[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Anarchists, however, did not regard this principle as leading to secession
or isolation. On the contrary, they held "the conviction that once the right
to secede is recognized, secession will, in fact, become impossible
because national units will be freely established and no longer the
product of violence and historical falsehood." Then, and then only, will
they become "truly strong, fruitful, and permanent."
Later, Lenin, and the early congresses of the Third International, adopted
this concept from Bakunin, and the Bolsheviks made it the foundation of
their policy on nationalities and of their anti-colonialist strategy - until
they eventually belied it to turn to authoritarian centralization and
disguised imperialism.
DECOLONIZATION
It is noteworthy that logical deduction led the originators of federalism to
a prophetic anticipation of the problems of decolonization. Proudhon
distinguished the unit "based on conquest" from the "rational" unit and
saw that "every organization that exceeds its true limits and tends to
invade or annex other organizations loses in strength what it gains in
size, and moves toward dissolution." The more a city (i.e., a nation)
extends its population or its territory, the nearer it comes to tyranny and,
finally, disruption:
"If it sets up subsidiaries or colonies some distance away, these
subsidiaries or colonies will, sooner or later, change into new cities
which will remain linked to the mother city only by federation, or not at
all ....
When the new city is ready to support itself it will itself declare its
independence: by what right should the parent city presume to treat it as
a vassal, as property to be exploited?
Thus in our time we have seen the United States emancipate itself from
England; and Canada likewise in fact, if not in name; Australia set out on
the road to separation by the consent, and with the approval, of the
mother country. In the same way Algeria will, sooner or later, constitute
itself an African France unless for abominable, selfish motives we keep
it as a single unit by means of force and poverty."
Bakunin had an eye on the underdeveloped countries and doubted
whether "imperialist Europe" could keep 800 million Asiatics in
servitude. "Two-thirds of humanity, 800 million Asians asleep in their
servitude will necessarily awaken and begin to move. But in what
direction and to what end?" He declared "strong sympathy for any
national uprising against any form of oppression" and commended to the
subject peoples the fascinating example of the Spanish uprising against
Napoleon. In spite of the fantastic disproportion between the native
guerrillas and the imperial troops, the occupying power failed to put
them down, and the French were driven out of Spain after a five-year
struggle.
Every people "has the right to be itself and no one is entitled to impose
its costume, its customs, its language, its opinions, or its laws." However,
Bakunin also believed that there could be no true federalism without
socialism and wished that national liberation could be achieved "as much
in the economic as in the political interests of the masses" and "not with
ambitious intent to set up a powerful State." Any revolution for national
independence "will necessarily be against the people . . . if it is carried
out without the people and must therefore depend for success on a
privileged class," and will thus become "a retrogressive, disastrous,
counter-revolutionary movement."
It would be regrettable if the decolonized countries were to cast off the
foreign yoke only to fall into indigenous political or religious servitude.
Their emancipation requires that "all faith in any divine or human
authority be eradicated among the masses." The national question is
historically secondary to the social question and salvation depends on the
social revolution. An isolated national revolution cannot succeed. The
social revolution inevitably becomes a world revolution.
Bakunin foresaw that decolonization would be followed by an ever
expanding federation of revolutionary peoples: "The future lies initially
with the creation of a European-American international unit. Later, much
later, this great European-American nation will merge with the African
and Asiatic units." This analysis brings us straight into the middle of the
twentieth century.
3 Anarchism in Revolutionary Practice: 1880-
1914
ANARCHISM BECOMES ISOLATED FROM THE WORKING-
CLASS MOVEMENT
It is now time to examine anarchism in action. Which brings us to the
eve of the twentieth century. Libertarian ideas certainly played some part
in the revolutions of the nineteenth century but not an independent one.
Proudhon had taken a negative attitude to the 1848 Revolution even
before its outbreak. He attacked it as a political revolution, a bourgeois
booby trap, and, indeed, much of this was true. Moreover, according to
Proudhon, it was inopportune and its use of barricades and street battles
was outdated, for he himself dreamed of a quite different road to victory
for his panacea: mutuelliste collectivism. As for the Paris Commune,
while it is true that it spontaneously broke away from "traditional statist
centralization," it was the product of a "compromise," as Henri Lefebvre
has noted, a sort of "united front" between the Proudhonists and
Bakuninites on the one hand and the Jacobins and Blanquists on the
other. It "boldly repudiated" the State, but Bakunin had to admit that the
internationalist anarchists were a "tiny minority" in its ranks.
As a result of Bakunin's impetus, anarchism had, however, succeeded in
grafting itself onto the First International - a proletarian, internationalist,
apolitical, mass movement. But sometime around 1880 the anarchists
began to deride "the timid International of the first period," and sought to
set up in its place what Malatesta in 1884 described as the "redoubtable
International," which was to be anarchist, communist, anti-religious,
anti-parliamentary, and revolutionary, all at the same time. This
scarecrow was very flimsy: anarchism cut itself off from the working-
class movement, with the result that it deteriorated and lost its way in
sectarianism and minority activism.
What caused this decline? One reason was the swiftness of industrial
development and the rapid conquest of political rights by workers who
then became more receptive to parliamentary reformism. It followed that
the international working-class movement was taken over by politically
minded, electoralist, reformist social democrats whose purpose was not
the social revolution but the legal conquest of the bourgeois State and the
satisfaction of short-term demands.
