A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Italy, FdCA theoretical pamphlet: "Anarchist Communists: A Question Of Class", Part IV of VII

Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:13:20 +0300

4. Why Anarchist: what divides us from the left
Let us not be fooled by the heading. It has already been explained
that Anarchist Communists were born from and have always
remained within the struggles of the exploited and have therefore
constantly been a part of the class-struggle left. However, in
everyday language the expression "left" has come to include only the
Marxist element, be they Revisionists, Third-Internationalists,
heretics or the so-called "New Left", with the Anarchists being
pushed aside. We therefore use the term as it is currently used, for
reasons of simplicity, but this in no way implies any distancing of
ourselves from strictly class-struggle positions.

In reviewing the common points between the various theories which
populate the struggles for the emancipation of the proletariat, we
have already noted in what way they differ with regard to the various
interpretations and how their implications are not accepted
unanimously. They are, however, less important than those
differences indicated at the end of the last section and concern two
fundamental and truly divisive issues: the development of the
proletarian movement and the building of the post-revolutionary

4.1 Struggles in the bourgeois State

The deterministic view of history (more evident in his followers, but
nonetheless present in Marx) can also influence the various ways of
conceiving the means to develop the proletariat's radical nature
within the present capitalist society, the instruments required to
strengthen the proletariat's opposition to exploitation and the level of
struggle which the proletariat itself is capable of developing. In the
words of Marx and Engels in the 1848 Communist Manifesto: "the
proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized
as the ruling class". This brief passage contains in a nutshell the
whole history of the evolution of Marxism from its origins as a tiny
sect of German emigrants in Great Britain to the dominant party of
the proletariat throughout the 20th century. It is also, according to
Anarchists, the cause of the miserable collapse of real socialism.

The first element to consider is the question of "political
supremacy". The conquest of this supremacy has logical and
practical consequences which Anarchist Communists have always
rejected (as also have, if the truth be told, certain Marxist currents
like the Luxemburgists, Bordighists, Council Communists, etc.).
The need to conquer political power, in fact, implies political
representation, a party which works within the institutions.
Anarchist Communists do not reject the party as organization
(obviously as long as it meets certain criteria, something we will
return to later). We reject it inasmuch as it represents the exploited
masses, and even more so where this occurs within the political
arena. If the masses are to bring about their own emancipation, then
only they can represent themselves. For Marxists, however, the
political vanguard plays an entirely different role (this, too, we will
return to later), but above all it must devote itself to entering the
apparatus of the bourgeois State, taking over its mechanisms,
developing its own strength, electorally speaking, and so on. The
process was once known in Italy as "becoming State". The revolutionary
current of Marxism was to reject this strategy which underwent a tragic
development and met an even more tragic end in the Second International
(1881-1914), but nevertheless the same path would be followed again and
again, as for example with the parties of the Third International

In effect, the compromise with the bourgeois State and the
re-absorption by the State of Marxism's operations (to the extent of
it totally capitulating) has been a constant factor in the history of
Marxism. When the German Social Democratic Party was founded
in Gotha in 1875, Marx sharply criticized the programme of the new
political grouping, as the fusion between his followers and those of
Ferdinand Lasalle had, in his opinion, watered down his theories.
The party continued on its path despite this excommunication.
However, though trusting in the support of Engels (who would
himself disown it after the turning point of the 1891 Congress in
Erfurt) and its own ideas, developed for the most part by Karl
Kautsky, it would form the basic political line of the Second
International. The door was open, and the first to rush through was
Eduard Bernstein, who started to deny the need for revolutionary
struggle (a denial which is already implicit, at a pinch, in the passage
by Marx and Engels quoted at the start of this section). He was followed
by Alexandre Millerand in France, who left the party in order to enter a
bourgeois Government as minister. Finally, there came the whole German
Social Democratic movement, which in 1914 (earlier indicated erroneously
but intentionally, as the date of the end of the Second International)
voted for the war credits which allowed Germany to launch World War I.

Lenin grafted a Blanquist element onto the Marxist tree, giving it
once again an aggressively revolutionary character. However, though
this would work in the power-grabbing phase of November 1917, it
would nonetheless later allow the re-emergence of the tendency to
compromise with the bourgeois State, a factor which has been
shared by every Communist party in the world right up to the fall of
the Berlin Wall.

