Anarchist Responses When Elected Governments are Overturned

Just to point out this is Wayne Price and not the libcom poster Wayne.

weird.

if an anarchist organisation had the influence to call mass strikes, occupations and so on, why the hell would they use this influence in defense of the State? strange indeed.

Devrim are you suggesting workers should have been indifferent during the Pinochet coup (or indeed the Kornilov affair? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kornilov_Affair ) - the sort of thing I'd presume Wayne is referring to in the bit you highlight?

That sounds a little suicidal to me!

Call me crazy, but I'd much rather live in a liberal democracy than in a brutal, pseudo-fascist dictatorship, at a guess, I'd say that the vast majority of working class Venezuelans probably feel the same way too.

This is where left communism falls down, IMO, the analysis is often brilliant, but when it comes to real world effects...

Imagine something around the size and influence of the WSM in Venezula today.

It wouldn't have the influence to call a general strike for revolution.

But faced with a right wing coup it could probably play a significant role in mobilising sections of the working class against the coup. Through that process it could probably try and steer such a movement in the direction of self-management and 'the people in arms' as opposed to putting itself simply under the command of Chavez. Standing on the sidelines with our hands in our pockets wouldn't make sense (an understatement).

Another example is of course events on July 19 1936 in Spain when another right wing coup was staged to overthrow an elected government. It's worth noting that at least some left communists do actually argue that the working class should not have militarly taken on the fascists but confined themselves to a general strike. I've no idea if this is Devrims position but I think it is the ICC one.

Defending a regime is a bit different than defending yourself, no? Of course workers movements must defend themselves but I don't see why that should lead to defending bourgeois nationalist regimes, anymore than i see why workers fighting against Franco's fascism should defend the bourgeois republic, infact any real defence would see the workers attacked by the current regime as much as any external one. I mean if the platformist tradition are going to insist on grave robbing from the likes of the Friends of Durruti, could they please apply their lessons consistently?

of course. an organised anarchist response in such a situation would be very useful. but i think what you're saying is different to defending a regime. being anti-imperialist is not the same as being pro-national liberation. like you said, in the situation the strategy would be to use the response to the coup as a way to build class power.

You mean something like

I don't agree 100% with Wayne but lets be honest about what he is actually advocating. Beyond the clunky marxist terminology its not so different from what you or even revol have posted.

In effect the CNT in 1936 which was in a slightly stronger position then the anarchist movement in Venezula today followed a strategy of defending the existing regime from a right wing coup. I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

JoeBlack2 wrote:
"Another example is of course events on July 19 1936 in Spain when another right wing coup was staged to overthrow an elected government. It's worth noting that at least some left communists do actually argue that the working class should not have militarly taken on the fascists but confined themselves to a general strike. I've no idea if this is Devrims position but I think it is the ICC one".

The issue is not in itself general strike or military confrontation. The communist left (Bilan etc) did not oppose the fact that the Spanish workers armed themselves to confront the coup. They opposed the fact that the workers almost immediately surrendered their political and organisational autonomy to the left wing of the bourgeoisie. During the Kornilov coup in 1917, the workers were able to defeat the coup without giving up this autonomy. They had their own independent class organs - the soviets - which is precisely what they lacked in 1936, when their embryonic efforts to organise were rapidly diverted into collaborationist organs like the Central Committee of Anti-fascist Militias.

In other words, the idea that the left communist position is one of 'indifferentism' or do-nothingism is false. The communist left is always for the working class defending itself. Only it insists that this cannot be done if the class ceases to struggle with its own methods and forms of organisation. The minute it agrees to subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie, it can only be led from one massacre to another.

If that's what works, I'm happy to. If, because of objective conditions, communism is laughably unlikely, then it is far better to fight for something we can win. Like I said, better a bourgeois democracy than a regime which is going to have me tortured and shot.

We have to work with the class we have, the class we are in, not some fantasy class that's going to seize the means of production and declare libertarian communism any minute now.

Similarly, a society where wage labour no longer exists would be brilliant, but in the unlikely event of a strike of agency workers in Merseyside for higher pay and better conditions, I'd throw my full support behind it.

