First, I should note that I have posted three new articles. The first is my introduction to Kropotkin’s Modern Science and Anarchy (AK Press, 2018). Hope you enjoy it: do please buy the book from AK Press and help support anarchist publishing. The other two are revised blogs which will appear in the next issue of Anarcho-Syndicalist Review –Anarchy and Covid-19 and “Anti-government ideologues” and Coronavirus. The latter subject is touched upon before. I end with a Kropotkin article on British elections from Freedom in 1910.

Second, a few words on the impressive and encouraging mass protests over the police murder of George Floyd. The revolt has been impressive in its scope and its bravery – being up against both the forces of the State and a pandemic. As has its results – it has managed to make more of an impact than years of voting. It shows the power of anarchist tactics of direct action and solidarity.

I will only make a few comments from a distance. These will be incomplete, and I am sure others better placed will make better comments on a host of things. With that said, now to a few thoughts on recent events.

In the UK, the government urges us not to go on demos due to danger of Covid-19 but are perfectly happy for people to go to work. In America, well, it seems clear that Trump thinks the “law and order” ticket will get him back into office in November, assuming that Covid-19 does not kill his non-mask-wearing, non-social-distancing death-cult before they can get to the polls in November… but we have reached the stage when the media reporting on the need to wear masks to stop Americans dying is now denounced by Trumpettes as an example of the media and its “anti-American” agenda… let that sink: for the right, wanting to save fellow Americans from a horrible death is now unpatriotic.

The reporting is as would be expected with false equivalency raising its ugly head time and time again. Sure, it is better than the lies by the right but is hardly great. So, for example, the Guardian ran an article entitled George Floyd protests: reporters targeted by police and crowds:

“More than 50 incidents of violence and harassment against media workers were reported on social media and in news outlets on Friday and Saturday, according to a tally the Guardian collated.[…] The majority of the most recent incidents appeared to be perpetrated by police, but at least two involved crowds.”

Talk about a misleading title – “at least two” by protesters out of “more than 50” attacks! So even when the cops are actually attacking reporters and been recorded doing so, the paper still has to give equal headline space to the violence of the rebels. Seeking balance yet again shows how unbalanced it is…

As for “violence” – as usual, the injured are the protestors at the hands (well, batons, shields, gauntlets, vehicles, etc.) of the well-armed and well-armoured forces of the State. The “violence” of the “protestors” amounts to property damage – so, as usual, violence against inanimate things is, at best, equated with harm to actual people or, at worse, made out to be worse. This is to be expected as capitalism is based on glorifying capital and denouncing labour and has always been once possession of the means of production by the workers themselves has become property of the means of production by landlords and capitalists. We should not ne surprised by this, although we do need to point it out again and again until the media and talking heads feel that they cannot utter such nonsense and not be laughed at.

What about the protesters as “terrorists” nonsense? What is the usual definition of a terrorist? People who target ordinary people by violence. Which means that the police are the terrorists here as they are attacking peaceful protesters (and often just passers-by). And the head of the State is demanding yet more violence against them. If someone else was urging violence against American citizens, the media (and the right) would know what to call them: a terrorist chief.

Now that “professional anarchists” (whatever that means!) have been raised by the right as the current bugbear and threat to civilisation, we can sadly expect the usual patronising and factually challenged articles by the Leninists to appear. While they claim to expose the flaws in anarchism, they simply expose the flaws in their understanding of it – based on reading previous Marxist accounts of anarchism rather than actually reading anarchist thinkers and activists. Their account of our ideas and activism will be, at best, as selective as accounts of their own ideology and its history – luckily they rarely say anything new, so previous debunkings can be utilised…

Of course, fixating on “antifa” simply exposed the fascistic tendencies of the Republicans. Antifa is anti-fascist activity – direct action self-defence against fascists. Without the fascists, antifa would not exist. Is this necessary some may ask? And anyone asking that clearly has no knowledge of history or recent events. So, yes, as long as fascists are organising then it is necessary and needed. That the republicans complain about anti-fascists shows that they know that a significant part of the base is either fascist or fascistic, that they and their party are fascist or fascistic, that Trump has emboldened the actual fascists and pushed the Republicans yet further right. Sure, it may be opportunistic for some (elements of the non-fascist right have always utilised fascists, including those on the so-called “libertarian right”), but the attacks on antifa by Trump and his death cult simply show their affinity with fascism to all. And the need for anti-fascist activity and organisation is obvious given that Trump is bolstering them.

