There?s been a lot of talk lately about participatory and direct democracy. Renewed
interest in alternative forms of organising society has arisen from increasing
dissatisfaction with mainstream politics and the domination of the economy by a few
corporations. This dissatisfaction has found its expression in the Arab spring, the May
15th movement in Spain and the Occupy movement in the English-speaking world. Where the
anti-capitalist movement of the last decade focussed almost exclusively on the power of
the corporations and finance capital, this current tendency is to also focus on politics
and the state. ---- The movement in the English speaking world has exhibited many
difficulties: The rejection of previous organisational forms and aversion to traditional
politics, while understandable given the history of the authoritarian left, has led to any
political philosophy with a historical basis being shunned.
The result has been that a new generation of activists have been fumbling in the dark for
a way to change society, unable to see the writing on the wall: ?Not all old ideas are bad
ideas?.
Another problem has been the tendency to start with general, sometimes abstract demands.
Demanding direct democracy doesn?t mean much to a person whose main concern is keeping
their children fed and clothed, while demanding the IMF get out of Ireland is all very
well but it?s at best aspirational and doesn?t really come with an alternative. So how do
we make the demand for direct democracy relevant to day to day life? How do we make people
see the necessity of fighting against capitalism and the state?
Non-Hierarchical
Anarchists believe it is important to oppose hierarchy in all its forms and replace the
current socio-economic system with a democratic non-hierarchical society. This would
entail the replacement of top-down managerial structures in the workplace and
authoritarian forms of power such as the state, but we don?t expect people just to start
waving red and black flags because we?re sure we?re right. We want people to see for
themselves what Anarchism is like in action. The presence of Anarchists in campaigns helps
spread libertarian ideas and show their superiority to organisational forms advocated by
authoritarian socialists.
There are three main reasons for Anarchists to get involved in single issue campaigns: To
show that Anarchist methods can work in practice, to give people a sense of their own
power, and, ultimately, to build horizontally-structured organisations capable of
replacing hierarchical state and corporate systems. Moreover the involvement in struggle
is a learning process for experienced organisers and first time activists alike. Only when
ideas are put to the test can we see which ones are relevant and which aren?t. Last year
many different ideas of what direct democracy entailed were tested by the occupy movement.
Some embodied the tyranny of structurelessness and led to small informal leaderships
taking over, while others provided an example of how tightly organised structures can work
in practice. The problems of fetishising the consensus process were also exposed as it was
found to be a cumbersome and often undemocratic form of decision-making.
The main lesson that those involved in social struggle will learn, however, is that the
State and capital, with their many tentacles of control, are not on our side. First-time
activists in the Campaign against Household and Water Taxes will have learned that the
mainstream media is not there to report the truth, but rather to put across whatever
message is desired by the state and corporate media bosses. Throughout the campaign, RT?
have shamelessly presented the government?s fudged figures as fact and halved the numbers
involved in the protest at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis in their report of the event. The role
of the Garda? was revealed to some of those who attended the protest at the Labour Party
conference, when pepper spray was used against activists.
Democracy?
More generally, the campaign has revealed that despite what we were brought up to believe,
the state is not what democracy looks like. More people are boycotting the Household Tax
than voted for the Government. It wasn?t in the manifestos of the governing parties, so no
one voted for it. Yet there is no sign of it being abolished and those who refuse to pay
are being threatened with court appearances and large fines.
When people see that the state is not on our side, that it is not even a neutral
intermediary between us (the majority) and them (the wealthy minority), they begin to see
the importance of building an alternative society, and involvement in campaigns that
utilise direct action can give them a sense of their power to do that.
As the Italian Anarchist, Errico Malatesta wrote:
?Whatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains, the greatest
value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby workers learn that the bosses interests are
opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve their conditions, and much less emancipate
themselves, except by uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in
getting what they demand, they will be better off: they will earn more, work fewer hours
and will have more time and energy to reflect on the things that matter to them, and will
immediately make greater demands and have greater needs. If they do not succeed they will
be led to study the reasons of their failure and recognise the need for closer unity and
greater activity and they will in the end understand that to make victory secure and
definite, it is necessary to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary cause, the cause of
moral elevation and emancipation of the workers must benefit by the fact that workers
unite and struggle for their interests.?
[Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 191]
Identifying the problem also poses the question of a solution. Organising their own
campaigns not only gives people confidence but it also gives them the skills necessary to
create and administer a society that is designed to meet their needs. If struggle is a
school of self-governance, then the means employed must correspond to the desired end.
This is one area where Anarchists are often at odds with authoritarian socialists. The
latter believe that in order to achieve socialism there must be a vanguard party, with
?the correct leadership? directing struggle from above. While they often give lip service
to workers? democracy, this usually either means that they will put that into place
sometime after they take power or that it equates to the power of the vanguard party.
Authoritarian methods of organising resistance, however, can only give birth to
authoritarian ?revolutions? and new forms of authoritarian society. A movement that does
not trust the working class to direct its own struggles, to create the type of society
that reflects its desires and needs, will not easily relinquish power after it has seized
it in the name of the class. Just as a truly socialist society would mould itself around
people?s needs, so too must the way we fight for that society.
Issues and Solutions
Community syndicalism (or unionism) is a process of creating the structures of a new
society within the old. It involves people organising locally to raise issues affecting
the community and finding solutions to them. It encourages all members of a community to
involve themselves in tackling the issues that they face in their daily lives without the
need for the intervention of so-called representatives like TDs or councillors. It creates
a localised form of dual power that is counterposed to traditional hierarchical forms.
Community syndicates can also provide valuable support for strikes in the field of industry.