The question of 'class terrain' again: a strike by agency workers in Merseyside for higher pay and better conditions should be supported because it's an expression of the working class fighting for its own interests, and is thus a link in the chain that can lead to the communist revolution. A situation where workers abandon their class interests and line up in defence of bourgeois democracy can only break the chain.

Sometimes workers do have a short term class interest in one side winning though. That's my point. It's easier to fight for communism in, say, Blair's Britain than Pinochet's Chile.

You're not arguing against left-communism here madashell, you're arguing against what most anarchist-communists would state.

Anarchists in Venezuela didn't call for workers to defend Chavez. And I don't think workers do have an interest in intra-bourgeois faction fights - otherwise why wouldn't you do things like call for people to vote against the Tories in elections or whathaveyou?

Yes - which is why you just argue for yourselves and other workers to fight to defend and improve our conditions ourselves, not fight and die for different sets of rulers!

Voting or not voting is a tactical issue, afaic. If there was a really compelling reason to vote for one party or another, I'd do it.

I'm not saying we should be explicitly saying "defend Chavez" or what not. What I'm saying is that the likely consequences of fighting against a right wing coup would be preserving the existing regime, but at the same time, that doesn't stop us from maintaining our antagonism with that regime.

It's not about throwing our lot in with one set of bosses or another, it's about being realistic and recognising priorities.

And as a communist is it ever your priority to fight, kill and maybe die for a capitalist government?

On a practical level, you get fascist or ultra-right coups when workers' power seriously threatens the state or capital. Under those circumstances it's then pretty inexcusable to say to workers that they should throw their lot in with the existing "democratic" government and die defending it.

That's a fair point actually and something I didn't think of.

I was working on the assumption of a workers' movement that was strong enough to signifigantly hamper a coup, but not strong enough to win in a revolutionary situation.

If that were the case, then either there wouldn't be a coup, or the coup wouldn't be a particularly relevant one (because there would be no fascist clamp-down since there would be no need for it). In any case anarchists should always argue for workers to defend and advance their own conditions, not support any leading group over any other.

I notice quite a few people's criticisms of the ultra-left slag it off for not being practical and "real-world" without recognising that a lot of the important issues mainly crop up in extreme (but very real world) situations.

True enough, it probably wasn't the best example.

Yes, but I'm not arguing for support, so much as recognition of the probable consequences of certain actions. I mean, if one country invades another, and is successfully driven out by a mass nationalist movement, any efforts on the part of the workers' movement to fight the invading country would objectively strengthen the nationalists, whether that was the intention or not. Despite this, it's still in the interests of the workers in that country to end the war, isn't it?

This is very deterministic and also is predicated on a perfect prediction power of the bourgeoisie. I would say that fascist coups would occurr because there was a massively strong workers movement threatening expropriation and the interests of the capitalist class, but not all such situations are capable of reaching that goal- leaving us well within madashell's territory of

- it is incorrect to say that coups only happen where a revolution is possible.

The bourgeosie is not omniscient, and is perfectly capable of making mistakes- or at least fractions within it are. Look at the completely crazy elements of the British state that seriously planned a coup during the Wilson years. Thyat one didn't happen, but it goes to show that serious exaggerations of w/c power can be made- and i'm sure can be acted upon.

In those cases, where a revolution would not be winnable but the better conditions currently lived in would be threatened....what?

isnt this what the article was saying? That fighting against the threat of say a fascist dictatorship doesnt necessarily entail throwing political support behind those in power who may also be fighting such a threat, albeit for different reasons.

totally agree. fascist dictatorships dont arise independently of the class struggle or just because a general got out of the wrong side of the bed.

of course fascists dont have to come to power solely through violent or anti-democratic avenues, or necessarily on an expressly fascist program. While it may be reprehensible to support capitalist democracy in the event of a fascist coup aimed at curtailing the existing power of the working class would it be condonable to vote labour (while of course maintaining an antagonistic stance to the party and parliamentary democracy) if it meant keeping the BNP out of power? Or for a party such as the BNP to get to a position of being electable suggest capitalist support and thus imply the existence of some form of large workers movement?

yes but resistance against a coup would surely be done on the basis of resisting marshall law, maintaining the right to free assembly (what we have left), protecting our freedom of speech and not on the basis of supporting any particular regime. I mean Pre 36 the CNT fought bitterly against various authoritarian regimes without backing various bourgeois factions.