Sadly, a sizable part of the American population seems to love Trump and his fascistic posing – that many of them have went from denouncing and fearing every action of the Federal government under Obama to urging it to send in troops to crush peaceful protest speaks volumes about their “anti-government” position. Talking of which, I’m not sure how this obvious contradiction got past the editors:

‘If economic self-interest were the only thing driving political orientation, you would expect police officers to favor Democrats. They are, after all, unionized public-sector employees — and Republicans are both anti-union and anti-government.’ (Paul Krugman, Trump Takes Us to the Brink: Will weaponized racism destroy America?)

Yes, the Republicans are anti-union but “anti-government”? Not so, as later implicitly admitted in the very same article:

‘But Trump clearly sides with those who reject any notion that police officers — or any other authority figures — should be held accountable for abusive behavior. […] In a call with governors on Monday […] he told the governors that all the violence was coming from the “radical left,” and he insisted that governors must get tougher: “You have to dominate or you’ll look like a bunch of jerks; you have to arrest and try people.”’

Which means that unaccountable government and governmental agents and the use of government troops to “dominate” the population is “anti-government”? Does that mean fascism is now, according to the intellectuals of the centre-left, an “anti-government” ideology? And Krugman is one of the better commentators of this type…

However, we should not forget our history and concentrate on the many, many failings of Trump as an individual. Lest we forget, American politicians have sent troops (local, State and Federal) against their rebel citizens countless times over the centuries – usually against strikers. As such, all the (justified) denunciations of Trump’s tweets and rants from his bunker fail to acknowledge the actual history of America and the use of troops (although it was planes hired by the private army formed by the bosses which undertook the aerial bombing of rebel miners in the Battle of Blair Mountain). Trump may be making the situation worse by indulging in his authoritarian instincts while safe in his bunker, but he was hardly being unusual if we look at the reality rather than the rhetoric of the American State and its history.

The representatives and supporters of the State proclaim that its first task is to protect its citizens. Yet this is an assertion and for most of history the State has obviously not had that task. For most of history the State has been monarchical, aristocratical or dictatorial, clearly defending the interests of the few at the expense of the many. What they mean is that the democratic State has this task but, again, this is hardly the case – that State has clearly been happy to ignore the citizens unless forced to by outside pressure by the citizens itself. And when that happens the first response is always to monopolise the armed might of the State. What is rarely mentioned is that the State is an armed power above the people, which develops interests separate and over the people it governs (and even the capitalist class whose property and power it defends, for it is a capitalist State). Such is the nature of the State – that it subjects part of its personnel to elections once every few years does not fundamentally change its hierarchical nature or its role in society as an instrument of minority class rule.

As such, abuse of police power is not a surprise as the use of such hierarchical power creates abuse by its very nature. Being black makes this abuse more likely, more severe, and far more likely to be fatal and needs to be challenged and ended: but the goal of making abuse by State authorities the same for all, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, class, etc., should not be the limit of our struggles and hopes. Fighting and ending systemic racism, in other words, means fighting and changing the system, by definition.

So what now? Barack Obama addressed the issue of civil disobedience and voting, surprisingly concluding the need for both – the former to pressurise the politicians, the latter to get the necessary laws passed. This will be tempting for many, yet the history of trying to combine both has always resulted in the direct action disappearing as voting encourages people to expect change to happen for them, from above, rather than by their own activity and organisations. Then it quietens down, things revert to normal (perhaps with a few legal changes which increasingly get ignored in practice) and, eventually, another explosion happens to address the issues voting was meant to solve.

This has been the case in previous revolts over police murder of black people and, sad to say, this will be the outcome this time if people become convinced of the need to somehow combine voting and direct action. For the underlying assumption in this perspective is that voting is the real source of change for without politicians, no laws can be passed (and so ignoring the many laws gathering dust in the law tomes). Then, logically, direct action becomes optional and then it can be put on hold to concentrate on winning the election. And when voting is considered as a way, it becomes the way and then we should all go home and patiently wait until the next election – meanwhile letting the government do what it likes in the meantime. And best not ponder too hard what happens if “we” do not win the next election… or if “we” win and when “our” government starts to do what it likes!

The dangers of the combining argument are clear – as shown by the Marxists and Greens before, this tactic while appearing to be sensible and practical, ends up bolstering the status quo and undermining rather than encouraging social protest and change. Does that mean we need to spend time and energy urging abstentionism? In terms of our limited resources, I think it better to concentrate on urging direct action and solidarity and not bother mentioning voting – for ultimately, what people do for an hour or so every five years is irrelevant to building a mass movement now.