When they found themselves a small minority, the anarchists abandoned
the idea of militancy within large popular movements. Free rein was
given to utopian doctrines, combining premature anticipations and [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl exclamation.htw.pl
Anarchists, however, did not regard this principle as leading to secession
or isolation. On the contrary, they held "the conviction that once the right
to secede is recognized, secession will, in fact, become impossible
because national units will be freely established and no longer the
product of violence and historical falsehood." Then, and then only, will
they become "truly strong, fruitful, and permanent."
Later, Lenin, and the early congresses of the Third International, adopted
this concept from Bakunin, and the Bolsheviks made it the foundation of
their policy on nationalities and of their anti-colonialist strategy - until
they eventually belied it to turn to authoritarian centralization and
disguised imperialism.
DECOLONIZATION
It is noteworthy that logical deduction led the originators of federalism to
a prophetic anticipation of the problems of decolonization. Proudhon
distinguished the unit "based on conquest" from the "rational" unit and
saw that "every organization that exceeds its true limits and tends to
invade or annex other organizations loses in strength what it gains in
size, and moves toward dissolution." The more a city (i.e., a nation)
extends its population or its territory, the nearer it comes to tyranny and,
finally, disruption:
"If it sets up subsidiaries or colonies some distance away, these
subsidiaries or colonies will, sooner or later, change into new cities
which will remain linked to the mother city only by federation, or not at
all ....
When the new city is ready to support itself it will itself declare its
independence: by what right should the parent city presume to treat it as
a vassal, as property to be exploited?
Thus in our time we have seen the United States emancipate itself from
England; and Canada likewise in fact, if not in name; Australia set out on
the road to separation by the consent, and with the approval, of the
mother country. In the same way Algeria will, sooner or later, constitute
itself an African France unless for abominable, selfish motives we keep
it as a single unit by means of force and poverty."
Bakunin had an eye on the underdeveloped countries and doubted
whether "imperialist Europe" could keep 800 million Asiatics in
servitude. "Two-thirds of humanity, 800 million Asians asleep in their
servitude will necessarily awaken and begin to move. But in what
direction and to what end?" He declared "strong sympathy for any
national uprising against any form of oppression" and commended to the
subject peoples the fascinating example of the Spanish uprising against
Napoleon. In spite of the fantastic disproportion between the native
guerrillas and the imperial troops, the occupying power failed to put
them down, and the French were driven out of Spain after a five-year
struggle.
Every people "has the right to be itself and no one is entitled to impose
its costume, its customs, its language, its opinions, or its laws." However,
Bakunin also believed that there could be no true federalism without
socialism and wished that national liberation could be achieved "as much
in the economic as in the political interests of the masses" and "not with
ambitious intent to set up a powerful State." Any revolution for national
independence "will necessarily be against the people . . . if it is carried
out without the people and must therefore depend for success on a
privileged class," and will thus become "a retrogressive, disastrous,
counter-revolutionary movement."
It would be regrettable if the decolonized countries were to cast off the
foreign yoke only to fall into indigenous political or religious servitude.
Their emancipation requires that "all faith in any divine or human
authority be eradicated among the masses." The national question is
historically secondary to the social question and salvation depends on the
social revolution. An isolated national revolution cannot succeed. The
social revolution inevitably becomes a world revolution.
Bakunin foresaw that decolonization would be followed by an ever
expanding federation of revolutionary peoples: "The future lies initially
with the creation of a European-American international unit. Later, much
later, this great European-American nation will merge with the African
and Asiatic units." This analysis brings us straight into the middle of the
twentieth century.
3 Anarchism in Revolutionary Practice: 1880-
1914
ANARCHISM BECOMES ISOLATED FROM THE WORKING-
CLASS MOVEMENT
It is now time to examine anarchism in action. Which brings us to the
eve of the twentieth century. Libertarian ideas certainly played some part
in the revolutions of the nineteenth century but not an independent one.
Proudhon had taken a negative attitude to the 1848 Revolution even
before its outbreak. He attacked it as a political revolution, a bourgeois
booby trap, and, indeed, much of this was true. Moreover, according to
Proudhon, it was inopportune and its use of barricades and street battles
was outdated, for he himself dreamed of a quite different road to victory
for his panacea: mutuelliste collectivism. As for the Paris Commune,
while it is true that it spontaneously broke away from "traditional statist
centralization," it was the product of a "compromise," as Henri Lefebvre
has noted, a sort of "united front" between the Proudhonists and
Bakuninites on the one hand and the Jacobins and Blanquists on the
other. It "boldly repudiated" the State, but Bakunin had to admit that the
internationalist anarchists were a "tiny minority" in its ranks.
As a result of Bakunin's impetus, anarchism had, however, succeeded in
grafting itself onto the First International - a proletarian, internationalist,
apolitical, mass movement. But sometime around 1880 the anarchists
began to deride "the timid International of the first period," and sought to
set up in its place what Malatesta in 1884 described as the "redoubtable
International," which was to be anarchist, communist, anti-religious,
anti-parliamentary, and revolutionary, all at the same time. This
scarecrow was very flimsy: anarchism cut itself off from the working-
class movement, with the result that it deteriorated and lost its way in
sectarianism and minority activism.
What caused this decline? One reason was the swiftness of industrial
development and the rapid conquest of political rights by workers who
then became more receptive to parliamentary reformism. It followed that
the international working-class movement was taken over by politically
minded, electoralist, reformist social democrats whose purpose was not
the social revolution but the legal conquest of the bourgeois State and the
satisfaction of short-term demands.
When they found themselves a small minority, the anarchists abandoned
the idea of militancy within large popular movements. Free rein was
given to utopian doctrines, combining premature anticipations and [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]