the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other, [10] was here proclaimed a principle of supreme revolutionary wisdom. Bakunin had that satisfaction. As early as September 1870 (in his Lettres a un franfaisa) he had declared that the only way to drive the Prussians out of France by a revolutionary struggle was to do away with all forms of centralised leadership and leave each town, each village, each parish to wage war on its own. If one thus opposed the Prussian army under its centralised command with unfettered revolutionary passion victory would be ensured. Confronted with the collective mind of the French people, thrown at last on its own resources, the individual mind of Moltke would obviously sink into insignificance. The French then refused to see this, but in Spain Bakunin had won a brilliant victory, as we have already seen and shall yet see.

Meanwhile, this uprising, launched without reason like a bolt from the blue, had made it impossible for Pi y Margall to continue his negotiations with the Intransigents. He was compelled to resign, [July 18, 1873] and was replaced by pure republicans like Castelar, undisguised bourgeois, whose primary aim was to crush the working-class movement, which they had previously used but which had now become a hindrance to them. One division under General Pavía was sent against Andalusia, another under General Campos against Valencia and Cartagena. The main body consisted of gendarmes drawn from all over Spain, all of them old soldiers whose discipline was still unshaken. Here too, as during the attacks of the Versailles army on Paris, the gendarmes were to bolster up the demoralised regulars and to form the spearhead of the attacking columns, a task which in both cases they fulfilled to the best of their abilities. Besides the gendarmes, the divisions contained a few rather diminished line regiments, so that each of them numbered some 3,000 men. This was all the Government was able to raise against the insurgents.

General Pavía took the field round about July 20. A detachment of gendarmes and line troops under Ripoll occupied Cordoba on the 24th. On the 29th Pavía attacked the barricaded Seville, which fell to him on the 30th or 31st, the dates are often not clearly stated in these telegrams. Leaving behind a flying column to put down the surrounding country, he marched against Cádiz, whose defenders only fought on the approaches to the city, and with little spirit at that, and then, on August 4, they allowed themselves to be disarmed without resistance. In the days that followed, Pavía disarmed, also without resistance, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, San Roque, Tarifa, Algeciras, and a great many other small towns each of which had set itself up as a sovereign canton. At the same time he sent detachments against Malaga, which surrendered on August 3, and Granada, which surrendered on August 8, without offering any resistance. Thus by August 10, in less than a fortnight and almost without a struggle, the whole of Andalusia had been subdued.

On July 26, Martinez Campos began the attack on Valencia. The revolt there had been raised by the workers. When the split in the Spanish International occurred, the real International had the majority in Valencia, and the new Spanish Federal Council was transferred there. [11] Soon after the proclamation of the Republic, when revolutionary battles lay ahead, the Bakuninist workers of Valencia, mistrusting the Barcelona leaders who cloaked their appeasement policy with ultra-revolutionary phrases, offered the members of the real International their co-operation in all local movements. When the cantonal movement started, both groups, making use of the Intransigents, immediately attacked and ejected the troops. Who formed the Valencian junta remains unknown, but from the reports of the English newspaper correspondents it appears that workers definitely predominated in the junta, just as they did among the Valencian Volunteers. The same correspondents spoke of the Valencian insurgents with a respect which they were far from showing towards the other rebels, who were mostly Intransigents; they praised their discipline and the order which prevailed in the city, and predicted a long resistance and a hard struggle. They were not mistaken. Valencia, an open city, withstood the attacks of Campos' division from July 26 to August 8, that is longer than the whole of Andalusia.

In the province of Murcia, the capital of the same name was occupied without a fight; after the fall of Valencia Campos moved against Cartagena, one of the strongest fortresses in Spain, protected on the landward side by a rampart and advanced forts on the commanding heights. The 3,000 government troops, who had no siege artillery whatsoever, and whose light field guns were of course powerless against the heavy artillery of the forts, had to confine themselves to laying siege to the city from the landward side. This was of little avail, however, as long as the people of Cartagena dominated the sea with the naval vessels they had captured in the harbour. The insurgents, who, while the fight had been going on in Valencia and Andalusia, were wholly preoccupied with their own affairs, began to think of the outside world after the other revolts had been quelled, when they themselves began to run short of money and provisions. Only then did they make an attempt to march on Madrid, which was at least 60 German miles [German mile is equal to 7,420,438 metres. -- Ed.] away, more than twice as far as, for instance, Valencia or Granada! The expedition ended in disaster not far from Cartagena. The siege precluded any possibility of further land sorties, so they attempted sorties with the aid of the fleet. And what sorties! There could be no question of raising revolts again with the aid of Cartagena warships in the coastal towns which had recently been subdued. The fleet of the Sovereign Canton of Cartagena therefore confined itself to threatening to shell the other coastal towns from Valencia to Malaga, which, according to the theory of the people of Cartagena, were likewise sovereign -- and if need be to shell them in actual fact if they failed to deliver on board the required provisions and war contribution in hard cash. While these cities, as sovereign cantons, had been fighting the government, Cartagena adhered to the principle of "every man for himself". Now when they had been defeated the principle which was held to be valid was -- "everyone for Cartagena!" That was how the Intransigents of Cartagena and their Bakuninist supporters interpreted the federalism of the sovereign cantons.