Saying you fight against any encroachment on the working classes ability to organise, to discussion and assembly is rather different than "defending regimes". And any ambiguity there might be over this is in my eyes quite deliberate.

Yup.

Pingtiao:

Yes that's fair enough, and as I said before a lot of coups are not necessary to save the state, but in those ones where it's not the coups are rarely (ever??) particularly damaging to the working class in themselves. If no revolution is threatened the new government will not come in, round up, murder and "disappear" tens of thousands of radical workers if there's no need to.

In your Wilson example for instance had it happened it would be silly for anarchists to call for workers to take up arms to restore Wilson to power. As revol says, you should support and be part of workers defending and advancing our actual conditions ourselves, independent of capitalist faction in-fights.

On a side note, all of this is a great argument against anarchist arguments in favour of national liberation struggles - which use the same justification as madashell is using here (and madashell you don't support nat lib struggles do you?). The anarchist argument on coups should be the same as invasions, since the nationality of rulers is irrelevant, what matters is the concrete effects on working people.

I think I may have explained myself poorly here, but I am not arguing in favour of supporting NLMs, I just object to this "We must be neutral in inter-imperialist conflicts" shit, which ignores the fact that workers and the workers' movement very often do have an interest in one side or the other winning, particularly when we're too weak to win on our own terms. Which, let's face it, we are.

True- and a good point. What it could do, though, is introduce policies that worsen the conditions of workers, and so fighting against that would be entirely justified. As indeed could be fighting against it before it happened- i.e. resisting an invasion if it was clear that the result would be worse working and living conditions.

I agree, but the point was to illustrate the possibility of coups not orchestrated to avert an actual immanent revolution. I agree entirely that a call to support the Wilson government would have been stupid- calling for support for any governemnt is not what anyone on the thread has argued for though.
It seems that madashell thinks that there could be occasions where a faction fight between two elements of the ruling class could result in material differences to our lives- something that is manifestly true.

I agree again.

It would not be anarchist to vote labour to keep out the BNP- no. I don't think there would be any poine in doing it, as governments largely enact policies that are in line with capital's desires (not antropomorphising- I just mean the optimum conditions for capital accumulation) tempered only by what people will let them get away with. The real threat of a BNP electoral victory would mean that this tempering framework within which governments operate would have to have shifted significantly enough that attacks on conditions of life would happen whoever got in.

When those sorts of ideas become mainstream (as, for instance, racist discourse around immigration has become incorporated into the national discourse, and so therefore becomes part of the ideology of all electorally viable political parties) the attacks are coming anyway.

Admin - quoting fixed

Yes against the policies and the conditions, of course.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean if you were an anarchist living in Iraq now, would you have gone to fight the Americans and British to keep them out (and so have most likely died), or would you stay at your job and continue to fight with your co-workers for better wages and conditions, more jobs, etc.? Bear in mind that the former would lead in most circumstances to entire countries socialist/anarchist movements being mostly wiped out.

I can't see that any military conflict outside of actual revolution is ever worth workers participating in, since any actual difference in living conditions isn't enough to go to war for (and would most likely be more effectively fought through economic means - strikes, blockades, etc.)

I did mention that above, but said they were largely irrelevant, like recent coups in what Thailand and some African country...

It was in the bit Devrim quoted:
"but we must defend the regime etc."

Yes, as I said, but not enough to support or defend one side from the other.

cool.

This is the crux:

I have no disagreement with this quoted section. You have- please correct me if i am wrong- merely said that it is not worth us doing it- not that it is politically wrong in principle. This latter point is what i was getting at- I can understand why someone would do it, not disagree with it on strictly abstract political grounds- but it would be a waste of valuable resources (radical libertarian workers, who as you rightly point out would likely get massacred).