The community syndicate would ideally be based upon the mass assembly of members, where
issues like local services, education, rent etc. could be debated and decisions made on
how best to win improvements. Beyond the locality, the syndicate should federate with
similar organisations in other areas to collaborate on campaigns that have a wider scope.
Each syndicate would send delegates to the federal assembly with a strict mandate and the
right to recall and elect new delegates in their place if they abuse their mandate.
A recent example of community syndicalism in action comes from the 2001 revolt in
Argentina. Local assemblies were set up and federated to co-ordinate struggles. They
occupied buildings and created communal kitchens, community centres, day-care centres and
built links with occupied workplaces. As one participant noted people ?[began] to solve
problems themselves, without turning to the institutions that caused the problems in the
first place.? The neighbourhood assemblies ended a system in which ?we elected people to
make our decisions for us . . . now we will make our own decisions.?
The History of the CNT in Spain, particularly in Catalunya, is littered with examples of
community syndicalism in action. The CNT is usually thought of as primarily an industrial
union, but at one time it had strong organisations in every working-class neighbourhood in
Barcelona. This was made possible by the reorganisation of the confederation at its 1918
congress where district committees based in union centres in the neighbourhoods were
established. Organisers were known as ?the eyes and ears of the union in the
neighbourhood?. Within a year the national membership had doubled to 715,000, with 250,000
alone in Barcelona. Organising in this manner provided valuable support for the industrial
unions of the confederation. In 1919 a strike broke out at the Ebro irrigation and power
company after a small number of workers were sacked for union membership. In response, all
CNT power workers walked off the job. The local federation mobilised and what started as a
small-scale industrial dispute turned into open class war on a city-wide scale. Chris
Ealham writes in his book Anarchism and the City: Revolution and Counter Revolution in
Barcelona 1898 to 1937 that ?much of the state?s repressive arsenal was mobilised; martial
law was implemented and following the militarization of essential services, soldiers
replaced strikers and up to 4,000 workers were jailed.? (pp 41.)
However, the CNT?s vast network of neighbourhood syndicates allowed it to raise financial
support and requisition food and other essentials. The strike was able to hold out long
enough to cripple industry in the city and the state was obliged to step in, forcing the
power company to capitulate to the demands of the CNT which now moved beyond the
reinstatement of the workers and union recognition to pay rises, the payment of wages lost
during the strike and an amnesty for all those involved in pickets. Furthermore, the
strike created such fear among the ruling-class that the government became the first in
Europe to introduce the eight-hour day in an attempt to avoid further class conflict. What
began as a single issue was generalised into a battle for improved conditions for workers
all over the city.
In 1931, the CNT led a rent strike in Barcelona, which demanded a 40% rent decrease. This
began with a mass meeting on May 1st and by August there were 100,000 participants. As
well as the boycott of rent, they organised to resist and reverse evictions. Many
landlords, finding their income streams drying up, gave into the demands and waived unpaid
rents from the period of the strike.
More recently, and closer to home, the Anti-Poll Tax Federation in the UK and the
anti-water tax campaign in Ireland were organised along lines that closely resembled
community syndicalism. In the case of the former campaign, some local groups outlived the
single issue. One of these still in existence is the Haringey Solidarity Group. They are
far from being a mass community union but they do have a contact list of thousands and
campaign both on local and broader issues.
Lessons
Of course, there is no point in citing historical examples if we do not draw lessons from
them that we can apply to the present. There are obvious differences between Barcelona in
the first half of the last century and Ireland today. The example cited in Argentina took
place during a period of revolution, not a single issue campaign and the Haringey
Solidarity Group organised at a time of defeat for the working-class.
Today, the Campaign against Household and Water Taxes in Ireland is organised on a
national scale. At the moment, in places its organisation resembles an embryonic form of
community syndicalism. It?s at its best where activists groups are organised in a directly
democratic manner, where all members who wish to participate can and all have equal say in
decision-making. Many local areas have begun the process of federating, with mandated
delegates being sent to county-wide meetings.
With the announcement that water meters will be installed by the end of the year and will
have to be paid for by householders, it is clear that this will become a protracted
battle. Within the campaign, the battle will be between democratic and authoritarian
methods of organising. In communities, the battle will be to win non-payers to the idea of
local activism. With the right structure and a mass campaign membership, what is already
the biggest boycott movement the country has seen since the Land League could be a force
with far more power than any so-called workers? party participating in elections could
ever achieve.
With a victory under its belt, or even by holding its own in a long, drawn-out struggle,
such an organisation could draw other groups under its wing. By drawing in workers engaged
in occupations such as the Vita Cortex workers, it could begin to develop an industrial
wing. Working with groups like unlockNAMA, which is already organised along directly
democratic lines, could lead to the opening of community centres and, in harsh times,
communal kitchens. Such an organisation could eventually by pass the bureaucratic
monoliths that are the mainstream unions and organise strikes.
Ultimately such an organisation would be a libertarian communist society in embryo. It
would have to overcome modern problems such as suburbanisation and rebuild the idea of
community, but if organised in every neighbourhood, along with an industrial wing it would
have the wherewithal to bypass the capitalist state and create a new society within the old.
Of course this would inevitably bring it into open conflict with the state. It would be
the role of an Anarchist organisation like the WSM to work within such an organisation, to
spread the revolutionary anarchist idea that the state cannot just be bypassed, it must
eventually be smashed or it will ruthlessly crush us and our movement.
All this is aspirational, but it is possible if we put all our efforts into building
community syndicalism. If we win the argument for libertarian ideas in the Household Tax
Campaign we have the opportunity to build a powerful national federation of communities
and workers. There is no point in having a new world in our hearts if we don?t strive to
create it in the here and now. This is just the beginning.
Bron :a-infos-en@ainfos.ca