In order to reinforce the ranks of the fighters for liberty, the government of Cartagena released from the local jail about 1,800 convicts -- Spain's worst robbers and murderers. After the disclosures made in the report on the Alliance there can no longer be any room for doubt that this revolutionary step was suggested to it by the Bakuninists. The report shows Bakunin enthusiastically advocating the "unleashing of all evil passions" and holding up the Russian brigand as a model for all true revolutionaries. What is fair for the Russian is fair for the Spaniard. When the local government of Cartagena released the "evil passions" of the 1,800 jailed cut-throats, thereby carrying demoralisation among its troops to the extreme limit, it acted wholly in the spirit of Bakunin. And when, instead of battering down its own fortifications, the Spanish government awaited the fall of Cartagena through the internal disorganisation of its defenders, it was pursuing an entirely correct policy.

IV
Now let us hear what the report of the New Madrid Federation has to say about the whole movement.

"On the second Sunday in August a Congress was to be held in Valencia, which, among other things, was to determine the attitude the Spanish International Federation was to adopt towards the important political events taking place in Spain since February 11, the day the Republic was proclaimed. But this nonsensical" (descabellada, literally: dishevelled) "cantonal uprising, which was such an abject failure and in which members of the International eagerly took part in almost all the insurgent provinces, has not only brought the work of the Federal Council to a standstill by dispersing most of its members, but has almost completely disorganised the local federations and, what is worse, exposed their members to the full measure of hatred and persecution that an ignominiously started and defeated popular insurrection always entails....

"When the cantonal uprising started, when the juntas, i.e., the cantonal governments, were formed, these people" (the Bakuninists) "who had spoken so violently against political power, and accused us of authoritarianism, lost no time in joining those governments. And in important cities such as Seville, Cádiz, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Granada and Valencia, many members of the International who call themselves anti-authoritarians sat on the cantonal juntas with no programme other than that of autonomy for the provinces or cantons. This is officially established by the proclamations and other documents issued by those juntas over the signatures of well-known members of this International.

"Such a flagrant contradiction between theory and practice, between propaganda and action, would be of small account if our Association could have derived any benefit from it, or if it could have advanced the organisation of our forces, or in any way furthered the attainment of our main goal -- the emancipation of the working class. Just the opposite took place, as it was bound to in the absence of the primary condition, namely, the active collaboration of the Spanish proletariat, which could have been so easily achieved by acting in the name of the International. There was no agreement between the local federations; the movement was abandoned to individual or local initiative without leadership (apart from that which the mysterious Alliance was able to force upon it, and that Alliance to our shame still dominates the Spanish International) and without any programme other than that of our natural enemies, the bourgeois republicans. Thus, the cantonal movement suffered the most ignominious defeat without offering hardly any resistance, and dragging down with it also the prestige and organisation of the International in Spain. For every excess, every crime, every outrage that takes place the republicans today blame the members of the International. We are even assured, that at Seville during the fighting the Intransigents fired at their own allies, the members of the" (Bakuninist) "International. Taking clever advantage of our follies, the reactionaries are inciting the republicans to persecute us and vilify us in the eyes of the indifferent masses; it seems that what they were unable to achieve in the days of Sagasta, i.e., to give the International a bad name among the great mass of Spanish workers, they may be able to achieve now.

"A number of workers' sections in Barcelona dissociated themselves from the International and publicly protested against the people of the newspaper La Federación" (the main organ of the Bakuninists) "and their inexplicable attitude. In Jérez, Puerto de Santa Maria and elsewhere the federations have decided to dissolve themselves. The few members of the International who lived in Loja (Granada province) were expelled by the population. In Madrid, where people still enjoy the greatest freedom, the old" (Bakuninist) "federation shows no sign of life, while ours is compelled to remain inactive and silent if it does not want to take the blame for other people's sins. In the northern cities the Carlist war, which is becoming more bitter day by day, precludes any activity on our part. Finally, in Valencia, where the government won the day after a struggle lasting a fortnight, the members of the International who have not fled are forced to remain in hiding, and the Federal Council has been dissolved."

So much for the Madrid report. As we see, it agrees in all particulars with the above historical account.

What then is the result of our whole investigation?

