Blogging on "Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism"

A Useful Debate: Notes on Martin Thomas' "Solidarity"/Alliance for Workers' Liberty critique of "Black Flame"

2012-01-28T16:21:00.003+02:00

The British Trotskyist group, Alliance for Workers' Liberty (AWL), in 2011 published a 3 part review/ critique/ discussion of Black Flame in their paperSolidarity. Written by Martin Thomas, it appeared in three parts:

Part 1 here
Part 2 here
Part 3 here

There are many points with which to disagree, but let us stress first that the AWL was absolutely comradely and non-sectarian throughout. The Black Flame authors, several times offered a platform in Solidarity to reply, and engagement in the "Comments" sections was also friendly. Regrettably time commitments made the formal reply impossible, although some responses were posted online by Lucien (see below).

Meanwhile, Iain McKay, author of the Anarchist FAQ (vol. 1 book edition here and online edition here), also participated extensively in the debate, with systematic responses in the "Comments" section of each part - detailed responses that by-and-large refute much of the 3-part review.

Thomas then invited McKay to debate the issues at the AWL's annual "Ideas for Freedom" event, which in 2011 ran from 8-10 July. The AWL agreed to McKay's terms that the event be free and that an anarchist stall be permitted.
You can read McKay's statement for the "Ideas for Freedom" event in PDF here. However, his many interventions in the "Comments" (under his well-known internet name Anarcho) are an even richer and more comprehensive point-by-point refutation of many of the claims by Thomas. They can be found from here down, from here down, and from here down.

Meanwhile here are two posts by Lucien, which are rather modest efforts compared to McKay's detailed work.

Here is Lucien's first of two posts in "Comments" , from here (scroll below for the second post):

Martin Thomas writes that ‘Trotsky fought Stalinism to the death. But Schmidt and van der Walt claim he "envisaged socialism as 'authoritarian leadership... centralised distribution of the labour force... the workers' state... entitled to send any worker wherever his labour may be needed', with "dissenters sent to labour camps if necessary" … The words put in quote marks are culled not from Trotsky himself but from "pages 128, 132" of a book by one Wayne Thorpe … None of the words was ever written by Trotsky as a statement of his vision of socialism. The quoted string of words was never written as a whole connected passage by Trotsky anywhere.’

Actually, this is passage is from Leon Trotsky, Terrorisme et communisme (Paris, 1963; 1st edn in Russia, July 1920), p. 215.

It draws on his remarks at the 9th Party Congress 1920, where he added that "the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers," and "Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps". This is from Leon Trotsky, Sochineniya (Works), vol. XV, p. 126, quoted in Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers Control, 1917-1921: The State and Counter-Revolution (London: Solidarity, 1970), p. 61.

The fact that it was in a "polemic" - in fact, as Thomas notes, part of a larger "proposal" to militarise labour - merely underlines the point in Black Flame that "The differences between [Stalinism and Trotskyism] should not be overstated."

Here is Lucien's second of two posts in the "Comments" sections, from here:

Many of the misconceptions that Martin outlined are dealt with in-depth by Lucien van der Walt in a recent piece for International Socialism. There is also an extended version of the paper, available online. Both articles are linked below.

Before outlining some of the key points in these, let me just mention that Martin proceeds from the assumption that van der Walt and Schmidt are somehow revising anarchism, or breaking with traditional anarchism. This is mistaken.

Black Flame is simply a description of the views of mainstream historical anarchism and syndicalism, made through a discussion of standard texts and a world of historical experiences. That the conclusions do not fit the AWL vision of what anarchism "really" is, is simply testament to the fact that the comrades at the AWL seem to be trying to fit anarchism and syndicalism into a set of flawed Marxist stereotypes - rather than seriously engage with actual anarchist and syndicalist writings or the actual history of anarchism and syndicalism, they are relying instead on clichés, assertions and reiterations of certain Marxist myths.

The point is simply that a constructive discussion between Marxism and anarchism/ syndicalism, from which both can learn, is frustrated by such an approach.

Now, the misconceptions regarding anarchism (and syndicalism) dealt with in van der Walt's two papers include:

1. the role of anarchists in the Paris Commune and their views on the Commune. Many of the ideas of the Commune were first expressed by the anarchists, who, unlike the Marxists, played a key role in the Commune, and who were also involved in the other communalist revolts of the time in Spain, France and Italy; to assert a contradiction between anarchism and the Commune, or to present the anarchists as anti-Commune, is simply wrong.

2. the notion that Bakunin and Kropotkin either rejected class struggle, or rejected the modern working class. Both anarchist luminaries saw class struggle and trade unions as central to the anarchist project - this is precisely why syndicalism arose in the anarchist wing of the First International, as both Marx and Engels themselves recognised.

3. the myth that the Spanish anarchists and syndicalists (and anarchists and syndicalists elsewhere) lacked any programme for "coordinated authority for the war against the fascists" and other reactionaries. The need for coordinated military defence of revolution - in the context of a multi-tendency system of working class and peasant rule - was a staple of anarchist thought and was, for instance, the official programme of the Spanish CNT and FAI - joining the Spanish government violated anarchist policy, and did not flow from it; the need for armed and coordinated military defence was central to anarchism, and this is clear from a vast range of primary texts, not to mention the fact of numerous anarchist and syndicalist militias and armies historically. Contrary to Martin's suggestions, these issues are also discussed at length in Black Flame, which comes down in favour of this approach.

4. the myth that (to use Martin's words) anarchists reject the need for a "disciplined revolutionary socialist party with a definite programme and a press." If by "party" we mean a specific political organisation, based on theoretical and tactical unity, with some collective discipline, then this was precisely the view of key anarchists and syndicalists worldwide, ranging from Bakunin and Kropotkin to Ricardo Flores Magón, José Oiticica, Shifu, T.W. Thibedi etc. Notable organisations on these lines include the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy, Spain’s FAI, Mexico’s La Social, China’s Society of Anarchist-Communist Comrades, the postwar Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, etc. The prevalence of this approach is clearly shown in Black Flame, although Martin does not mention it.

Of course some anarchists rejected this approach, but then again, you get Marxists who reject the Marxist party e.g. autonomists; it does not follow from the fact of Marxist autonomism that the mainstream of Marxism rejected the need for vanguard parties, and it equally does not follow from the fact that a few anarchists and syndicalists rejected political organisation that the mainstream of anarchism and syndicalism did so - the issue was, for the mainstream, not whether to form specific anarchist groups, but how they should be structured, and how they should operate in relation to the masses and the revolution; in those debates, Bakunin etc. came down firmly for specific political organisation, based on theoretical and tactical unity, with some collective discipline. These issues are also discussed at length by van der Walt’s two papers and by Black Flame.

5. the misleading claim that Bolshevism (and mainstream historical Marxism) was more democratic than anarchism and syndicalism. The Russian Revolution was (precisely as Bakunin and Kropotkin predicted years before), strangled by the Marxist "vanguard", which from the start operated a party-run secret police, crushed strikes, murdered left opponents, destroyed soviet democracy and workers self-management etc. - to assert a sharp break between "Marxism" and "Stalinism" and the whole Soviet/ East bloc experience is not just historically flawed, but is at odds with the views of the great majority of Marxists; it is mistaken to write about Marxism as if Communism never happened, and as if Lenin and Trotsky did not create a one-party state, complete with the apparatus of forced labour camps, secret police, peasant extortions etc. later developed further by Stalin.