Anarchist Communists, instead, are not interested in the bourgeois
State apparatus, except to analyze it in order to reveal its true method
of functioning. We therefore believe that it is not useful to work
within this apparatus, either as an organization or as proletariat.
Nothing is to be gained by it except more chains.

4.2 Political struggles and social struggles

Anarchist Communists believe that the revolution must be a social
revolution, that it must overturn the property relationships of
bourgeois society. Responsibility for the abolition of private property
and its replacement with collective ownership must be fully taken on
by the proletariat, which must itself begin to manage production,
distribution and services. Communist society can only be
self-managing and federative or, as is often said, decision-making
power must be exercised from below. With this in mind, the
day-to-day struggles which we are involved in within the present
capitalist society serve a variety of purposes. First of all, they help
build the proletariat's fighting power, its mass organization whose
forms presage the future instruments of management. Secondly,
even the conquest of "crumbs, which though tiny are always good to
eat, (...) will increase the workers' well-being and therefore improve
conditions, even intellectual conditions" (Fabbri). Lastly, anything
that the struggle snatches from the bosses, which limits their freedom
to do as they would wish, is a conquest which must be won and defended.
In this sense, Anarchists are "reformers" (to use Malatesta's word) but
not reformists, as they do not believe that a free and equal society
can be built little by little, step by step. What can be built by
degrees and will help the chances of a successful revolutionary rupture,
is the will to fight and the class consciousness of the exploited.
Anarchism is "gradualist" (another of Malatesta's expressions) in other
words, not because it envisages a gradual passage from Capitalism to
Communism, but inasmuch as it believes in the gradual construction of
revolutionary proletarian organization which is conscious of the fact
that the satisfaction of its historical needs rests entirely and solely
in the hands of the proletariat itself.

In all of the above there is no room for political struggle, for taking
control of the State apparatus with the aim of using it as a vehicle for
social change, for two good reasons. The first is that the State is a
superstructure of bourgeois society and, as such, is unsuitable for a
communist transformation (if anything, its survival reproduces
bourgeois society, as we will see further on). Secondly, the political
road envisages delegation, without any possibility of control, to the
(often self-proclaimed) vanguard which then loses itself in the
meanderings and traps of the capitalist social apparatus and deprives
the proletariat of its role as protagonist of its own emancipation,
which rightly belongs to it. It could also be added that the political
struggle diverts the hopes of emancipation towards inappropriate
paths, deceiving the masses into imagining that emancipation can be
brought about by the powers-that-be rather than won through social

This point sharply divides Anarchist Communist theory from
Marxist theory (in almost all its forms). Marx and Engels' political
revolution, and before them that of the Jacobins, Gracchus Babeuf
and Louis-Auguste Blanqui, envisages a political struggle, the
consequences of which we have seen in all the political revolutions
which have taken place to date, where the dominant class has simply
reappeared. Social revolution, the only revolution which can truly
emancipate the exploited, requires social struggle.

4.3 The role of the vanguard

As we have said, the need for political struggle, with all its
complexities, its strategic subtleties and its dark side, leads to the
creation of a political party, or vanguard, which detaches itself from
the masses in order to protect the masses' interests, the only possible
relationship being that of delegate. The party, guardian of orthodoxy
and the only strategy for the salvation of the exploited, is the course
of the correct line to follow and becomes separate from the class it
seeks to represent. In fact, in its Leninist variety it must be formed
by elements which do not come from the proletariat. This is because
the workers (not to mention the peasants), being squeezed under the
weight of their daily needs (economicism), are incapable of
understanding the difference between their immediate needs and
their historical needs, the satisfaction of which will lead to their

For Anarchist Communists, the party (a word which Malatesta
himself used), or the political organization of the Anarchist
Communists, plays a role only within the proletarian movement. In
other words, from within the daily struggles, it seeks to develop the
class consciousness within the proletariat, to promote (as part of the
proletariat's clash with the bourgeoisie) a revolutionary strategy
which can allow consciousness of the historical needs to develop
among the exploited, starting with their daily needs. In this case, the
party does not make the revolution for the proletariat, it does not
direct it in the proletariat's interest, it does not govern it for the good
of the proletariat. It simply exists within the process of growth and
emancipation of the proletariat, seeking to convince the rest of the
proletariat that the ideas it promotes are a suitable way of reaching
the goal. In order to do this, the party must develop analyses,
proposals, reflections and must function as an enzyme for
revolutionary development, as the historical memory of past victories
and defeats and the fulcrum for a critical and useful re-examination of