As soon as they were faced with a serious revolutionary situation, the Bakuninists had to throw the whole of their old programme overboard. First they sacrificed their doctrine of absolute abstention from political, and especially electoral, activities. Then anarchy, the abolition of the State, shared the same fate. Instead of abolishing the State they tried, on the contrary, to set up a number of new, small states. They then dropped the principle that the workers must not take part in any revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the proletariat, and they themselves took part in a movement that was notoriously bourgeois. Finally they went against the dogma they had only just proclaimed -- that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but another fraud another betrayal of the working class -- for they sat quite comfortably in the juntas of the various towns, and moreover almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeoisie.
This renunciation of the principles they had always been preaching was made moreover in the most cowardly and deceitful manner and was prompted by a guilty conscience, so that neither the Bakuninists themselves nor the masses they led had any programme or knew what they wanted when they joined the movement. What was the natural consequence of this? It was that the Bakuninists either prevented any action from being taken, as in Barcelona, or drifted into sporadic, desultory and senseless uprisings, as in Alcoy and Sanlúcar de Barrameda; or that the leadership of the uprising was taken over by the intransigent bourgeois, as was the case in most of the revolts. Thus, when it came to doing things, the ultra-revolutionary rantings of the Bakuninists either turned into appeasement or into uprisings that were doomed to failure, or, led to their joining a bourgeois party which exploited the workers politically in the most disgraceful manner and treated them to kicks into the bargain.
Nothing remains of the so-called principles of anarchy, free federation of independent groups, etc., but the boundless, and senseless fragmentation of the revolutionary resources, which enabled the government to conquer one city after another with a handful of soldiers, practically unresisted.
The outcome of all this is that not only have the once so well organised and numerous Spanish sections of the International -- both the false and the true ones -- found themselves involved in the downfall of the Intransigents and are now actually dissolved, but are also having ascribed to them innumerable atrocities, without which the philistines of all nationalities cannot imagine a workers' uprising, and this may make impossible, perhaps for years to come, the international re-organisation of the Spanish proletariat.
Notes from the Collected Works
2 On July 1, 1873, the General Council in New York officially announced the convocation of the regular congress of the International in Geneva on September 8. It was to discuss revision of the Rules, organisation of an international trades union association, the political activity of the organised workers, labour statistics, and other questions. Initially Marx and Engels intended to be present at the congress and take part in its work but after an analysis of the situation within the International, concluded that the congress could not be really representative. Almost all the organisations of the International, being unable to send delegates, transferred their mandates to members of the Romance Federation of Switzerland. This was also the case with the New Madrid Federation whose leaders sent a copy of their report to the Geneva Congress to Engels in London. What prompted Marx and Engels to change their attitude towards the congress was mainly their growing awareness that the IWMA as a form of international association could no longer meet the needs of the expanding proletarian movement.

At the sixth congress of the International Association in Geneva (September 8-13, 1873) 28 delegates out of 31 belonged to the Swiss organisations of the International or its émigré sections in Switzerland. Only 3 delegates represented other countries.

The congress heard the report of the General Council and reports from the localities. While discussing the Rules the majority of the delegates led by J. Ph. Becker confirmed the decisions of the Hague Congress of 1872 on expanding the functions of the General Council. The congress underlined the need for the working class to carry on a political struggle, and adopted a resolution on further measures to establish an international association of trades unions. New York remained the seat of the General Council. The Geneva Congress of 1873 was the last congress of the International.

3 A reference to the liberal-constitutional monarchists who supported the protégé of the European powers on the Spanish throne, King Amadeo of Savoy.

4 The Alfonsists a reactionary political grouping in Spain who backed Alfonso (son of Isabella II), the Bourbon pretender to the Spanish throne. He was proclaimed King (Alfonso XII) in 1874. The Alfonsists relied on the big landowners, the clergy and the upper crust of the bourgeoisie.

5 The Carlists: A clerical-absolutist group which supported the claims of Don Carlos, King Ferdinand VII's brother, to the Spanish throne in the first half of the 19th century. Leaning for support on the reactionary military circles and Catholic clergy, as well as the backward peasantry from the mountainous regions of Spain the Carlists unleashed a civil war in 1833 which lasted till 1840 (the First Carlist war). When Don Carlos died in 1855, the Carlists supported the candidature of his grandson, Don Carlos, Jr. In 1872, during the political crisis, the Carlists became more active and this led to another civil war (Second Carlist war) which lasted until 1876.