SHORT VERSION
Lucien van der Walt, 2011, "Counterpower, Participatory Democracy, Revolutionary Defence: debating 'Black Flame,' revolutionary anarchism and historical Marxism," International Socialism: a quarterly journal of socialist theory, no. 130 (2011), pp. 193-207, online here

Description: This article is, in part, a response to criticisms of the broad anarchist tradition in 'International Socialism' (ISJ), an International Socialist Tendency (IST) journal. However, it is also an examination of issues like the use of sources in Marxist/ anarchist debates, the historical/ current impact of anarchism/ syndicalism, anarchism and the question of defending revolutions, revolutions and pluralism, anarchism and political struggles and bodies, the Spanish anarchists' debates on taking power, anarchism's relationship to democracy, the historical role of Marxism, the role of Bolshevism in the fate of the Russian Revolution, Lenin and Stalin, and the tasks of the 21st century left.

EXTENDED VERSION
Lucien van der Walt, 7 April 2011, "Detailed reply to 'International Socialism': debating power and revolution in anarchism, 'Black Flame' and historical Marxism," 62 pp., online here

Description: This paper develops the themes in the short paper at length, with far more extensive data and references.

Michael Schmidt talk at DIRA, Montréal, 18 March '10: "The Relevance of Anarchist and Syndicalist History for Today’s Struggles"

2012-01-21T18:25:00.012+02:00

Michael Schmidt (co-author with Lucien van der Walt of the book Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, AK Press, USA, 2009)

Talk at DIRA bookstore, Montréal, 18 March 2010, part of Black Flame tour, Canada

Thanks to Marie-Eve Lamy of Lux Éditeur, Montréal, for the transcription

"The Relevance of Anarchist and Syndicalist History for Today’s Struggles"

Thank you so much, especially to the Union Comuniste Libertaire [UCL], Common Cause, AK Press and everyone else who has made it possible for me to come out. I think it's very important for militants who live in different parts of the world to compare ideas and practice. Hopefully that's what we're all about – putting ideas into practice, and being very pragmatic about the way we exercise our politics. I come from a very strange country, and it's nice to see one of my countrymen here. One of my comrades from

South Africa

has just moved to Montréal, temporarily, but nevertheless. And hopefully you'll make him feel at home as you have made me feel at home.

It's been really fantastic over the last couple of days to have been speaking to people who come from many different walks of life, many of whom are working class but have a very clear understanding of politics, and a very clear class line. And certainly after the collapse of the Berlin Wall 20 year ago, I think we are really starting to see the necessity around the world for class-line politics. Politics which draw a line in the sand and say we will not adopt bourgeois culture or bourgeois values or a bourgeois way of living, and says in fact we will establish a new way. A new method of politics – which in fact isn't that new, but it's new to a lot of people – in the here and now, in order to construct a physical and real future.

I've been going around and doing a variety of different talks depending on the type of audience. My audience last night was quite mixed, maybe not as experienced as some of you are. Hopefully I'm judging things right, and not talking beyond what you know. But some of what I will talk about hopefully will be beyond what you know, because of all the political philosophies in the world, all of the big practices of the working class, the excluded, the poor, the peasantry, anarchism has been the most misrepresented. I believe this is largely because it has conformed very closely to proletarian practice.

The book, Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, which I wrote with Lucien van der Walt, did not start out as a book; the book started out as a pamphlet that somebody else had written, that I read and realised very quickly suffered from the main errors of our understanding of the world, and that is it was very much derived from a North-Atlanticist way of seeing things; to call it Eurocentric would be too kind to it! The standard anarchist histories written by anarchists themselves are notoriously centred on Western Europe and portions of North America.

There is a bogus theory, but very current amongst academics and even militants, of “Spanish exceptionalism,” that is, that it was only in

Spain

that anarchism achieved anything of a mass working-class presence. A Marxist historian like Eric Hobsbawm, who has quite a nice eye for the colour and detail and texture of class struggles – in many respects I actually like him as a writer – is sadly very crude on such matters, simply because it doesn't conform to his politics. And he ascribes what he thinks of as this “Spanish exceptionalism” to some weird deviation in the Spanish character, which if anything is a bit of an unfortunately chauvinistic attitude.

What I want to talk about is a different kind of practice to that of which some of you are accustomed to – I know a lot of you are accustomed to it – a practice which has largely been “disappeared” from the historical record, but is still traceable certainly in the police record, and in the records of all the authorities who have oppressed us over the last 150 years.

I like to joke that the book was a little monster living in my basement that ate scraps that I threw from my table from time to time, and eventually became this huge thing that outgrew the house.

So today it is two volumes, Black Flame is the first, and the forthcoming volume is Global Fire. The reason that it is two volumes is that as the re-writing of this history to try to reorient it towards the massive Latin American in particular and East Asian anarchist movements got underway, it became very apparent that we – my co-author Lucien and I – as anarchists needed to define what the hell anarchism was, because there is a heck of a lot of confusion on this topic.

This confusion is generated in part because many of us as anarchists have accepted bourgeois definitions of who we are. And there is one very specific bourgeois definition – we will leave aside the obvious calumny of anarchism equals chaos, an immature response of the declining artisanal classes as it is usually painted by most, but not all Marxists... We'll leave aside that, but the primary way in which anarchism is misrepresented is as something that was a brief spark, that was essentially disconnected from daily struggle, that it was born in some philosopher's head, and died in some foolhardy experiment in

Spain

in 1939.

The anarchist movement has currency primarily because it was, and remains, a proletarian practice. We do not corner the market on reality; anarchists don't have the final word on, for instance, the key question which faces all revolutionaries, which is how do you transmit communist ideas – the ideas of a free society – from a militant minority to the mass in a way that the mass makes those ideas their own and in fact moves beyond the origins of those ideas. To be honest, we all face that idea whether you're a Maoist or a Trotskyist or whatever – we all have to grapple with that issue.

So I think it is worthwhile to take a look to see what anarchism had to say about that. Because based on the historical record, anarchism was quite different to the way it has been represented in the bourgeois press. It is ironic that many anarchists conceive of themselves – outside of certain movements, and within that I include my own, your own, and our comrades in several places in the world, Chile, Argentina, Italy, Ireland and elsewhere, people who are clear about who we are – most anarchists’ idea of themselves is in fact derived from a German judge. It was a judge named Paul Eltzbacher who 1900 wrote a book in the period in which anarchism was a global movement that was challenging the order of the day. He said anarchism was solely anti-state: but its not, its anti-capitalist, class-struggle-based, anti-authoritarian, and it comes from the oppressed classes. But Eltzbacher’s view remains influential, and that’s a problem, as it distorts our history and our praxis.

If you take a look at the origins of Interpol, you will see that before Interpol itself was established, there were two conferences, the first one in Rome, and the second one in St-Petersburg in the 1890s, that laid the groundwork for what would become Interpol. And these conferences were specifically aimed at crushing these specific anarchist movements. This was in a period that was remarkably similar to our own. I mean, it was very different in many ways, and very similar. It's very different in that today we live in a world of nano-technology, space tourism, and other nonsense.

Our movement today lives in a world which is very different to the gas-lit origins of the movement, and yet we find remarkable similarities. In the period of what you might call the “short twentieth century” – the century between the First World War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall – we find that the state form actually locks its populations down quite significantly, both mentally and physically. The nation-state and nationalism become the dominant ideology throughout much of the world – even in the welfare states – and this dramatic movement of working-class people around the world that you see in the period of the 1880s and 1890s to the 1920s is largely absent. But now, since the fall of the Wall, we've seen that start to open up again.

Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) at
the the First International

So the origins of the anarchist movement was not in some philosopher's head, but in the international revolutionary socialist trade unions and workers’ groups of the First International who were banding together on very pragmatic grounds; the grounds of solidarity, to try to stop French workers being undercut by British scabs and vice versa, and it grew out from there. It was a world in which the telegraph had started connecting people across the world at the very same time that barbed wire had just been invented and was being rolled out across the world and being used to cut them off from their own resources.

