In the worldwide movement for social justice, many young people are attracted by the ideas of anarchism - even if they don't call themselves anarchists.
Anarchists seem to stand for the same thing we do - a classless society, a self-organised and self-managed society - what we often sum up with the phrase 'workers' power'. Like us, many anarchists say they stand for 'revolution'. No bosses, no police, social equality, no rich and no nuclear bombs. People not profit.
Today we see anarchist trends like the 'autonomia' (autonomists) in Italy. If we stand for the same goal, the same objectives as them, what's the difference? Why the hostility between Marxists and anarchists?
There are two fundamental differences. The first is the party, the second is the state.
Anarchists are against forming a political party, we say the working class needs a political party to lead the struggle against capitalism. Why do we insist on the formation of a revolutionary political party?
Let's look at what happened in Russia in 1917. The deprivations of world war had driven millions of workers to hostility against the Russian state and capitalists.
Millions of peasants, held in semi-feudal bondage, demanded land and freedom. During and after the first revolution (February 1917) the workers set up their own organisations to try to govern - the soviets. But a pro-capitalist government continued to exist, the Provisional Government.
Between February and October the most consistent revolutionary the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, grew by tens of thousands. This party was able to lead the soviets to take power and overthrow the Striking a pose: but can anarchism really challenge capitalist power? Provisional Government.
History has shown many examples of the self-organisation of the workers, of workers and peasants councils being established. But many political trends exist within them. The most consistent revolutionaries need to organise to give leadership, to fight for a perspective of taking power.
Another example is Spain in 1936-7. When the fascists attempted to seize power with the army, the workers set up their own workers councils. In Catalonia, with Barcelona at its centre, the workers collectivised businesses and brought them under their own control.
However, on the anti-fascist side, there were important pro-capitalist parties, supported by the Stalinist Communist party, who said "first fight the fascists, leave aside socialism till later"
In Catalonia, a Popular Front government was set up with pro-capitalist parties. The CNT anarchists, the biggest anarchist movement in the world, joined the government! They showed they were completely confused about the question of power.
Like the Communists, they didn't understand the best way to defeat the fascists was to carry through the revolution, undercutting the fascist mass base in the countryside. No consistent revolutionary force existed to give alternative leadership.
Isn't the idea of "leadership' authoritarian and bureaucratic? This is a key slogan of the anarchists - we reject all leadership'.
When Marxists talk about leadership' they are not talking about a group of wise individuals leading the movement, but something more straightforward and obvious.
Whenever we give out a leaflet, propose
La resolution in a trade union branch, organise a demonstration or produce a newspaper, we are engaged giving leadership.
But we say the revolutionaries, the consistent socialists, need to organise together to work out collectively and democratically how to fight against the bosses, the state and the right wing in the labour movement.
This may seem obvious in a trade union branch or a student union, but Marxists say that the socialists have to do it at a national level, and if possible, internationally. If we leave things to happen 'spontaneously', we will organise ourselves at a local level, the right wing will organise nationally and always beat us. We need a nationally co-ordinated organisation, a party.
It is not true that political parties are always undemocratic and authoritarian. Often anarchist movements are much more undemocratic than socialist parties, because they lack the democratic procedures to make majority decisions.
Instead you get the 'tyranny of structurelessness' - where the best speakers (or the loudest!), those with the best informal clique links, are able to manipulate and dominate the movement.
When you have formless movements, you don't have accountability, regular elections or a collective overview of whether decisions have been implemented. Parliament
Anarchists are opposed to standing in
lections, or supporting any political party Since parliamentary capitalism is undemocra tic, they refuse to participate. This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face
Fighting elections, or even getting people elected, is an important way to get our ideas known and expose the capitalists. Look at the Scottish Socialist party. Its six elected members of the Scottish parliament are doing a brilliant job, day in and day out, exposing the capitalist parties.
They have made socialism talked about again in broad sectors of the working class. Just because they are in the parliament, the socialist MEPs have no problems in taking • •
system we want - a workers' government and workers' power -means the people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their trans-