6 A reference to the congress, held in Geneva from September 1 to 6, 1873, of representatives of the anarchist and reformist organisations which had challenged the resolutions of the Hague Congress and thereby placed themselves outside the International, as stated in the decisions of the General Council of January 26 and May 30, 1873. The congress was convened by the Bakuninist Geneva Section of Propaganda and Revolutionary Socialist Action (see Note 75). The congress proclaimed the negation of all authority the basic principle of the international anarchist association, abolished the General Council, denied congresses the right to adopt resolutions on questions of principle, and dropped Article 7a, on the political action of the working class, from the General Rules.

7 By the Bismarckian socialists, Marx and Engels meant the leaders of the Lassallean General Association of German Workers (founded in May 1863) and they called their newspaper -- the Neue Social-Demokrat -- the police mouthpiece because both pursued a policy of accommodation to the Bismarck regime and attacked the revolutionary proletarian wing in the German workers' movement and in the International.

The name "white shirts" (les blouses blanche) refers to the gangs of declassed elements recruited by the police of the Second Empire. Pretending to be workers, they staged provocatory demonstrations and disturbances, thus providing the authorities with pretexts for persecuting genuine workers' organizations.

8 By decision of the congress of Spanish anarchists in Cordova (see Note 220) of December 30, 1872, the Spanish Federal Council was replaced by a Federal Commission with limited powers (for details see K. Marx and F. Engels, The Alliance of Socialist Democracy, and the International Working Men's Association).

9 A congress of representatives of secret organisations of the Bakuninist Alliance from various countries was held in Saint-Imier on September 15-16 1872, on the initiative of the Jura Federation. The congress decided to reject the resolutions of the Hague Congress and the authority of the General Council. It adopted a resolution against the political struggle of the working class and the necessity of an independent political party of the proletariat. Its address called upon sections to oppose the General Council and to convene their own "anti-authoritarian" congress in six months' time. The decisions of the Saint-Imier Congress signified an actual split in the International

10 A reference to the great insurrection of the German peasants in 1524-25 known as the German Peasant War, and to the uprisings in Saxony, the Rhine Province of Prussia, the Palatinate and Baden in May 1849 in defence of the Imperial Constitution drawn up by the Frankfurt National Assembly but rejected by the German princes. The struggle for the Imperial Constitution (in the Palatinate and Baden it continued until July 1849) was the final stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848-49 in Germany.

See Engels' The Peasant War in Germany, and The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution.

11 On the initiative of the New Madrid Federation the adherents of the General Council of the International in Spain formed, in January 1873, a new Spanish Federal Council in Valencia to counterbalance the actions of the anarchist federations, which had substituted the Federal Commission for the Federal Council.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IWMA and the Alliance of Socialist Democracy | Letter to the Alliance of Socialist Democracy | Activities of the Alliance of Socialist Democracy | Fictitious Splits in the International | General Council Report at The Hague | Notes on Bakunin’s book | Marx Engels Archive

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 15:50

just saw, b4 i posted engels, that the anarchist nonsense-clown above slandered me for "relying on stalinist accounts". DUH !!!!
to label facts as "hateful propaganda"- now its clearer to see, WHO cant be taken serious here.
lets see if he is able to argue with the "hateful propaganda" of engels.

-why did no AWL´ler confront those comics with "the originals"?

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 15:52

typo: not "b4"- i meant that i saw his last posting AFTER i posted engels

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 20:26

leaving asie, that i dont understand technically, why later posted statements can appear b4 earlier posted ones-
its interesting that jordan requests to remove an article, which he labels of "only historical interest". But in my few introducing sentences, i had clearly said, WHY THIS ARTICLE IS STILL VERY ACTUAL. not only, cause its like a fore-seeing of the later role of the anarchists during the spanish civil war- no. IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE ENGELS REFERS ABOUT ANARCHIST "PHRASE-MONGERY" AND "DIRTY TRICKS"! above we face the trick, to get engels still valid and actual remarks removed. i think, it would be very bad 4 the reputation of the AWL 2 follow this wish, and iam protesting in advance if this will go to happen.
again, why did never AWLérs confront the anarchists with the original texts of marx, engels, lenin &trotsky about them?

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 19/11/2011 - 20:29

leaving asie, that i dont understand technically, why later posted statements can appear b4 earlier posted ones-
its interesting that jordan requests to remove an article, which he labels of "only historical interest". But in my few introducing sentences, i had clearly said, WHY THIS ARTICLE IS STILL VERY ACTUAL. not only, cause its like a fore-seeing of the later role of the anarchists during the spanish civil war- no. IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE ENGELS REFERS ABOUT ANARCHIST "PHRASE-MONGERY" AND "DIRTY TRICKS"! above we face the trick, to get engels still valid and actual remarks removed. i think, it would be very bad 4 the reputation of the AWL 2 follow this wish, and iam protesting in advance if this will go to happen.
again, why did never AWLérs confront the anarchists with the original texts of marx, engels, lenin &trotsky about them?