In this world, there was the consolidation of financial capital, and this massive push into Africa and Asia by the imperialist powers. Imperial wars were being fought (and this sounds familiar) in the Middle-East and Central Asia. The working class, which was all of a sudden very mobile in this environment – part-time sharecroppers coming from repressed and depressed southern Italy going off to Argentina for a season, where they had no vote, coming back to Italy where again they had no vote, this great cycle, this great global movement of workers – responded in several different ways in this period to the pain that they were feeling.

This was a really globally mobile, but very excluded and flexibilised labour force. They responded, some of them, by turning to religious fundamentalism and fanaticism. Others started to consolidate ideas around revolutionary class struggle. So I think you might agree with me that there are some remarkable similarities between today's section of flexibilised, precarious, continually moving, and excluded labour – people who are cut off from any means of real participation in the political process in their own countries, or in the countries into which they are drafted to be the underpaid subject class of labour.

What was remarkable about the early anarchist movement was that despite its militancy, it was deliberately building a lot of educational institutions along the way. It was building popular universities in Cairo, in

Cuba

, in

Peru

, in

Argentina

, and in

China

. The reason for this is the same as the reason why we had the Black Consciousness Movement in

South Africa

: it was necessary to cut the mental bonds that attached the rape victim to the rapist, the oppressed to the oppressor. And the anarchists shocked bourgeois sensibility by educating not only freed slaves alongside white people, but of all things, educating women alongside men, and girls alongside boys. This kind of stuff just wasn't done back then. I mean, who knows what kind of ideas they might get when you get them out of the kitchen.

On that note, I would like to say that gives us a little hint that the direction in which we need to be organising needs to be determined by our real conditions. In

Brazil

in 1930, there was an industrial working class of 1-million, but there was a maidservant class of 3-million. Perhaps the anarchists should have been organising among the maids. We need to be connected to where our people are at.

One of the reasons that the anarchist movement spread so dramatically around the world, establishing trade unions, what we call syndicalist unions (in other words, directly democratic and overtly revolutionary rank-and-file unions, anarchist trade unions) in Cuba, Mexico, the USA, Uruguay, Spain, and arguably (although the record is a little slim) in Russia, in the period of the 1870s and early 1880s – the reason this kind of thing spreads into Egypt and Uruguay and Cuba – these places which are under colonial or imperial control (Uruguay was free of the Spaniards, but not free of their own comprador capital) – is because in this period I think, if we are to be honest, up until Lenin in Marxism, in classic Marxism, you don't really find a serious Marxist engagement with the peasantry and the colonial world. By contrast, Bakunin was asking “What happens when 800 million Asiatics wake up from their sleep?”

The anarchist focus, right from the beginning, is saying you don't need to jump through a series of stages, like a poodle in a circus going through flaming hoops to get to the right time to stage your revolt. What you really need is to realise that you're at the stage now where you need to start fighting back. That doesn't mean that revolution is going to happen on Tuesday, starting at 9pm sharp. We all know that revolutions require a massive confluence of historical circumstances.

But it's because of this very early and very radical challenge to gender, race, colonialism, and imperialism that the anarchist movement made some incredible penetrations into parts of the world that Marxism doesn't even reach until much later, in the 1920s in fact. The Profintern (the communists' Red International of Trade Unions) then had to come knocking at the doors of the syndicalist trade unions, saying “Please, may we have a few workers? We don't really have any of our own. We need a couple to pretend that we have an International”. Sorry, I'm being rude.

It's probably unknown that there was a syndicalist survival in Southern Rhodesia, what is now

Zimbabwe

, up into the 1950s. That, pictured in Bulawayo, 1930 is Masotsha Ndhlovu, who in the 1920s was a ader of the Industrial and Commercial Union of Rhodesia. This union had suffered defeat in

South Africa

in the 1920s, but in what became

Zimbabwe

, it continued into the 1950s. It had been founded roughly on IWW or ndustrial Workers of the World principles, even if it wasn’t a pure syndicalist union, and I'm hoping that many of you know who the IWW are because it is a significant part of Canadian labour history. It's an incredibly powerful model that spread around the world.

The Korean movement - pictured: members of the Korean Anarchist Federation and Chinese comrades, 1928 - is generated primarily by the invasion of Japan in 1910. This generates a whole range of different responses, including syndicalist trade unions in port cities like Wonsan. But eventually a lot of the militants are forced out into exile, and they consolidate just across the border in this broad river valley, ringed by mountains, called the Shinmin Prefecture.

And in Shinmin, during the period of 1929 to 1932, they establish this autonomous zone in which peasants, workers, and revolutionaries essentially run their own lives. This is the rather unknown anarchist Manchurian Revolution, driven by the response to Japanese imperialist aggression. It was destroyed in that place, that particular geographical experience, by the Japanese invasion proper, which happened a couple of years later. The curious thing about the Korean movement is that its finest hours really occurred outside of its own national territory, in defence, originally, of their own national freedom, but eventually in defence of Chinese freedom as well.

But also, the East Asian movement is barely disrupted by the Second World War, because these guys had been fighting since 1910. For a lot of Western movements, and you could even look at your conventional trade unions, the rise of the Nazis and of Fascism in Europe was quite a breaking point. But in the Far East you find this continuous arc of struggle which is completely uninterrupted by the War because these guys had been fighting their war since 1910. And this movement continues with significant power right into the 1950s.

Johannesburg, my hometown: pictured is Industrial Workers of Africa in a strike movement, Johannesburg, 1918.The Industrial Workers of Africa: established in 1917 on IWW lines – very explicitly industrial, revolutionary trade union lines was part of this strike movement.

What happened in

South Africa

is that the IWW had gone in there and established itself in 1910 in an environment that was kind of similar to

Canada

at that time in that so-called “white labourism” dominated. This was essentially white working class people saying “we're protecting our own asses”, against capital and against other workers, without seeing the obvious: that an injury to one is an injury to all, right?

The IWW came in with an entirely different program that was anti-racist. They organised on the trams in Johannesburg, and railways in Pretoria, and in the port city of Durban. At first they failed to break through the colour bar, but they established a generation of militancy that was further radicalized by the anti-war movement during the First World War, and eventually in 1917 established the Industrial Workers of Africa. And in fact they adopted the IWW constitution, lock stock and barrel. They based themselves squarely on the IWW. That's the irony – the Transvaal Native Congress – the movement was so significant in that period that several leading members of the highveld [inland high plateau] branch of what is today the ruling party of the country, what became the African National Congress, were very influenced by syndicalism in this period.

And just to show that we're not all talking about history: pictured is a poster of the Spanish Confederación General del Trabajo, 1999. Here are the descendents of the historic Spanish CNT who fought the Spanish Revolution (there are several factions, as some of you no doubt know, and this is the largest faction), they are currently representing 2 million workers.

Ōsugi Sakae, pictured here with Itō Noe and the editors of Rōdō Undō, Tokyo, 1921: the Japanese labour movement, a small movement in a country that certainly in the period between the wars, didn't develop much of an industrial base. Many of the shops and plants were very small. But a very significant, radical, egalitarian trade union movement developed there.

It was anarcho-syndicalist, and included (again, shocking the bourgeois sensibility) very strong women leaders, many of whom would be murdered for their opposition to the state. The Japanese trade unions, worked alongside Korean trade unions, who again were working within the heart of the beast which was the developing Japanese Empire, sliding into militarism.