We need to organise in our communities and workplaces to build a genuine people power now. Then general strikes and occupations would join mass protests as a means of change. So the key thing is to create a movement which can tame any government (until such time as we can get rid of them) by its direct action and solidarity (as expressed by protests, strikes, occupations, etc.). This will show a real alternative to voting, replacing a weak individualistic strategy for change with a powerful collective one.

Building such a movement is not the easy option – that would be to return home and encourage people to vote every four or five years (or await the next spontaneous upsurge and get out the masks…) – but it is the only one if you want real change. This means that anarchists need to build a movement which gives people something to do: if not then activists will drift away to parties which do (even if it is gathering votes and members). That means recognising ultra-radical rhetoric is no substitute for day-to-day activism, that hoping for a big enough revolt to piggy-back upon one day is no substitute for winning small-scale improvements which build hope that change is possible by our own actions and creates the momentum for ever wider changes. Yes, that may be considered “boring” by some but, well, it is what is needed – and has always been needed.

And, of course, November is a long way away and action needs to continue now. Still, I can understand that many will vote to get the monstrosity that is Trump and the Republicans out of office. Fine, there are more important things to argue about but if that is all they do then we will be here again. Remember the Republican cult of personality around Bush II? Electing Obama did not stop the rise of Trump – and mass protest and revolt has always achieved far more than those few minutes voting. We should also recall that the ballot was advocated in the later nineteenth century and early twentieth century as the means of achieving socialist revolution: nowadays it amounts to the strategy of hoping our next ruler is a benevolent (or even just a competent) one. What a come down, but an unsurprising one given an anarchist analysis of the State and the nature of electioneering.

That is all for the time being. More could be written, and I will undoubtedly return to this issue as how we work with non-anarchists in mass movements is an important subject. I end with the promised article by Kropotkin on the British elections of 1910 – yes, he writes “England” but he means Britain (to be fair, many English people still don’t know the difference). Hope you enjoy it. Oh, I have now sent off my edition of Kropotkin’s Words of a Rebel to PM Press for proof-editing – it is still planned for publication next year.

Until I blog again, be seeing you…

The English Elections

(from the Temps Nouveaux of February 19)

Freedom, April 1910

If more confirmation were needed to prove that Parliaments exist, not to reform abuses, not to abolish existing monopolies, but to prevent democratic reforms, to maintain and consolidate the monopolies, the recent English elections give us the demonstration.

It is a long time since England has had an electoral struggle so hotly contested as this one has been. In many constituencies four-fifths of the electors went to the poll. Not for many a year has so much passion been shown in an election.

And what has such a heated contest been about? Little enough, after all! But little as it was, the monopolists of all sorts have felt the Budget to be a menace, and that was enough for all who live by exploitation to unite to check those disturbers of their feast, Lloyd George and Asquith.

It has happened exactly as it happened in 1886, when Gladstone carried into power by the Radical vote, wished also to slightly curtail the big monopolies.

For twenty years after his fall, from 1886 to 1905, with a short interruption in 1892-94, England was governed by the Conservatives, Undoubtedly, the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals or Radicals is meagre. In the event of a conflict with the working men, each of there would show the same ferocity against them. And yet the difference is important, since the Conservatives represent a strong Government, while the Liberals represent a weak one; and a strong Government always means the obstruction of all progress.

The difference is vital, above all in England, where the Conservatives, with their land monopoly, represent a feudalism of the past, to which have been added all the great monopolies of the brewing, mining, and shipping interests, as well as all the great robber companies both in England and the Colonies.

The English Revolution of 1648 did not touch the property of the great feudal landlords. Feudalism continues to exist in England side by side with bourgeois capitalism, and it becomes more and more menacing in proportion as the immense industrial and commercial development of England brings in formidable incomes to the landed proprietors, to the extent of making them millionaires and multi-millionaires. And these extremely rich landowners, supported by all other monopolists, possess, besides, their wealth, an immense political power in the House of Lords. They can oppose their veto to any measure passed by the Commons if it should in any way menace their wealth or power.

What makes the situation still worse is, that besides the hereditary peers – great landowners for the most part – the House of Lords contains also a large number of peers created by Royalty: financial speculators like Rothschild, Colonial adventurers like Millner, big manufacturers and railway magnates, and above all, the brewer lords, with whom are associated the whole band of rich publicans and wine merchants, all ready to fight to the last in support of all the great industrial and financial monopolies.