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 21/11/2011 - 21:22

unable 2 argue with engels´text or any of the presentet facts, jordan attacks me with exactly the same language as some indian fascists from RSS used to attack me in some net-club- with support of an anarchist from the "socialist party of great brittain".
He suggests me to leave and thinks he needs to teach me about "political practice in real life". LOL! (wouldnt really wonder me, if he was 1 of this RSS-guys in another coat). I had succesful political practice since 40 years and some of my articles, when they made it to big mags, had hundreds of thousands of readers. and now, in early pension, iam handicapped and much 2 sick 4 joining demonstrations or that.
writing here since years, why should i allow an nonsensical anarchist to beat me out of here? forget about this try 2 leave the field 4 u.

and where is the "abuse" of AWL, if i simply raise the quest, why they dont confront the anarchists better?
this type as the one above will consider any critic as "abuse", but all the shit he writes about me is not abusive of course? these double-moral hypocrites are highly oversensitive with themselves, but muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch less with others. exactly the profile or psychology of the rightwingers i was dealin´with.

Submitted by guenter on Tue, 22/11/2011 - 21:28

I was laughing a lot about jordan´s next abusive self-expose.
his language

your illogical, irrelevant, moronic attacks.

is once again exactly the same i used to receive from the fascists in another club.

the "totally unimportant person" u said also published 2 books with good critics in 2 countries, and was known and liked by thousands. but usually i dont admit that.

if u think, people will take u more seriously, jordan, we can both go and speak 2 the greek workers who recently (and not 100 years ago to bakuninists) lost 4 leftwing workingcomrades 2 anarchist murderers; and we will see if they make an salad out of me or out of you.
(btw, iam from workingclass, and wouldnt wonder if u are not.)

i rest my case here, and let the childish anarchist nonsense-clowns play with each other.

and again i protest the nice treatment which AWL does offer to such an provocative political tendency. they should have honoured me 4 fighting the anarchists. If they wanna come closer with them, i guess i can predict where this will end up.

Submitted by guenter on Wed, 23/11/2011 - 14:02

well, jordan, i said i rest my case, but as long as u write sick shit about me, u will provoke me back:

“is once again exactly the same i used to receive from the fascists in another club.”
Marxists/Trotskyists I’ve talked to about this thread seem to think the same too. Maybe it's nothing to do with the political allegiance of your opponents (just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't make them right wing, Mr. Wannabe Commisar),

so, here u suggest, that i simply label people who dont agree with me, as fascists.
but concretly i had compared u with indians from the RSS who had exactly the same dirty rhetoric tricks than you. so maybe u dont know who the RSS is and that they are fascists. thats very possible (that u dont know what u talk about).

and if u think, i wanna be a comisar or a town named after me, shows again ur stupidity (my mentality is lightyears from that) and that u simply use the same anticommunist phrases, any rightwinger and bourgeois did repeat against us since decades.

wanna come now with me, student,(let me assume that, cause u didnt answer my quest if u are from working class) and speak with me to the greek workers - doin´the reality check?
as soon as u are finished with university and overtake daddy´s factory, ur anarchism will be history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@theo:

its exactly like this, that very different types of youngsters may label themselves as anarchists. they might be punks only or even buddhists- holding "green" positions or not any positions (so, rather nonpolitical) or whateva. (they never might have heard about durutti or things as the spanish civil war.) that was the mixture i experienced in an anarchist club: if more unconcrete, if better 4 them. if more concrete an political issue was outspoken, they cudnt understand or judge it at all. its exactly this nonsensical mixture and political un-experience what makes it so easy to infiltrate them with provocateurs. no serious political tendency, who could ever play an constructive political role. some of them will continue 2 set banks on fire when workers are in. thats playin´"revolution" for them.

Submitted by guenter on Thu, 01/12/2011 - 13:04

hi theo,
i wouldnt see a clear difference between nowadays and historical anarchism. thats why i posted the text of engels before- it shows how anarchists since their beginnings often had phrases only.
agents as such can probably or surely be found in any leftwing group- but the loose structure and diffuse ideology of anarchism makes it easier 4 agents to hide behind. its easier 2 learn a few superficial phrases, than 2 study marxism.
at least i dont know a single case, where workers have been murdered during demonstrations out of marxist blocks, as it happened in greece out of the black bloc. and many anarchists always believed in setting banks on fire, is revolution, why marxists never did so. and thats why anarchists are an easier place 4 agent provocateurs than others.
that doesnt mean, that we cant honour sacco &vanzetti, who have been innocent. the anarchos in greece are not.