Shin Ch’aeho, pictured, was a leading Korean anarchist theorist and militant. His Korean Revolution Manifesto of 1923 really united all of the disparate anti-Japanese revolutionary forces, some of them within the Korean Anarchist Federation, some of them within the Korean Anarchist-Communist Federation, some of them within the Revolutionist Federation, basically all of them anarchist, but working alongside nationalists and communists to try to beat back the Japanese. He died in a Japanese jail in fact in '36.

Lala Har Dayal pictured here, the primary Indian revolutionary of his age. You guys probably know about Mohandas Gandhi. Why the hell do you know about Mohandas Gandhi, and not about Lala Har Dayal? The reason is because you're learning your history from the bourgeoisie. You're being fed this shit; you're being fed this pacifism, right? You're being fed all of this lame stuff. What this guy did (and he was also influenced by the IWW), he was a worker, an Indian chap working in San Francisco.

He became the secretary of the San Francisco branch of the IWW. He became a convinced anarchist, a hardliner, a Bakuninist. He believed that you needed a specific organisation to maintain clarity, but that organisation has to live, eat, sleep, and breathe within the class – within mass class organisations – and acts as that organisation's historical memory, tactical toolbox, and first line of defence. In other words, they will put their bodies on the line.

This guy's party, the Ghadar (“Mutiny”) Party, established in 1913, established branches in the United States, Canada, British-occupied East Africa, and many other parts of the world where Indian exiles and migrants found themselves. Crucially they establish bases within

India

itself, in Punjab and Hindustan, and launch an armed uprising in 1915.

What is interesting is the social base of the Ghadar Party in

India

is primarily made up of peasants and of returning British army veterans who know how to fight, but suddenly realised, “What the heck! We fought for this British Empire, but we've been treated like second class citizens in our own country!”

The last traces of this movement that we've managed to discover (and of course, the records are not entirely complete) are in East Africa in the 1940s and in

Afghanistan

in the 1930s. What is interesting for those of you in the room who might be communists is that those particular regions in which the Ghadar Party was organised in

India

, were the most trenchant regions of peasant resistance, and the seed-beds of the later radical grassroots communist parties of the 1940s and ’50s. So we are kind of cousins after all, right?

Also, crucially, we need to bear in mind that this idea (and not only the idea, but the mass organisational practice of anarchism) did not die on the barricades of Barcelona in 1939 [when the Spanish Revolution fell]. I believe, based on what I've studied (and the book has taken us ten years to write so far), that if there is a “dark ages” of the anarchist movement, which to a degree means if there is a dark ages of working class knowledge and understanding of the class's own fighting history (not that the anarchist movement represents the entire fighting history, that is false; but I think the anarchist movement has been a key repository of those fighting techniques), that dark ages is in fact the late 1970s and early 1980s.

This is when a lot of the organisational memory that had been transmitted for decades since the 1860s, by generation after generation of militants – many of whom who died on the barricades, died on the gallows, succumbed to tuberculosis, gone down into the grave early because of the strain of their fight – was lost. There is a reason that a lot of North American movements don't have the faintest clue what happened in their own countries in the 1970s, and don't even know what their own ideological antecedents were as little as three decades ago. Instead we're all looking back to the 1920s and saying “It must have been great back then!”

The period of the 1940s and 1950s poses a huge set of challenges to the proletariat as a whole, and to the anarchist movement that works within that proletariat. Quite clearly, the history of the Second World War and Fascism is well known, as is the rise of nationalism, which as I said earlier had locked down so many people's minds in so many countries into a very narrow paradigm of what it meant to be free.

But when you look at, for example, a year like 1956, you have the Cuban Revolution underway (I mean the real one); the syndicalist dockworkers in Argentina embark on what is still to this day the largest ever general strike; in Chile, the dictator, Paco Ibañez, is forced into a position where he basically hands over the power to the syndicalist and communist unions. He says “Enough already! Just take the country! You've won!” Sadly, in one of the dumbest moves ever, the communists break ranks and that collapses. But what I'm saying is that we have these mass working class movements, these peaks of struggle occurring in Latin America, in a period when, if you read the standard histories, it's all McCarthyism, grim and grey, Stalinism, the Cold War, and nothing is happening – everyone is defeated. But it's not so. I think maybe it's my generation, or maybe the people slightly before me who were defeated, and we've forgotten our own history.

Mikhail Gerdzhikov, pictured, of Bulgaria .. one of the leading lights in the Bulgarian Anarchist-Communist Federation, established in 1919. What's interesting about them is that they're very pluralistic. They are a very diverse organisation. They have an industrial base, a very strong syndicalist industrial base. To be fair, they are the third-largest force on the left, after the agrarians and the communists in

Bulgaria

in the 1920s. But they are strong and coherent – they have their issues, like everybody else – but they have this really interesting and diverse movement. They organise amongst students, intellectual workers. They have their armed detachments.

They learnt through this guy, Gerdzhikov, that you've got to defend your gains, physically, by force, in an organised fashion. He earned his chops fighting against the Ottoman Turkish empire in the 1903 Macedonian Uprising. A huge section of the Bulgarian anarchist movement basically learned how to fight by fighting on behalf of someone else's freedom in 1903: this is principled internationalist anti-imperialism, from below!. About 60 of these Bulgarian anarchists lost their lives in

Macedonia

– a relatively small skirmish in the bigger picture of things. But in that period they established free communes that replicated the Cantonalist Communes – the cities which the anarchists had run in 1873 in Spain – plus Lyon, Paris, those sort of examples, from a few years earlier as well.

The fact that this movement was so diverse, but at the same time coherent, enabled them to fight off two fascist coups d'etat, one in 1923 and one in 1934. Eventually, they had to fight the Red Army itself in 1948, because the Red Army had allied with the indigenous fascists to form the so-called Fatherland Front, to try to impose a disciplined dictatorship – no doubt “of the proletariat”! – on the Bulgarian people. And it's remarkable that Bulgaria, almost alone of all nations, did not allow a single train to go to the death camps – despite the fact that they were a Nazi ally, on the bourgeois level.

Moving a little bit forward in time, the late Wilstar Choongo is pictured at left with members of the Socialist Caucus, Lusaka, 1998, who I befriended a little while ago, in Zambia. These movements are often, particularly in my part of the world in Africa, ephemeral. They rise up, and then they die. Very difficult circumstances in Africa, and yet when you look at the history of the anarchist movement, the anarchist movement was built by bitterly poor people in extreme conditions of poverty, oppression, and prejudice, and yet they were able to build mass movements.

When you take a look at

Argentina

, which in 1900 was actually, based on its meat exports – certainly for the bourgeoisie, they were smiling – it was the fourth wealthiest nation by some measures in the world at that stage, but everybody who produced that wealth was excluded. It was very tiny elite that even had the bourgeois vote. If you look at that world, the anarchist movement that develops in those conditions becomes so strong that eventually the two main labour federations in the country by 1919 are two slightly tactically, slightly ideologically different anarchist trade union federations. The debate within the organised labour movement is a tactical and strategic debate between anarchists – in rather significant numbers; mass organisations built across race lines, and certainly across gender lines, at a time of incredible duress.

And the women who come out of these movements are a force to be reckoned with. In Latin America alone, we can look at people like Juana Belém Gutiérrez de Mendoza in Mexico. She manages to establish a feminist newspaper called Vespa. This paper survives and publishes for 36 years, despite the fact that she's continually in and out of jail. She wasn't a pushover.

Kanno Sugako, pictured, in Japan ... There were lots of manufactured plots against the Emperor but she really was guilty; she really did plan to take out the Emperor, to prove that he wasn't a living god; to prove that the god in our heads could in fact be killed; to sever that mental link that the oppressed majority had with their oppressors.

Juana Rouco Buela of

Argentina

, and Virginia Bolten of

Uruguay

– they set up probably one of the earliest feminist journals in the world in

Argentina

. They get quite a bit of flack originally from the men. The men say “You're dividing the movement!”.

