This is Part Two from the pamphlet The Anarchist Revolution. by George Barrett, London: Freedom Press, 1920.
It's on the Anarchist idea of Direct Action. Like the wildcat strike yesterday in Toronto against the TTC.
I thought this text was particularly appropriate in light of that wildcat strike and the reactionary response from the Blogging Tories and the so called progressive liberals at Progressive Bloggers.
Both showed their reactionary nature, not unexpected from either really, it's always easier to attack the workers rather than the bosses. And of course it all had to do with the selfish idea that they were some how inconvenienced by the strike, and how dare the workers strike against public transit, their transit. We the public own it.
So how come we abdicate the management of it to the State and its appointed bosses? Better that transit be under worker and community control and then workers would not revolt against a heavy handed manangement.
They should have cheered the TTC workers rather than jeered them, seeing this as an opportunity to resist work, and to ignite a general strike, or at least sit in their backyards, relax with a beer and avoid being exploited for a day.
III. DIRECT ACTION.
To make it quite clear what is meant by the expression Direct Action, let us take an illustration. Not very many years ago, if there was a great national calanmity, such as an outbreak of plague, the religious people used to declare that the only remedy was for us as a nation to pray that God might remove his curse. These good people were very much shocked when scientists came along and began taking merely sanitary precautions to stamp out the disease. The first was the indir'ct method: prayers were sent up to heaven so that God might send down his good influence on the plague. This was a very indirect route to reach a disease which was, so to speak, next door. The scientist attended to the disease itself, studied its nature, and tried to find a means of stamping it out. This was direct action.
To-day in very much the same way the people are divided with two methods. In their factories and homes they find themselves discontented, and some of them propose to influence the chief of society-the Parliament-so that it will exefcise its power to put things right. These in their turn are shocked when advanced thinkers come along and declare that the way to get a remedy is to study the nature of the trouble and apply the cure directly to it. The former believe in the indirect or legislative method, for it is a long way from home to Westminster and back home again. The latter are the direct actionists, aind they recognise that if any one is going to put the factories in order, it will be the workers who spend their lives in them, and iot the politicians. Imagine the utter absurdity of a group of politicians sitting in the House of Commons earnestly discussing the welfare of the people. While they are doing so, are there not countless bakers, builders, and tailors walking about the streets, unemployed, and cut off, by the laws which these same politicians have passed, from the means of production, machinery, and tools with which they might produce what they need. To break down the laws and allow these people to produce what is necessary for their welfare, on equal terms with the other workers, is the way to ablish poverty.
It is clear that, if we are to rid ourselves of the troubles that bestet us at present, we must organise an entirely new system of wealth distribution. I do not mean by this that we must divide up, but I mean that the wealth which is produced must be stopped from flowing to the rich man who produces nothing; the stream must be diverted so that it will come to the producer. But who is it that distributes the wealth? Is it the - politician Certainly not; as a matter of fact, it is the transport workers. If, then, the workers who produce want an alteration in the present distribution, to whom must they apply? To their comrades, the transport workers, and not to the politicians, who have nothing to do with the matter. Similarly when better conditions are needed in the factories-larger sheds, better floors, and more efficient lighting and ventilation-who are the only people capable of doing this? It is the workers who need these reforms, and the workers who can "carry them out.
The task before the worker to-day is as it has been in the past: the slave class must rid itself of the dictating class-i.e., of those in authority. Such is the simple logic of the Direct Actionist, and it is already clear how it necessarily leads to the Anarchist Revolution. We must, however, be careful how we follow this principle-not that we fear being taken too far, but lest it does not take us far enough. The expression has been used so much in contradistinction to legislation, that any one who throws a brick through a window is generally supposed to be a Direct Actionist. He may be and he may not.
To be logical and true to the real meaning of the term, every act should, of course, be on the direct road towards the desired end-in our case, the Social Revolution. Sometimes it is difficult to be entirely consistent, but it is nevertlhless of the utmost importance that there should be at least a minority of the workers who understand what is the direct road, so that every skirmish may be made by them a step towards the final overthrow of Capitalism. At the risk of repeating myself, then, let me try to state the position very clearly. We have two classes-the governing, ruling, and possessing people on the one hand, and those governed and without property on the other; in a word, a master class and a slave class. "When this slave class becomes discontented and restive, it has several courses to consider before deciding which will give better conditions.