Submitted by guenter on Thu, 01/12/2011 - 20:10

theo,
i didnt experience them as brilliant comrades. i often saw anarchists in union with rightwingers against marxists. so, my experience is different.
also, iam not condeming every little violence, but setting a bank on fire with workers in who have no more way out, is far the best anti-left propaganda for the benefit of the reactionist side. even the RAF (german "terrorists") tried to avoid such innocent victimes; and i remember how hard some1 from AWL came down on me when i didnt blindly condem them, and tried to make an RAF-sympathisant out of me, which iam not. if more, the sympathy of the AWL 4 the anarchists does astonish me.

Submitted by AWL on Fri, 02/12/2011 - 10:58

Guenter,

If that's your experience, fair enough. But would you accept that other socialists (including in other countries) have had a different experience of some anarchists? In Britain we have worked with some closely. And that is a fact, not not something we've invented to impress anarchists!

What does "sympathetic" mean? We are not anarchists. In fact we have been very clear in our opposition to and criticism of anarchism. But we're not going to accept your presentation as the only possible experience of anarchists, because our predominant experience is different.

Sacha Ismail

Submitted by guenter on Fri, 02/12/2011 - 19:57

hi sacha,
i think, ur reply 2 me dont hit the nail at all.
a) i wasnt only talking about my personal experience, but my starting point was the recent murder of workers in greece, out of the "black bloc" (so whether done by anarchists or by police-provocateures in anarchist outfit. the reasons, why an anarchist outfit is easy 4 provocateurs, i discused.) There was no AWL-article about what happened in greece. why not? is this the "critical engagement" with anarchists, ira speaks about in her article?
oh yes, i see uncritical sympathy, and along with some green, some reformist and some pro-imperialist positions, this will become a muddy mix 4 the AWL.

2. u argue to know some nice persons who are anarchist. posible. but since when is this the bae 4 political connection? some nice people we can find in ANY group, including reactionist ones and the catholic church. shall i work with the catholics, cause i know a few nice persons who are catholics?
interesting, how AWL who otherwise does -due to my opinion- rather underrate "the personal" suddenly sees some personal experience with a few nice fellows who are anarchist as an substantial base 4 coming closer political.

Submitted by danrawnsley on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 17:24

1) Here is the article we published after the demonstration you keep referring to.

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/05/14/greece-darkness

Here is our comment from that article on the killing of the bank workers:

'A black block group threw petrol bombs to burn the bank branch at the ground floor, and the fire got out of control. Although it was revealed by the bank employees’ federation that the people were locked in a building with no fire exit, there can be no excuse for those who set the fire. It is a criminal attitude to set fire to a building where there are obviously people in it.'

2) It is not the case that we know some nice anarchists and this is the be all and end all of our engagement with anarchism. Class struggle anarchists agree with us on some basic issues of political organisation, therefore it makes sense to form a united front with them where possible. Our organisation has an experience of working with such anarchists.

You seem to be talking about specific hard anarchists - people who have read and agree with Bakunin, Proudhon etc. - whereas both Yves article and Ira's reply are discussing people who, in England and France at least, often refer to themselves as 'anarchists'.

When I first became conscious of politics I was broadly against authority and in favour of freedom, my analysis didn't go much deeper. I had never heard of Socialism, let alone Trotskyism. I called myself an anarchist, despite never having read any anarchist writers, because it was the word that seemed to best describe what I was. It is this kind of 'anarchist' that the articles are attempting to discuss.

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 20:53

hi dan,
i found no AWL-article about the worker, unionist &CP-member who was recently (during the genral-strike) murdered within an attack out of the black-bloc; the tarde-unionists who "arrested" them found police-agent documents within 2 of them.
a similar experience with interactions of "black bloc" &police does excist in some countries, thats why i called it an international experience.

2. i dont wonder that u urself have been an anarchist b4, as u said. when u simply piss off from an interesting debate about the islam, without telling any reason (we had no clash there or so) and even i requested u twice to give ur reason, then ur behaviour in my opinion is still not socialist but still not always willin´to dig´deeper.

Submitted by AWL on Sun, 04/12/2011 - 17:36

Guenter,

If you want anyone - members of the AWL or not - to engage with you in anything like a serious way on this site then you need to radically change your style of debating, which is currently based on shrill and outrageous accusations and ad hominem attacks, as well as a consistently sanctimonious, self-righteous and hectoring tone. We wouldn't allow people to comport themselves in this way from the floor of one of our public meetings and we don't allow it in other public forums such as our website either.

If you find that difficult to deal with I suggest you set up your own blog where you can make public all your criticisms of the AWL in as much detail as you wish.

Thanks,
Daniel Randall

PS: I should make it clear that I'm speaking in a personal capacity here and not on behalf of my organisation as a whole.