But they hold out, and they establish a line of thought that is still transmitted today in the Latin American movement. I'm really glad to see you have Maria Lacerda de Moura on your wall over there. This is one of the ways in which Francophone and Hispanophone movements are superior to English-speaking movements – there is a much deeper appreciation of history and theory. She was Brazilian, and she was the premier labour educator of her age. She would go on speaking tours right across Latin America, as far up as

Mexico

. She preached rationalist education – reason against an education system dominated by the Church that taught mysticism and respect for one's abusers.

Petronilla Infantes is pictured, third from the left in front, with the Sindicato de Culinaria, La Paz, 1935. Here's a young woman heading up the anarcho-syndicalist culinary workers’ syndicate in

Bolivia

in 1935. She becomes the leading labour leader in

Bolivia

right into the 1950s. If you go into the streets in

Bolivia

right until today, they will know her name. And we can go on.

We can look at Luisa Capetillo in Puerto Rico, who dared to wear pants. And boy did she ever wear them, in defiance! She led the trade union movement in Puerto Rico. We can look at Maroussia Nikiforova leading the Makhnovist detachments fighting the White armies in the

Ukraine

during the Ukrainian Revolution, eventually being executed in 1919 in Sevastopol. The list goes on and on.

There was Spain, which had a revolution: pictured is CNT-FAI collectivised tram, Barcelona, 1936. Its movement wasn't exactly all that insignificant! But really in context, proportionately, by head of population, the anarchist movement in nearby

Portugal

was much more powerful than in

Spain

. It was much more integrated into daily life generally across the country than in

Spain

, where it was more located in certain regions, such as Catalonia.

The Iberian anarchists ran daily newspapers which were as large in circulation as your city newspapers today. Certainly as large as the mainstream newspapers that I as a journalist have worked for. I can only wish that we had radical newspapers of that kind of reach, but maybe we'll build that again.

Mexico in '68: here, pictured is a mass demonstration shortly before the Ttatelolco Massacre, Mexico City... again jumping forward in time. You're probably aware that my country is about to host the FIFA Soccer World Cup, and there are massive contradictions in our being able to spend billions building beautiful gleaming football stadiums when we supposedly cannot build houses for the poor.

This massacre occurred just prior to the World Cup in

Mexico

in 1968. And what the student leaders were asking, many, many decades after the Mexican Revolution, was “Was the anarchist revolutionary leader Ricardo Flores Magón wrong? Did he misunderstand what we were all about? Did he misunderstand the solution?” And 50,000 voices shouted back, “No! He was not wrong. He understood. We understand”. And then the troops opened fire.

Our own small little effort is pictured: the anarchist-founded Phambili Motsoaledi Community Library, Soweto, in 2005. We're part of a much bigger story, and

South Africa

is not an easy environment to work within. The working class is lured by all sorts of promises of pie-in-the-sky from all sorts of religious and political elites.

And this is what we can do to walk alongside the masses, and help keep connected, help them keep their eye on the prize. This is developing class consciousness, solidarity, and building popular organisations of counter-power. We build that counter-power, by which I mean structures, directly democratic structures, organisations.

But those organisations become impossible if you don't have a counter-culture that goes along with them. And what I mean by counter-culture, I don't mean a particularly weird shade of green in your hair, or a piercing on a part of your body. By counter-culture, I mean a fundamental oppositional working-class culture, which means when you're walking downtown and you need to purchase something urgently at the chain store and there's a picket there, you know – it’s in your bone marrow and blood – that you would never cross a picket line. You've got that working class culture engraved in your skin. It is a part of you.

That is our biggest challenge. That is where we need to start to rebuild, by changing consciousness in order to create the mental space in which to build counter-hegemonic institutions; by building organisations that are of the class, by the class, and for the class. And I think I'll just stop there and leave it open for questions.

[ENDS]

Graham Purchase's review in "Anarcho-syndicalist Review"

2012-01-20T17:45:00.007+02:00

An interesting review of Black Flame appeared in ASR/ Anarcho-syndicalist Review no. 53, 2010, by Graham Purchase. Purchase is an Australian writer on anarchism (especially on its relation to ecology), and his ideas had an important impact (among others) on the (South African) Workers Solidarity Federation (WSF), as a look at their Position Papers on environmental and other issues shows (see here).

Given Purchase's important contributions to anarchism, such as Anarchism & Environmental Survival (1994/ 2011), his review was naturally of particular interest. Therefore it is pleasing to see Purchase commend the book for its "extensive" sources, its global coverage, its stress on the working class roots and project of anarchism and syndicalism, its examination of issues of race and gender, and its critique of crude identity politics.

Purchase does note that the book pretty much ignores environmental issues, which is perfectly true, but it should be stressed that this not due to disinterest on the authors' part. The absence was keenly felt, but it is mainly the result of the absence of a decent examination of this thread in anarchist and syndicalist history in most sources - with Purchase's work an important exception - and we are reliant on our sources. In any case, no book can be entirely comprehensive.

Purchase adds that the book accepts, rather than supersedes, some of the "sectarian" divisions in anarchism/ syndicalism (p. 39). True again, but is this a problem? The book does not aim to artificially synthesise anarchism into a unified movement, nor to sidestep its rich debates, but to survey and analyse the debates within the movement. This is necessary for any real history - and also useful for current discussions of tactics, analysis etc.

Such differences arise mainly from very real and sincere disagreements on tactics and strategy, and differing contexts, and not from sectarianism. Whether it is useful to supersede differences in the first place - as opposed to allowing success or failure to measure which approach is better - is itself an issue of some debate. Black Flame certainly leans towards some positions, but it also presents the rival positions and criticisms at some length: the book is an overview, not a manifesto.

Naturally, some of Purchase's comments are more political in nature, and to be welcomed as such. For example, he disagrees with the Bakuninist / Platformist / especifist / Malatestian approach of building specific anarchist political organisations, in addition to mass formations like unions etc. Since he notes that Black Flame demonstrates a "long historic precedent" for the centrality of dual organisationalism in anarchism/ syndicalism (including Bakunin's Alliance and the Spanish FAI), and since he fails to dispute the historic fact of such bodies, let alone their critical historic achievements, its unclear on what basis he then sweepingly confidently asserts that this approach is "certainly unachievable and probably undesirable" (p. 40).

Perhaps it is the assumption that this approach seeks to meld all anarchists into one unified group, with a common political position? However, the aim of the Alliance, the FAI etc. was something else: to form strong, specific, anarchist/ syndicalist political organisations, based on theoretical and tactical unity and collective responsibility, with a real influence (a leadership of ideas) in mass organisations of the popular classes. Naturally, the larger such a formation, the bigger its impact, but since the strength itself lies in political and organisational unity, it would be rare indeed that formations could include everybody who identified with anarchism or syndicalism - and so, such all-inclusiveness was never an aim.

Purchase is also less convincing where he claims Black Flame neglects "the Commune" i.e. the anarchist commitment to the "self-governing suburb, quarter or region" (p. 39). This is rather a misrepresentation - or perhaps, we misunderstand Purchase? -as Black Flame stresses that syndicalist unions immersed themselves in community struggles (e.g. p. 21, 185), shows that anarchists / syndicalists favoured community activism and took various approaches to such activism (pp. 124, 190 onwards, 330 onwards), and that the movement generally envisaged "Democratic local groups at the workplace and in the neighbourhood" as "the nucleus of the social movement that would create libertarian socialism" (p. 68).