4.4 The State

Let us return to the extract from Marx and Engels which we quoted
at the start of Chapter 4.1. Marx and Engels speak of concentrating
all the means of production in the hands of the State. As we have
already seen, that "by degree" was the justification used by German
Social Democrats for the conquest of political power and the gradual
transformation of capitalist society into a communist one (this is
utopia, at least in its commonly-used sense of the unreachable goal,
something which history has more than amply demonstrated). But
what happens once the State has been taken over, on the crest of a
revolutionary wave, no longer on the forced march through the
institutions which eventually peters out to the point of exhausting
the innovative energies of the self-proclaimed vanguard? What
happens once the party of professional militants has for the moment
achieved power without ever having come to any political
compromises with the ruling class? Can the recipe still work? Even
in this case, the history of all the revolutions of the 20th century
and of their collapse leaves no room for doubt - the revolution is
not betrayed (as claimed by Lev Davidovich Bronstein, a.k.a. Trotsky).
It regularly fails to reach its intended goals and throws up another
class society based on exploitation. But why?

Marx and Engels' phrase ends with a qualification of the State as
"the proletariat organized as the ruling class". Here is the root of the
causes of the failed revolutions which have been run by Marxists and
it is on this point that Anarchist criticism has concentrated,
beginning with Bakunin. He had foreseen these failures well before
they ever happened. The question we should ask ourselves is a
simple one: does the proletariat need the State to organize itself as
the dominant class? The answer of Anarchist Communists is: no, for
some very basic reasons.

4.4.1 The problem of the dominant class

In 1868, when the Bakuninist International Alliance of Socialist
Democracy applied to join the International Workingmen's
Association (IWMA), Marx, apart from asking that it join as a local
section and not as a structured international, requested a change in
its statute: with heavy irony he pointed out that the phrase
"equalization of the classes" was ambiguous and that it would have
to be corrected to read "abolition of the classes". Bakunin agreed that
the phrase was improper and agreed with the proposed change
which better explained the goal of the revolution. But the error
committed by Marx and Engels in 1848 was much greater and
would be the cause of many negative consequences among his
followers and on the revolutionary processes that they would be
involved in.

What, in fact, can be meant by the proletariat constituting itself "as
the dominant class"? First of all, if the proletariat has taken power,
then the revolution or the change of hands with the bourgeoisie will
already have taken place and as the aim of the revolution is,
according to everyone, the abolition of classes (something which
Marx himself reminded Bakunin of in 1868), the struggle of the
proletariat becomes its own dissolution as a class together with all
other classes, the bourgeoisie heading the list. In second place, class
distinction is not a matter of ethics, somatics or ethnicity, but is
based on the different positions which the individual members of a
society have with regard to property relationships. At the moment in
which individual property is abolished, to be substituted by the
collective ownership of production, distribution and consumption,
there is an effective end to all class-based social organization. The
image is, therefore, of a real non-sense: is it possible that myriads of
Marxist commentators have not realized it? Of course they have! But as
it was convenient for controlling the process of revolution for their
own ends, it was accepted without too much argument and justified by
what seemed to be two strong points: the temporary survival of the
enemies of the revolution and the need to begin the construction of
communist society, something which no-one imagines can be done in a day.

4.4.2 The defence of the revolution

One fact which history has always amply demonstrated with the
utmost clarity is that the society born from the revolutionary process
will initially find itself clashing with those who up to then had
enjoyed privileges and who will find no shortage of help from their
counterparts in other countries as yet unaffected by such radical
events. It is often the case that revolutions collapse for the very
reason of outside interference. It will therefore be necessary for a
while, often quite a long time, to defend the gains which the initial
impetus brings.

For Marxists, this need is met by the State and by a disciplined
army, run along lines developed throughout the long history of
warfare. Despite all the pre-revolutionary chatter about the people's
army, about the democratization of the armed forces, the election by
the troops of their officers whose appointment can be revoked at any
time, wherever bourgeois parties or Marx's followers have taken
power, armies have always formed again under the same conditions
as before with the higher ranks coming from the military academies,
with their rigid hierarchies, with the usual discipline imposed from
the top down, with the same professional nature resisting popular
input. It should be remembered that when the sailors in Kronštadt,
the crème de la crème of revolutionary combatants in 1917,
rebelled against the heavy discipline which it was sought to impose
on them, the Bolshevik powers attacked them with the cadets,
student officers from the military academy who were certainly no
part of the proletariat. It can be added, too, that this was an
entirely internal party matter seeing as how the Anarchists
organized inside the fortress were a small minority.