Submitted by danrawnsley on Sun, 04/12/2011 - 19:46

I stopped posting on that article because I felt disheartened and frustrated by your tone. You're quite right though, I should've said that at the time, my apologies. I'm happy to engage in that discussion again and will let you know if I have trouble with your tone this time round, though I, and I feel others, would appreciate it if you moderated it to a more comradely one.

As to my being an 'anarchist', my point was that I wasn't an anarchist really, just new to left wing politics and straying around for some kind of underpinning to the ideas that I was developing, 'anarchism' was the most readily found label. I feel no need to apologise for not being born or raised a Trotskyist. My point was that this applies to quite a few young people who would call themselves anarchists. As Yves article points out, their politics are picked up from a whole range of websites, zines and films. I feel there is a problem with this approach, it ignores the importance of a framework for one's ideas, but I certainly don't think these people need to be attacked so vitriolicly for their ideas. Sometimes we're polemicists, sometimes we're teachers, sometimes we're students.

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 13:48

daniel randall, all u claim about me is bullshit. well, iam a bit confused with all the daniels here, but i think u are the singing "ruby kid", right? so u once was well ridiculed in an discussion with me where u pissed off without the slightest argument. ur nonensical posting above is looking 4 revanche, what is indeed very kid-ish.

daniel rawnsley, i consider it as an nonserious lame excuse if even u complain about my tone in the article u pissed off from- we didnt had the slightest clash there, at least u didnt articulate anything like this. so i wont let u go now, without explaining in detail what u meant. no blame without posting ur proof 4 what u claim! wasnt it simply, that u didnt know what 2 say when i took the discussion about islam further than the AWL did? this was obvious.

but duck is an real comic:

that the anarchists wouldn't let him come to their party even though his mummy said he was a very special boy. (The AWL do realise part of the reason he's ended up here is because the very non anarchist Permanent Revolution are a lot less tolerant than you?)

a) his remark about me critisising the anarchists "cause they didnt let me 2 their party" shows that he understood less than nothing -whether bout the political arguments nor me personally- and that he cant be taken serious.
b) when he tries 2 suggest that i "ended up" here cause the site of PR was "less tolerant" than he is simply a highly demagogic shameless liar. iam not forbidden 2 write over there, and sacha was winning me over there 2 check the AWL, when he informed me bout their position about israel and being much more critical about the islam than other trotskyte groups. this i had immediately sympathy for. i think he can witness that it was like this. he also asked me 4 a greeting word then 4 the AWL-congress which i wrote. but after i checked the whole website, i also found points i disagreed, thats natural and has nothing to do with the mentality of those, who only wanna disturb. (and, duck, there are enough anarchist articles/discussions here where i didnt post at all. u still have enough space 2 post somehwere and dont need 2 claim u cant, cause of me.)

but well, if some here see it that way, and randall -in stalinist manner- claims that i shall be forbidden 2 write here, than i can also leave- i dont depend on that site at all- and these kids here can play with each other "undisturbed".
whenever they are in argumentative trouble again, iam sure they will find another strawman 2 blame for.
interesting 2 see, how they did react 2 me in the same manner than rightwingers do- seems that it are the same type of people anywhere, and thats why it will never work out with socialism . all u guys above first need ur inner revolutions bout ur own manners and sick interpretations.

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 14:44

"patricksmith" told me in german language that i shall piss off cause iam an offense.
i must say, its getting overwhelming argumentative..... very socialist.
i suppose, that marx, lenin, trotsky who all have been very polemical must be the biggest offense 4 patrick.

Submitted by AWL on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 15:00

www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/10/26/greek-strikes-escalate-political-alternative-needed

"The end of the two day general strike was dominated by the violence that erupted between the bloc organised by PAME (a front organisation of the Greek Communist Party, KKE) and the so-called anarchist black bloc. A 53 year old PAME construction worker died from heart failure as a result of the attack, and 73 other protesters were hospitalized with injuries.

"Three or four hundred protesters of the so-called anarchist black bloc had marched to Syntagma Square, unimpeded by the ELAS police, and armed with Molotov cocktails. They violently attacked the PAME bloc.

"As the PAME workers and stewards fought off the attack, the black bloc anarchists responded with petrol bombs and rocks. The sophistication of the black bloc’s weapons betrays the premeditated nature of their attacks.

"The riot police subsequently got the excuse to intervene, attacking PAME protesters and members of the black bloc alike.

"The role of the Greek police and its “darker” not-so-legal parts, their relations with LAOS, and their use of infiltrators is up for investigation. (Compare the recent exposures of the British police role in infiltrating the environmental movement, inciting and even committing acts of violence).

"KKE secretary Aleka Paparyga has made serious accusations about the black bloc protesters. She pointed to web sites that predicted the attacks on the PAME block a couple of days in advance, and questioned the reluctance of the riot police to prevent the attack taking place by stopping the black bloc from approaching Syntagma Square.