All these people, one can guess, are with the Conservatives; and one can see the influence the Conservatives possess when they are in power and are aided by all the interests of landlordism and the exploiting classes. It is the survival of the ancien regime, supported by the gang of bourgeois profit-mongers and the powers of the modern centralised State.

We know that it is often maintained in England that the Conservatives represent the landed interest, while the Liberals are therepresentatives of industrial capitalism. This might

have been true (if it ever was) fifty years ago, but it is true nomore, since all sorts of capitalism have grown up, and immensefortunes have been accumulated quite independent of industry.It is now known that the incomes of this country derived from monopolies – banks, railways, navigation, water, and so on – secured in England, in the Colonies, and all the world over, are far greater than the incomes derived from industry. And besides, particularly since the formation of the Unionist Party, an immense majority of the industrial lords have joined the Conservatives in their hatred and contempt for every democratic and Socialist movement. The Conservatives are the nucleus round which all the enemies of popular progress unite.

During the twenty years of Conservative rule we have seen the cessation of that rich intellectual movement, and the emasculation of all that democratic spirit which animated England in the years 1860-85. The progress of the great Socialist movement which began to flourish in the years 1880-86 was also checked with the coming into power of the Conservatives. In the destruction of these two popular forces we have a fact of the first importance.

It was above all things, to crush the rising spirit of the new-born Socialism that the middle class, in 1886, threw themselves into the arms of the Conservatives. From this it would have seemed that the Socialists ought necessarily to have used all their forces to prevent the return of the Conservatives to power . . . But they have done precisely the reverse.

It would take too long to explain here the reason for such reactionary tactics of the English Parliamentary Socialists; but the fact remains that already in the elections of 1885 and 1892, but more particularly in 1895, they did all their power to prevent the return of the Liberals. In their meetings and in their press they attacked only the Liberals, and during the elections they prevented their return by putting up Socialist candidates who had not the least chance of success, but who took votes from the Liberal candidates.

***

The triumph of the Conservatives was completed in this way. And then, in all the great questions which interested the country there came a general reaction. Instead of discussing the great problems which the Socialist revival had brought to the front, the British worker was compelled to fight for retaining his most elementary liberties: the right of combination and the right of striking, non-sectarian education, freedom from conscription, cheap food free from import duties, and so on.

In the years 1884-86, workmen were discussing in their meetings the expropriation of the docks and the railways, in order to transfer them to working men’s associations. They spoke of dwelling houses becoming the property of municipalities, which would rent them at cost price. “Municipal Socialism” was discussed, and Municipal Communism was in the air. The nationalisation or the communalisation of the land was a favourite topic, and the eight-hour day gradually began to be introduced in the workshops of the State, and certain municipalities. The idea of a general strike was whispered in factories…

Now we had to forget all that. Different matters were introduced.

No sooner had Salisbury got into office than, by the stupid arrogance of’ his diplomatic notes, he brought England within an inch of war with the United States over the Venezuelan affair. Then a war with Russia was within measurable distance. And finally, that absurd turncoat, Chamberlain – Republican in 1876, coquetting with Socialism in 1886, and Conservative in 1892 – was teaching “good manners” to France, and nearly provoked war in consequence of the Fashoda incident.

And then came the Boer War, the ignominious failure of the would-be Unionist statesman, the defeats inflicted on the British Empire by a handful of peasants, and thereupon, as a result of these defeats, the hysterical revival of militarism and national self-conceit.

A little later, war with Russia was on the point of breaking out over the Dogger Bank incident, when Germany mobilised her fleet to prevent it; and since that time Europe has had the menace of Anglo-German war suspended over its head.

It is easy to understand that under such conditions further development of advanced ideas was completely stopped. Socialism was shelved and packed away, and the middle classes, always very clever, took full advantage of the respite for accumulating immense fortunes in the meantime, and for dividing the working classes and tying to demoralise them.

The Conservatives lost no time in pursuing their policy against the workers. They attacked positions that had been considered as most firmly established, and instead of going forward, the workers found themselves compelled to defend rights that hitherto had been regarded as’ most sacred.

The decision of the judges in the Taff Vale case left the workers henceforth responsible for the losses of the masters caused by striking without due notice. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants had to pay £35,000 to the masters for a single strike.