Anarchist Communists, on the other hand, hold that the need to
defend the gains of the revolution must be met in another way. The
fighting forces must apply principles which go against the old
hierarchical methods. Anyone who accepts the responsibility of
command must enjoy the respect and trust of those who will carry
out the commands at the risk of their lives. In other words, the
appointment of commanders must be by election and must be
revocable and only major decisions should be discussed and agreed
upon by all. Moreover, the war should be carried out as a partisan
war, with small, mobile units which are hard to localize and which
enjoy the support of the local population. And these are not wild
fantasies. We have seen how Makhno organized his revolutionary
army in this way and was able to defeat Wrangel and Denikin, whose
armies were financed by the Western capitalist powers and against
whom even Trotsky's famed Red Army was forced to retreat. The
very conception of war and how it should be waged was at the heart
of the clash between the Marxist Communists and the Anarchist
Communists in Spain in 1936-39: centralized command and discipline
on the one hand (no matter that this weakened the strength of the
international brigades which had come from all over the world to
help the revolution), while on the other hand, participation and
support from the local population (who were persuaded by the
obvious advantages that a successful social revolution would bring
them), a system which was able (in the symbolic figure of
Buenaventura Durruti) even to withstand the strength of the
Francoist troops at the gates of Madrid, to the point that the
Generalissimo was forced to put off taking control of the capital
until the end of the war.

The dispute is not only technical or tactical but goes much deeper,
as it not only allows the old stalwarts of bourgeois command to
recycle themselves as "experts" in the new social order, but also
because behind these ideas (originally Lenin's) there lies the old
statist mode of thinking - the same which led the Bolshevik
leadership (though, it must be said, with the objections of Trotsky
and Aleksandra Mikhailovna Kollontai) to sign the unilateral peace
with the dying Germanic empire (at Brest-Litovsk in 1918). The
declared reasons were the weakness and demoralization of the
Russian troops with respect to the mighty German army, rendering
any headway on the front improbable. In effect, this move did allow
some respite for Germany (albeit short-lived), which was at that
stage near capitulating. Ukraine was ceded (and had to liberate itself
from the occupying forces and the nationalist bourgeoisie) and the
Spartacist revolutionary vanguard of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl
Liebknecht was abandoned to its own fate - the firing squad.

As far as the Anarchists were concerned (not to mention Trotsky
and Kollontai), the war could and should have continued in the form
of popular guerrilla warfare, something which would also have
permitted the extension of the revolution westwards.

4.4.3 The management of the economy

Opinion is totally divided, too, on the organization of production. As
we saw in the quotation from Marx and Engels, Marxists believe
that economic power must be concentrated in the hands of the
proletarian State. This is not only because, in their way of thinking,
the State is the proletariat (or, the only general organization capable
of discerning the collective good) but also because the
decentralization of the system of production impedes that harmony
of intent which alone can encourage growth in the volume of goods
and allow supply to meet demand. This is how the Factory
Committees in Soviet Russia were stripped of all power (1918), even
though they had been the backbone of the expropriations of the
capitalists and had guaranteed production in the first few turbulent
months. In fact, only a third of their members were permitted to
continue being elected from below, while the other two thirds were
nominated from above. Power passed to the Central Soviet and the
"All-Russian Soviet of Workers' Control", as the workers had (because
of direct management) begun to "act as if they owned the factories"
(Anna Mikhailovna Pankratova) -something which was an obstacle to the
collective good. It is almost like listening to the tirades of a feudal
lord in ancient China against the "egoism" of the peasants.

If the Petrograd workers who were the recognized vanguard of the
Bolshevik revolution had become short-sighted due to small-scale
possession and the greed dictated by their own interests, then what
hope was there for solidarity from the peasant masses who had
always been linked to the land and to the ownership of what their
labour was able to wring from the earth?

This is where the Russian Revolution embarked on the slippery
slope of the war economy, with raids on the countryside and forced
collectivizations, with government functionaries deciding what was
to be produced, five-year plans and decisions entrusted to economic
experts (who were, naturally, recycled from the old social order).
Former owners were even appointed as directors of the factories!