"She claimed that police and members of the black bloc celebrated together on the evening of 20 October), and that she had photographic evidence of police changing into black bloc gear.

"Rizospastis, the KKE newspaper, has provided photographic evidence of the similarity of the weapons used by the riot police and by the black bloc...

"As well as infiltrators and provocateurs, for whom the black bloc gives such easy openings, there are sections within the movement influenced by anarchism who reduce the defeat of corporate capitalism to the smashing of corporate capitalism’s window screens...

"They try to create “revolutionary situations” outside the needs and the level of struggle of the working-class movement. They dismiss working-class structures, such as trade unions, as hierarchical structures of power, oppression, and corruption. They oscillate between throwing Molotov petrol bombs and the comfort of their sofas.

"The different political perspectives and ways forward for the working-class movement should be tested during the struggle and should be discussed and debated openly in general meetings, rather than bypassed and hijacked by arbitrary actions by the black bloc.

"Even if we assume that the black bloc was not infiltrated by the police, still their action did not advance the struggle. On the contrary. It polarised the PAME workers and supporters against the fictitious enemy of the “other left”, and rescued the KKE leadership from the pressure, exerted by the rank and file, for a united workers’ front."

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 20:24

seems that "patricksmith" found his hate-object. he calls me a liar, because he disagrees with my translation from german 2 english, which might not always be absolute correct, but same as incorrect as my english is his german. "ärgerlich"-the word he used, is "offensive" in my dictionary, and poss off or getting lost- not a big difference. now he´s asking me(!), an old 100%anti-stalinist and trotskyte, , if i will celebrate stalin´s birthday next week. so i think, its obvious now, who is 10 years old here.
maybe he´s just another provocateur, whether anarchist or not.
or maybe he only suffers from an widespread anti-logic- calling me nasty and probably considering his own abuses as kindness, LOL!

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 20:45

@AWL-posting, article bout the murdered construction-worker:

first of all iam very sorry that i overlooked this article, and i never had any problems 2 say so, when really doin´a mistake.
but what is more important: without knowing this article, i posted the same facts and very similar political comment, and was badly attacked 4 it not only from anarchists, but also from a few AWL-members.
taking ur own article &comment seriously, should have provoked different statements from some AWL-persons here, or somewhere something is double-tongued here.

@mr. "very painful": if u wanna cancel abuses, u could -4 example- argue 2 cancel patricks posting about me. but in fact u ask 4 political censorship of my political statements, which might be polemical but not abusive. funny, how often the same people here who themselve abuse like anything, call me abusive when I clearly argue political- always hypersensitive, when a critic comes 2 themselves, and much, much less sensitive when they themselve talk 2 others. what a pettybourgeois double-tongued twisted moral!
as marx, engels, rosa luxemburg, lenin, trotsky and others have been so much more polemical than iam (btw: sayin this, dont mean 2 compare myself with them- just 2 avoid the next sick interpretation) , i wonder when some here will ask 2 censor all THEIR "abuses"!?

Submitted by AWL on Mon, 05/12/2011 - 21:17

Comrades,

I would urge everyone to try to remain calm or return to being calm. If anyone is taking glee in winding other comrades up - stop it. And at the same time I'd ask everyone to consider whether they can find ways of arguing and responding which are less vicious-sounding. Not less politically aggressive or polemical: but please consider whether it's possible to write differently next time, so that we can get away from aggravating each other personally and back to the political debate.

Both these requests are aimed against more than one person, before anyone takes offence.

Sacha Ismail

Submitted by guenter on Tue, 06/12/2011 - 13:13

i just saw that patrick cancelled his latest silly attack in german language, and in a private mail he apologised 4 having called me an stalinist without any reason. i think he should have said that in public (then i had accepted it)- THIS was socialist behaviour, no secrecy. people should stand 4 what they said.
i also apologized here 4 having overlooked an important AWL-article about greece.

Submitted by guenter on Tue, 06/12/2011 - 15:47

a) as long as u post in german -what probably no one else here understands except me- it was a secret (what u said) for 99,9% of the readers here.

b)the word moron i dont even know, and i didnt exactly label some as fascists; i only compared the style of demagogic &attack with rightwingers i experienced, and i gave examples 2 make it clear why i say so.
and the behaviour of some -including yours- was indeed provocational, what dont mean that all of them are agents too. the word agent-provocateur i think i used only in the context of some historical examples or what recently happend in greece. and the role of the "black bloc" as being infiltrated by police-agents/agent-provocateurs is worldwide so wellknown, that i dont need 2 explain that further again.
and i said that anarchist structures as such makes it easy 2 infiltrate them, and thats it. no marxist ever disagreed here.

Add new comment

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.