It may be argued:(1) That since the present masters do not give enough of the good things of life, these must be turned out and a new set selected from among the slave class; or (2) That since the slave class is composed of the producers, and the master class is, therefore, dependent on it, the former is clearly in a position to force the masters to give them more food and everything that may be desired; or (3) That since the slave class is the producer of all that is necessary for life, there is no need to either ask or demand anything from the master class. The slave class need simply to cut off supplies to the masters and start feeding themselves. The first of these arguments, it will be seen, is that of the politicians; and it may be dismissed without further comment, since, as will be understood after what has been already said, it obviously misses the point. It is not a question of who shall be master, but it is a matter of the essential relationship between master and slave, quite irrespective of who either of them may be. The second argument is that of the non-Parliamentary but non-Revolutionary Trade Unionist. It is right in that it recognises. where lies the true power of the workers in their fight against the capitalists, but it is wrong in that it proposes no change in the relationship between these two.
If the slave class is to be better housed, fed, and clothed from the masters' store, it means that the slaves will become more and mIIre completely owned by the masters. It is riot revolutionary, because it proposes to retain master and slave, and merely attempts to better the conditions of the latter. The third argument is, of course, that of the revolutionist. It agrees with the second as to the weapon to be used, bur. it says that the task before the workers is to feed, house, clothe, and educate themselves, and not to spend their energies in making better masters of the capitalists. rTo cut off supplies to the capitalist and to retain what is pr'odulced for the workers are the main points of the revolutionary fight. In every industrial dispute there are really two, and only two, essentials. On the one hand are the factories, warehouses, railways, mines, etc., which may be termed industrial proparty; on the other, the workers. To unite these two is to accomplish the revolution; for with them will be built the new society. The capitalist and master class in general can hold their position only so long as they can keep the workers outside the warehouses and factories, for within are the means of life, and the common people must be allowed to use these only on the strict understanding that they make profit and submit to the conditions dictated. To come out on strike, then, is merely rebellion, and is essentially not the revolution, however thoroughly it is done; to stay in and work in the condition of equality, free from the dictates of a useless master class, is the real object of the revolutionist. Direct action, therefore, in this strictly revolutionary sense would mean the taking possession of the means of production and the necessities of life by the workers who have produced them, an.I the reorganisation of industry a cording to the principles of freedom. The doctrine of Direct Action does not boast of bringing the workers easy salvation. It is, indeed, a recognition of the terribly simple fact that nothing can save us except our own intelligence and power. We, the workers, are the creative force, for is it not we who have produced all the food, clothing, and houses Assuredly it is we who need them. What, then, has the politician to do with this? Nothing, absolutely nothing! What use is it to hand over to the master class all that we produce, and then keep up a continuous quarrel as to how much we shall be allowed back?
Instead of this we have to stop supplies, reorganise our industries, not from above but from their source below, and see that in future all that is produced goes to the producer and not to the dominant class. This is the meaning of direct action, and it is Anarchism. But, alas! it is easier to accomplish a revolution on paper with cold logic than it is to bring it about in industrial life. We have to fight the lack of understafding on the part of the worker and the craft of the politician ever at work to increase this; and in addition we have the certainty that the class in power will attempt to resist the change, with the only argument that remains on their side-brute force. While, therefore, it is important to understand that direct action properly applied means the actual "conquest of bread " and the taking possession of the factories, we must be content probably for some little while longer to use our weapon of direct action simply according to the second of the three arguments given above-that is, to demand better conditions from the capitalist class. It is not, however, too much to hope that in the very near future the Anarchists will form a militant section of the workers, which will give to every great industrial rebellion the revolutionary character which is its true meaning. Worker as well as capitalist is beginning to recognise that a well-planned scheme for feeding the strikers is more than possible. Such a scheme would entail the captuiing of the bakeries, and this is surely the first step of the revolution. Beside this real problem, simple but great, how hollow and grotesque are the promises of the politicians. How absurd the idea of gaining liberty through the ballot-box. These hopeless government men, who talk with such sublime imbecility of feeding, housing, and clothing, only add insult to injury. The House they stand in to make their senseless speeches was built and furnished by the workers, and it is the workers who house and feed them. And beyond our own doubt and liesitation, what, after all, stands in our way? Let us gain inspiration from the hopeless position of our foes. How helpless they are! Is not the policeman's baton shaped by the worker, and his absurd uniform stitched by inderpaid women? The soldier's rifle is certainly not made by the master class-in every particular they are hopelessly our dependents. Every instrument of oppression is supplied to them by us, and we keep them alive by feeding them day by day. Surely, then, it is apparent that this change must come. Those above are powerless for goo, or for evil; the revolution can be brought only by an upheaval from below-from the one vital section of society, the workers
TTC, Wildcat, Transit-Strike, labour, unions, Toronto, Transit, direct-action, Blogging-Tories, Progressive-Bloggers, anarchism,
Tags
labour,
libertarianism
anarchism
socialism
communism
Libertarian-Communist
anarcho-syndicalist
autonomist-marxism
libertarian-socialism
Left Communism
Anti-State Socialism
Anti-Parlimentary Socialism
council communism
anarcho-communism
No comments:
Post a Comment