Then the new law on education was introduced, The Conservatives abolished the School Boards, elected by popular suffrage (women included), for the organisation of primary instruction; and, gave new powers to the Church of England, which is the church of the rich. All continuation instruction, introduced by the School boards, was abolished. “Who is to do the menial work, if our servants learn the piano and want time for reading?” was the chorus of all those parrots reciting their lessons – the dames of the Primrose League, the powerful organisation of Conservative women for gaining votes, by fair means or foul, for the Conservative Party, and the boycotting of those who remained independent..

And the same thing happened in all directions.

***

It needed the defeats of the Boer War, and the fall Consols from 105 to 79, to arouse popular resentment against the Conservatives. At the elections of 1906 the Liberals obtained an unexpected majority. They held 373 seats against 168 held by Conservatives (Tories and Unionists), and there were besides 46 Labour representatives, practically with the Liberals, and 83 Irish Nationalists. The Conservatives, it is true, made little effort to maintain their position. They preferred that their war debts should be left as a burden to the Liberals.

Lloyd George, the Radical, and John Burns, the ex-Socialist, were taken into the new Liberal Ministry. It must not be imagined, however, that this Ministry started out to make Radical reforms. Far from that. It introduced old-age pensions – a small thing in itself, but containing some promise for the future. A promise was also given to deal seriously with the unemployment question and to inaugurate Labour Bureaus, which will pave the way for Labour officialism. They promised also to revise the Education Act and law regarding strikes and an Act was passed making the land more accessible to cultivators in Scotland. They began to nibble at the landquestion – a question which socialists of the German Social Democratic school had taken care not to touch.

These reforms, however, required money, and money was not to be had, especially as the middle classes would have at any price a strong Army and an immensely increased Navy.

Then Lloyd George tad the quite natural idea of taxing the immense incomes of the rich. It is known what fabulous incomes the landlords receive from their lands, more especially in the neighbourhood of the great cities; and the worker understands already that it is himself and not the proprietor whogives this great value to the land, Also, it is beginning to be known what huge sums this nation of moneylenders, which the English are becoming, takes in interest every year for the moneys lent to various foreign States, to cities, railways, canals, navigation, banks, and industries abroad.

The great bulk of this colossal revenue escapes all taxation. And it was but a small part of this revenue that Lloyd George proposed to tax in his Budget. But his greatest crime was, that in reedy to the landowners, who said they were totally ruined by democratic legislation, he proposed to make a national inquiryinto all land values and to tax them in proportion to the valuation. Not in proportion to what these lands bring in now as private parks or being rented as game preserves, but in proportion to what they would be worth if they were used for agricultural purposes. What sacrilege!

We know the result: the refusal of the Lords to sanction the Budget – contrary to Constitutional usage, which gives the Commons absolute power in finance matters – and then the new elections.

***

These elections were followed everywhere with the greatest interest – with anxiety by the international clique of monopolists. Nearly all advanced people have had some illusions about their possible results.

Now we have the result, and it is such as we might all have foreseen. The English middle classes have taken fright at innovations that threatened their pockets, and have gone over to the Conservatives. The same thing happened to Lloyd George as happened once to Gladstone, who also had a conflict with the Lords over a programme of reforms more or less advanced, and who as a result lost the confidence of the English bourgeoisie.

“We have drawn the teeth and clipped the claws of the Socialist tiger,” exclaims with jubilation that Conservative journal, the Spectator.

The Liberals in reality have lost more than 120 seats. Together with the Labour Party, they will probably have a majority of about 40 votes over the Conservatives, They will have with them about 85 Nationalists ready to vote against the Lords. But they will probably make the stipulation of Home Rule for Ireland, and this is what the middle class of England are opposing by all means.

The elections this mean the end of the Liberal Ministry and the victory of the Conservative elements. The Liberals may remain in power, but they will be unable to accomplish anything.

The Budget will probably be accepted by the Lord; but this is the end of all promised reforms. It is the maintenance of the status quo and a speedy return of a Conservative Government – a return into the quagmire in which England has been paddling from 1885 till 1905.

And the working men? we shall be asked. Since they have joined as a party in Parliamentary politics, they are helpless. Of their 78 candidates, some 30 have been piteously beaten, and the others have entered Parliament only with the support of the Liberals. But this fact would require some explanation, which must be left for another occasion.

For the moment, we have received a great object-lesson. Parliaments exist for preventing serious reforms, not for aiding them. If the working men want to have reforms – even the most moderate ones – they must impose them. They must threaten Parliaments, not enter them cap in hand.