For Anarchist Communists, the disastrous effects of this policy
which history has laid plain for all to see were clearly foreseeable.
We will soon come back to the effects which all this produced (and
which could not have failed to produce) with regard to the
reconstruction of a system of exploitation of the working classes.
Above all, the masses' sense of detachment as a result of the above
policies needs to be emphasized. The management from below of
the production process is seen as being inevitably incoherent,
chaotic and inefficient. The workers cannot organize themselves,
and therefore someone must do it - in their interests (interests which
this someone is evidently in a better position to understand). All this
when history has furnished splendid examples of the ability of
workers to manage themselves and of the natural solidarity between
the exploited classes (witness Spain and also Ukraine, where a
trainload of grain confiscated from the counter-revolutionary Whites
was sent to Petrograd which was known to be starving). Not to mention
the fact that, in the aftermath of the Paris Commune in 1871, even Marx
had admitted the proletariat's ability to build its own social

The first disastrous effect is the proletariat's distancing itself from
the revolution, when it does not provide them with convincing
answers. It happened in Russia from the start with the peasants, who
were constantly preyed upon and failed to be convinced that they
should co-operate with the city workers, and it happened later with
the workers themselves who more often than not saw the same
bourgeois elements they had expropriated returning to power. It
happened in Spain in 1936, when the Marxists refused to link the
masses to the civil war by starting the social revolution, and in fact
impeded collectivization through force in order not to frighten off
that section of the bourgeoisie that was in favour of the Republic: the
two-stage policy (victory in the civil war first, revolution later) was
responsible for the previously un-politicized masses not
understanding the point of the struggle against Francoism, thus
de-vitalizing the strength of opposition to the rampant obscurantism.

4.4.4 The Death of the State

If what is outlined above are the purposes for which Marxists claim
that the State apparatus should survive after the revolution (defence
of the gains obtained against external enemies and the organization
of production and distribution), it immediately follows that these
tasks are limited in time. Anarchist Communists, as we have said,
do not share this way of resolving the two problems and have put
forward concrete counter-proposals. There remains, however, the
contradiction noted early on by Bakunin: "in this way, therefore, in
order to liberate the popular masses, it is necessary to begin by
enslaving them". The fact remains that the State, also for Marxists,
should have a limited lifespan and extinguish itself once its duties
have been carried out. The history of victorious revolutions of the
20th Century have made perfectly clear how rapidly the State stands
aside to make way for that self-managing society that everyone says
they want!

One look at events, in fact, is enough to do justice to the Marxian
theory of the extinction of the State. In the USSR, the State became
an omnivorous monster which devoured all personal freedom. Its
exponential growth knew no bounds - the effect it had even within
the private lives of individuals expanded beyond all measure. And
when the moment came when its enormity led to a resounding
implosion (1989-1992), it spat from within it an army of hungry
locusts (the new bourgeoisie, mafia organizations, corrupt officials,
unscrupulous nouveaux riches, etc.) that had lain hidden within it
over the decades.

It was easy to foresee what regularly took place everywhere those
theories which rely on taking possession of the State as a method of
defending and organizing the revolution were put into practice. It
was, in fact, foreseen by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Fabbri and
many other libertarian thinkers. Invented by the bourgeoisie during
its rise to power in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries as a
weapon to protect the domination of its class, the apparatus of state
is suited to this very task and nothing else. It is for this most simple
of reasons that this superstructure, should it survive when the
underlying structure for the organization of production is eliminated,
tends to reproduce the exploitation it was based on. The old class
domination which was destroyed is then reproduced in a modified
form and regenerates a new exploiter class. Right up to his death,
Trotsky laboured under the false illusion that the USSR was a
"degenerated workers' state" - in other words, given that as the basis
of ownership within society had changed (from bourgeois individual
property to collective property under the control of the State), the
revolution was irreversible, as Trotsky, good Marxist that he was, could
never believe that an organizational superstructure could modify the
structure of the production relationships. Instead, a new class (in the
real sense) gave rise to a form of privileged appropriation of goods and
so a new form of exploitation came into being wherever Marxist parties
came into power and took control of the State apparatus. It is for this
reason that the State never withered away having exhausted its usefulness
as Marxism predicted it would, but instead the worst predictions about
"barrack-house communism" (Bakunin) advanced by Anarchist Communists were
to come true.