This supposed neglect of the community is, for Purchase, caused by Black Flame apparently treating anarchism and syndicalism as identical. This claim, too, is simply wrong, as the book explicitly differentiates anarchism and syndicalism, and treats syndicalism as an anarchist strategy, not accepted by all. This position is made upfront in chapter 1 (p. 21) and at great length elsewhere. It is surely not too different to Purchase's view that anarchism is the "tree", syndicalism a "branch" (p. 39)?

Overall, a stimulating review, with much food for thought, but with some room for engagement!

'Black Flame' and the Marxist tradition/s: Comments on Wayne Price's review of "Black Flame"

2012-01-20T11:14:00.001+02:00

These are reproduced from the discussion at anarkismo, here

Comment 1: Some responses from an author

Hi Wayne

Thanks for all the positive comments, and for what I think is a fair summary of the book. In the same spirit of comradely engagement, I'd like to perhaps mention two areas where I disagree with your assessment. Again, I stress that I do this in an open spirit; like you, I despise petty squabbling, in favour of clear (and clarifying) debate.

a) on labels and 'sectarian' issues: I agree labels can be a bit tricky, but I don't really agree that insisting that anarchism = class struggle anarchism 'seems' 'pointless,' raises 'a terminological dispute which makes us look sectarian.'

We defined anarchism historically, and as accurately as possible. Without doing this, it is simply impossible to do a general history and analysis of anarchism (and syndicalism); this is why works like that of Peter Marshall tend to ramble, to have huge gaps and peculiar choices (in his case, including both Thatcher and Che in his history of anarchism...). To change the definition would radically change the book (and the book to follow).
I agree, of course, that the approach will offend some people, but I'd also insist that accuracy and terminology cannot (and should not) be shaped by current day political considerations (or by the confusion in the ‘anarchist’ milieu). That, I think that is tending a bit towards unprincipled opportunism. That is obviously not your intention, but I think it’s the logical consequence of your suggestion.

Conversely, I really don't think using the ‘anarchist’ label in a particular way prevents a discussion and a serious debate with people with whom anarchists disagree. In the English-speaking milieu, levels of debate are often extremely poor (I mean debate, not rants, labeling, etc.) and this is partly due to the fuzziness of many concepts deployed. It is difficult to debate if there is no clarity on what is being debated in the first place.

b) on Marxism: as the book states, there are tensions in Marx's own thought, and there are radically democratic elements, and there are also radically democratic traditions of Marxism e.g. Councilism.
However, to claim, as bluntly as you do, that 'Marx did not believe in a specific “strategy of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (p. 99) to create a state ruled by a centralized party,' as he merely meant 'the rule of the working class as a class, such as in the radically-democratic Paris Commune' is not accurate.

That is a very one-sided reading of Marx but its a-historical and misleading; it relies on a single text as the definitive statement of Marx's views and praxis, and ignores a host of materials that say something quite different. Many of these are cited in Black Flame, which does not rely on Lenin et al to paint the picture of Marxism.

On numerous occasions, Marx specifically called for precisely a 'state ruled by a centralized party' (Black Flame, p. 99), not least in the resolutions he forced through the rigged Hague Congress of the IWMA in 1872 after trying to 'expel' the anarchists. That is, the very year after he wrote The Civil War, he insisted that 'the proletariat can only act as a class by turning itself into a political party', aimed at the 'conquest of state power', with a 'proletarian dictatorship' based upon ‘centralisation' and 'force' (Hans Gerth, ed., The First International: Minutes of the Hague Conference of 1872, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958, pp. 216-17, 285-86).

This was quite in line with the Communist Manifesto – which no one would dispute is the canonical Marxist document – which proposes as ‘generally applicable’ the following measures: ‘abolition of private property in land’, a ‘heavy progressive or graduated income tax’, ‘centralisation of credit in the hands of the state’, ‘centralisation of all means of communication and transport in the hands of the state’, ‘factories and instruments of production owned by the state’, ‘industrial armies, especially for agriculture.’ Moreover, the Marxists ‘always and everywhere represent the interests’ of the working class, because they ‘understand the line of march’ better than ‘the great mass’ (see Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1954, Henry Regnery, pp. 40, 55-56).

The overall outline of socialism in The Civil War was, moreover, never seriously proposed or implemented by the groups that Marx set up, going back to the Communist League, and carrying through to the German SDP, nor the Labour and Socialist International (after the anarchists were expelled) nor the Communist International. Nor was it the policy of any mass Marxist party or formation in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries.

As you say, 'Despite his defects, Marx did not at all aim for the murderous totalitarian state capitalism of Soviet Russia or Communist China': we agree, and in fact say pretty much this on p. 24: 'The creation of the gulag system in the USSR, which placed tens of millions into concentration camps based on forced labour, was an integral part of the Soviet system, but was probably not part of Marx’s plan. The harsh circumstances under which the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the USSR took place obviously also left a profound imprint. The features of the USSR and the later Marxist regimes cannot, then, simply be reduced to Marxist politics.'

That does not, however, exonerate Marx himself, because the predominant element in his thought, his movement and (though we do not go into this third part in Black Flame), his personal political behaviour (e.g. the struggle against Weitling, Proudhon, Bakunin, his role on the IWMA etc.) was centralist and authoritarian. Just as we need to discuss anarchism (and syndicalism) historically, we need to discuss Marxism historically; just as we cannot reduce a history of Christianity to a study of the original gospels, but must look at its history, and which interpretations mattered historically, we must judge Marxism historically.

In no sense can the history of Marxism be delinked from, say, Communism, and in no way can Marx and the Marxist mainstream's stress on 'a highly centralized state, headed by a communist party, controlling labour and the other forces of production and claiming to be the sole repository of “scientific” truth,’ be sharply divorced from the ‘evolution of Marxism in the twentieth century into an ideology of dictatorship after dictatorship' (Black Flame, pp. 24-25).

The fact is that 'The history of Marxism in the third of the world once ruled by Marxist regimes is a part—the major part—of the history of Marxism' (p. 25). When we are discussing Marxism, we are not discussing hypothetical Marxisms that could have been, but an actual movement.

I agree with your insistence on breaking with the crude understanding of Marxism so common in the anarchist milieu, but equally, I cannot that Marx is basically radical-democrat maligned by the misreadings of posterity.
Comradely
Lucien

PS. you insist that 'Marx did not think that commodity prices were directly due to the labor-time invested in the commodity (its value)' because he purportedly 'thought that the relation between labor-time values and prices was indirect and complicated (what has been called the ‘transformation problem.’).’

Black Flame's formulations are rather more qualified: that 'Marx, like Proudhon, used a labour theory of value; he argued that only living labour created new value, and that value underpinned prices. All things being equal, and given the operation of a competitive market system that equalised prices for given commodities, the price of a commodity must correspond closely to the “socially necessary” or average labour time used to produce it... Marx spoke of the exchange values of commodities, set in production by labour time, as determining prices' (p. 86). Moreover, 'Marx admitted that prices could vary somewhat according to supply and demand ...' (p. 89).

I think this is a fair summary of Marx. In Value, Price and Profit chapter 2 Marx states that, in a situation of market equilibrium, market prices correspond to 'natural prices,' which are 'determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.' In Capital III, chapter 9, Marx insists that prices are still obtained from values, but this 'general law' only applies at the level of combined capital in given spheres of production (as alluded to Black Flame p. 88).

Comment 2: Marx and the DOP
Wayne, as always, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and comradely style. But I do not agree with your claims regarding Marx and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (DOP).

There is a direct link between the Marxist regimes, and the thought of Marx.

Admittedly, there are "many tensions and ambiguities in Marx’s thought," including democratic elements, but, equally, there is a very clear, central "authoritarian and statist" thrust as well (Black Flame, p. 24).