4.4.5 Dictatorship and Bureaucracy

But where does this new class come from? Who is it composed of?
How exactly does it appropriate and exploit? The answer is easy. It
was equally easy one and a half centuries ago. When the Marxists
began to talk about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (exercised
through the State), in order to respond to the two previously-seen
needs of the immediate post-revolutionary period, the device was
immediately criticized and it was clear from the start that it would
become a dictatorship over the proletariat. Bakunin was already
saying: "any difference between revolutionary dictatorship and statist
centralization is only apparent. The two are substantially nothing but
the same form of government by a minority over the majority in the
name of the supposed stupidity of the latter and the supposed
intelligence of the former".

The minority which would exercise this power (and which did, in
fact, exercise it in democratic centralist regimes) was inevitably of
bourgeois origin, since it was mostly the bourgeoisie who had the
time and means to acquire a sufficient cultural level which would
allow them to dominate the workers' parties, those parties which
were supposed to represent the interests of the proletariat in the
parliamentary circuses or in the abstruse doctrinaire dialectics of
clandestine circles. In fact, as far as Lenin was concerned, it was for
this very reason of being outside the class which guaranteed their
revolutionary steadfastness, given that they were unconcerned with
the needs of the moment, those needs which afflict the proletarian
masses who, weighed down by poverty, would be more inclined to
come to a compromise. This is how a group of bourgeois
intellectuals, who were struggling to find a place which could satisfy
their ambitions within the capitalist social order, began to impose
themselves on the proletariat's struggles from the mid-1800s. As their
way of conceiving the future society allowed them to conquer a certain
prestige which they would otherwise be unable to enjoy, they borrowed
from similar theories of others who had already been in the vanguard of
the bourgeois revolutions of the previous century (Jacobins, Blanquists,
etc.), with the same love for political struggle, for the winning of
Statist power, for the use of the State in order to establish a vicious
post-revolutionary dictatorship which they claimed would defeat the
enemies of the revolution but which instead served only to keep them in
power permanently.

Within the societies created by the revolutions managed by the
Marxist parties, a new dominant class immediately formed which
was made up of revolutionary intellectuals who had previously
constituted the party (or better still, its group of leaders) and of the
contributions by intellectuals, technicians and experts who had been
active within the old order and who learnt to stay afloat thanks to the
need the former had for them and their expertise. This new class
was given the name "bureaucracy". Trotsky never recognized it as
the dominant class, preferring to think of it as a rampant
excrescence which, though sucking the life from the revolution,
never changed its basic nature. In reality, the completely centralized
control over distribution allowed the bureaucrats to acquire a
privileged share of goods in accordance with their (at times
inexistent and often harmful) role in the productive process. This,
under the guise of the socialization of all the means of production,
constituted a real form of exploitation and reproduced class society.
When this society collapsed, the most dynamic members of the privileged
classes rapidly converted to the new role of bourgeoisie to all effects.

Certain heretical Trotskyists (such as Bruno Rizzi) understood their
master's mistakes and modified the theory by introducing a new
class, the "techno-bureaucracy", which was designed to take
account of the situation in Soviet Russia, but which contained two
limitations. The new class had a double face, as it was positioned
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and shared aspects of
both. In second place, the nature of the new class was seen as the
most advanced and appropriate for the running of planned
economies which were at that time gaining popularity even within
capitalist societies. Forty years later, these aspects fascinated
anti-organizationalist and non-class struggle anarchists in Italy.
They saw undeniable advantages in it, from their point of view, and
they made it the basis of a new theory made up of classes which rise
and fall where the techno-bureaucracy plays a primary role against a
proletariat which has most to fear from the arrogant new enemy and
against the declining bourgeoisie which is to all extents innocuous.
It was their hope that all this would smash the rigid class-struggle
dualism which was considered Marxist and water down the class struggle,
shifting attention onto the cultural front. This also had the effect
of marking out the USSR as the real enemy and reducing the importance
of the capitalist enemy in Western countries, considered by this stage
a system in decline and rapidly moving towards the eastern European
system. The fall of the Soviet empire, the end of planned economies,
the re-emergence of the power of money and of the controllers of
international finance, the spread of Western (in particular US)
imperialism, the re-appearance of an aggressive bourgeoisie in
capitalist countries, the increasing intensification of the traditional
class war - all these have put paid to these so-called new theories
which heralded a new age of messianic Anarchism.

[to be followed by Part 5]

This text is available to download as a pamphlet in PDF format from
the website of the FdCA, at http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen

A-infos-en mailing list

A-Infos Information Center