Draper placed the most democratic, feel-good spin on Marx's authoritarian and statist elements, but that does not make them vanish; they can't be vanished by waving Draper. And whatever Draper may have thought, the fact is that 99% of Marxists did not (and do not) agree with him, and there are libraries of Marxist literature to this effect. These views - this reading of Marx's work - is by the way very much in line with what Bakunin viewed as the core project of Marxism (admittedly Bakunin did not read Draper, but he knew and directly debated, both formally and informally, with Marx and Engels).

Nor is Draper's scholarship unimpeachable, as his calumnies against Bakunin, his mispresentation of the Commune, his presentation of Lenin as a radical democrat, his defence of Trotsky's terrorism against the popular classes etc., all attest.

Why exactly we should take Draper's views on the real meaning of "every goddamned incidence" of Marx's views on the DOP as more accurate than, for example, Lenin's views on the exact same matter? Or frankly, than the views on the matter of the historic anarchist tradition, which competed with and debated Marxist mass movements for well over a century?

Draper, then, simply cannot be taken as the authoritative source on all things regarding Marx and the DOP; he does not have that status or recognition among most Marxists.

Secondly, in a world where the history of Marxism rested on Draper's idiosyncratic views, that history would perhaps be very different to what it was; however, we are not dealing in hypotheticals.

Every single Marxist regime, ever, has been a dictatorship; every single major Marxist party, ever, either renounced Marxism for social democracy, or, remaining revolutionary, acted as apologists for dictatorships (that includes all Communists and Trotskyists, including the ISO, which still exonerates the Lenin-Trotsky period - on the same lines as Draper), or actually headed brutal dictatorships.

Debating what Marx "really meant” is vastly less important than what Marxism was (and is) (although of course it fits very well with the almost theological culture of Marx studies, where Marx is always assumed to be right, and where debates are settled by quote swapping). But as I said before, you don't judge Christianity on the basis of the gospels alone.

Marxism, too, must be judged by history; that requires an assessment of its record, rather than on the basis of Draper's opinions.

Thirdly, Wayne, as your own analysis admits, there are elements in Marx's writings that played a role in the Marxist regimes: "there are useful and nonuseful (for anarchists) aspects of Marx's Marxism, and that the nonuseful aspects (determinism, centralism, etc.) played a role in the eventual development of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism."

I agree: there is direct link between "Marx's Marxism," and "Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism." Therefore we cannot "exonerate classical Marxism from a good deal of responsibility for the oppression and inequities of the old East bloc" (Black Flame, p. 24)

At the same time, you downplay this link, claiming that (for instance) Marx's resolutions in the IWMA were really about "advocating that the proletariat should act as a class and turn itself into a party to conquer power for the working class. That is, the whole class should organize itself into a class-wide party so that the whole class can take over the state." Also, you state the DOP meant would "mean the democratic rule of the whole working class--Marx's original meaning."

Those are two very different claims. A "party" with mass "class-wide" support acting to "take over the state" is very common (PT in Brazil, ANC in South Africa, SDP in Germany ..) , but that is something quite different to "the democratic rule of the whole working class". Even the Bolsheviks, arch-vanguardists as they were, actively sought mass support, despite the fact that they had no interest in "the democratic rule of the whole working class."

The only way you can reconcile these two propositions - a mass party, democratic rule - is to assume that Marx collapses class and party, and that he envisaged a state form in which there is literal "democratic rule" by the "whole" working class.

Do we find either position in Marx?

On the first (collapse of class and party): Marx and Engels clearly reject such a collapse. The "Manifesto" distinguishes "proletarians and communists", with the latter happily understanding "the line of march" better than "the great mass". This is not a "class-wide party," but merely "the most advanced and resolute section" of the many "working class parties" to be found in "every country" (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1954, Henry Regnery, p. 40).

The party is only identical to the class in the indirect (and vanguardist) sense that it somehow will "always and everywhere represent the interests" of the working class (no matter what "the great mass" may think) (p. 40). The corollary is that all other socialists are non-proletarian: as explained at length in chapter III, they are variously "feudal," "reactionary," "petty bourgeois," and "bourgeois" (pp. 58-78).

This is a clear example of the reasoning later identified with Leninist regimes: Mensheviks, anarchists, syndicalists etc. are by definition ‘bourgeois’ (Lenin, ‘Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,’ in Selected Works in Three Volumes, p. 599), and party dictatorship is by definition ‘the dictatorship of the class’ (Trotsky, Challenge of the Left Opposition, 1923-1925, Pathfinder, 1975, p. 161).

Only the second (a state form enabling actual "democratic rule" by the "whole" working class): Marx and Engels do not argue this. The communist party's aim is "the same as that of all the other proletarian parties … conquest of political power by the proletariat" (ibid). The aim is "the same" i.e. the party winning state power for the class, not the literal "democratic rule of the whole working class."

And what would the state form be? It would be a centralized under party control, where only one party will "always and everywhere" represent the class.

Wayne suggests that Marx advocated "centralism" only as measure for "overthrowing the feudal divisions of Europe and creating large nations run from central cities by single parliaments." On the contrary: Marx and Engels insisted that economic centralization, including of labour control through "industrial armies," would be "generally applicable" in precisely "the most advanced countries’ as part of the socialist (not the bourgeois-democratic) project (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1954, Henry Regnery, p. 55). (Wayne suggests that Black Flame makes it case "with quotes from Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao--not Marx." Not at all: the views by Marx and Engels mentioned here may all be found in the book (e.g. pp. 24, 98, 101).

A ruling party that knows alone knows the true interests of the "great mass"; the claim that all rivals are anti-proletarian; the stress on the centralised state, including nationalisation and "industrial armies": these are the elements of "Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism," and they are all easily found in the Manifesto.

Comment 3: The transformation problem

Wayne says: "Lucien defends his interpretation of Marx's derivation of commodity prices from values (socially-necessary labor time)" but his account relies "too much on Value Price and Profit, Marx's little pamphlet. It is not as authoritative as is vol. III of Capital."

I did quote vol III in my response, but to be quite clear: chapter 9 of Capital III is not a retreat from the basic approach that natural prices reflect average labour time: "If the labor time required for the production of these commodities is reduced, prices fall; if it is increased, prices rise, other circumstances remaining the same" (Capital III, chp 9). The "assumption that the commodities of the various spheres of production are sold at their value implies, of course, only that their value is the center of gravity around which prices fluctuate, and around which their rise and fall tends to an equilibrium" (ditto). The problem Marx tackles here is that while prices correspond to values, market prices for given commodities are average prices, rather than prices set by the specific amount of labour time embodied into commodities by different capitals. If such a proposition was granted, the least efficient capitals would be the most profitable, and there would no tendency for a rising organic composition of capital etc.

Wayne adds: Marx "knew that commodity values were greatly distorted by many factors when they appeared as prices, such as the average rate of profit."

Of course, but that is not a refutation of Black Flame. It merely means there is a true price that is "distorted" in some situations. Thus, vol III: "... their value is the center of gravity around which prices fluctuate" , and around which their rise and fall tends to an equilibrium." What is the true price? Labour time is materialised in commodities as the basis of their exchange value and money-price (meaning average prices). Which is pretty much what Black Flame states, "All things being equal, and given the operation of a competitive market system that equalised prices for given commodities, the price of a commodity must correspond closely to the 'socially necessary' or average labour time used to produce it" (p. 86).

Wayne continues: “If their interpretation was correct, then why did so many Marxist economists spend so much time on the 'transformation problem' (of values into prices)?"

The fact that there is a "transformation problem" that preoccupies these economists is not a refutation of the arguments made in Black Flame. It is simply that there is supposedly a "problem" of finding a general rule to transform the "values" of commodities (based on labour according to his labour theory of value) into the "competitive prices" of the marketplace. Marx's explanation has been subject to various empirical and theoretical critiques. Hence later work by Itoh, Shaik, Cockshot etc. which tries to fix it (or defend it).

PS. I just wanted to close my responses by reiterating that I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you, and that I, too, have learned a great deal from you.

Comradely yours
Lucien

Comment 4: Marx and the DOP #2 - last words

Sorry Wayne, it’s not that simple.

You have not shown any reason why Draper (or Mattick) should be taken more seriously than the views and readings on these issues of the entire mainstream tradition of Marxism. (Not to mention the views and readings of the entire mainstream tradition of anarchism on these issues).

Nor have you really addressed any of the Marx-Engels textual material Iain and I provide that refutes Draper's claims, nor refuted it.

Rather, on both counts, your position rests on argument-by-authority.

Insistence on Draper also effectively sidesteps the whole historical aspect of the issues, ignoring how Marx-Engels actually operated politically, the parties and formations they formed and/ or led, and what those show about their views. There is a history of Marxism before Leninism, that shows something rather different to what Draper claims (and in any case, the history of Marxism with Leninism is still part - the major part - of the history of Marxism, and has definite continuities with the earlier history).

Even if Draper's exegeses were correct (which they are not), this effectively means debating in a historical vacuum where the truth of what Marx-Engels meant is all a matter of interpretation, settled by quotation and exegeses, rather like debating theology.

Understanding Marx-Engels and Marxism historically means, on the contrary, that we can easily settle which interpretation is correct by the simple expedient of seeing which one corresponds to the programmes and positions of C19 (and C20) Marxist movements - not least those that Marx-Engels founded.

Thus, the Marx-Weitling class, Marx-Proudhon clash, the Communist League, Marx-Bakunin clash, the expulsion of the anarchists from the Labour and Socialist international, the debates against the Jungen in the old German SDP, also provide a rich field for settling these issues.

Anyway, I will leave matters there.

Lucien

PS. So Mattick meant the DOP in the most literal sense. Good for him. That does not prove its the mainstream Marxist view, nor Marx's own view. We can find plenty of anarchists saying the exact same thing, but we don't assume this means anything about Marx's views. In 1919,. Eusebio Cardo of the Spanish CNT also stated (meaning DOP in this sense) that "We justify the dictatorship, we admire the dictatorship, we long that the dictatorship come, and we long for it," (Thorpe, Workers Themselves, p. 112). And Malatesta stated that year, too, taht if "the expression ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to mean simply the revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession of the land and the instruments of labour,” then “the discrepancy between us would be nothing more than a question of semantics" (No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 38-9).

Comment 5: Addendums

1. I should have added that the "Marx-Weitling class, Marx-Proudhon clash, the Communist League, Marx-Bakunin clash, the expulsion of the anarchists from the Labour and Socialist international, the debates against the Jungen in the old German SDP" all provide plenty of context for what Marx wrote and what it meant. None of these contexts show a particularly democratic or libertarian bent to Marx-Engels. Draper's bias against anarchism - which you claim is "not the topic in dispute" - is revelant precisely because because Draper, in "discussing" the "context " of Marx-Engels statements, misrepresents the context by misrepresenting the actors and issues.

2. My criticism of your position on Marx-Engels certainly does not make the mistake to which Iain refers i.e. "someone who criticized Stirner or Proudhon after reading Marx's critique of themt, without personally reading either one's actual writings." We are debating Marx-Engels, and my positions all rest on primary texts, not citations of secondary sources (like Draper), although I use a number of secondary texts as well (e.g. Gouldner). Of course Draper comes in, but how can Draper be criticised if NOT by primary materials?

3. I admit that p. 99 does not provide a direct Marx quote. My point (in citing other pages) is simply that you are incorrect to cite this as evidence of misresentation of Marx on these issues.

Comment 6: Draper right, Bakunin and everyone else wrong? Then why anarchism? And why Marxism, for that matter?

Wayne, one last note to a discussion that has tailed off.

If Draper was right, then a whole lot follows; I don't think you have fully considered the implications for anarchism itself of Draper's claims.

- IF Draper was right, and Marx's DOP merely meant the whole working class ruling, directly, then there was no need whatsoever for the emergence of anarchism in the first place. As Malatesta said, that's the sort of DOP anarchists would support.

- IF Draper was right, then all the major anarchists were either fools or liars, because they failed to understand Marxism in the days of Marx, or simply lied. What reason, then, is there why any of us should bother with such a lame and inept tradition?

- IF Draper was right, then Marx was right, and Bakunin wrong, on the central issues in the Marx/ Bakunin debate. If so, by rights, we should side with Marx. But if we side with Marx, then we side against Bakunin/ the Alliance/ the FORE / the anarchist majority in the IWMA and have no place in the anarchist tradition. What then are we doing on anarkismo?

This doesn't imply we should move to Marxism, though:

- IF Draper was right, of course, then Marxism itself is pretty much a movement of fools and liars as well. Draper's claims would render pretty much every Marxist after Marx - including notables like Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Ho, Machel- as fools or liars, and their movements as movements based on idiocy or ill-intent. Draper does not do Marxism any favours.

- IF Draper was right, too, then there is pretty much no Marxist tradition to speak of, because Draper's claims would render pretty much all of Marxism after Marx a monument to futility. Just as Draper's claims would make of anarchism a lame and inept tradition, it would make of Marxism another.

- IF Draper is right, then Marx himself was a monumental fool, unable to convey his basic ideas in a language understandable to men of real brilliance like Lenin. But this point, like the two that precede it, would make of Marxism (at most) a great historical failure, and of Draper's masterwork an exercise in scholastic futility for the simple reason that Marx and Marxism would evidently have very little to offer anyone. His supposed recovery of Marx would necessarily also imply the necessity of repudiating Marxism.

Lucien

SWEDEN: Black Flame events: Gävle (17 December) / Stockhom (18 December)

2011-12-12T19:21:00.013+02:00

Gävle

Black Flame: Anarkismens och Syndikalismens Revolutionära Klasspolitik
Föredrag

Lördag 17 december 2011 kl 16
Lucien van der Walt från Sydafrika presenterar sin bok Black Flame: Anarkismens och Syndikalismens Revolutionära Klasspolitik ("Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndikalism")

Plats: Joe Hillgården, Nedre Bergsgatan 28, Gamla Gefle

Arr: Gävle LS

Fri entré. Föredraget hålls på engelska

The Joe Hill monument in Gävle

IN ENGLISH:Gävle:

Lucien van der Walt, one of the authors of "Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism" will visit Joe Hill-gården, Nedre Bergsgatan 28 for a lecture in English.
Saturday December 17th. Time: 4-6 p.m.
Arranged by Gävle LS of SAC

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockholm

Rödsvart Afton- Black Flame - författarbesök från Sydafrika
Lucien van der Walt, en av författarna till "Black Flame: Anarkismens och Syndikalismens Revolutionära Klasspolitik" ("Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism" kommer på Sverigebesök i mitten av december.
Därför passar vi på att bjuda in honom, alla LS-medlemmar och andra intresserade till ett extra Rödvart Afton på ämnet revolutionär syndikalism.
Datum: Söndag 18 december
Tid: 14.00-16.00
Plats: ABF-huset Stockholm, Sveavägen 41 (Per Albinrummet, våning 1)
Arrangör: Stockholms LS Studiekommitté i samarbete med ABF

IN ENGLISH:Stockholm:
Lucien van der Walt, one of the authors of "Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism" will visit ABF-huset, Sveavägen 41 for a lecture in English.
Sunday December 18th. Time: 2-4 p.m.
Arranged by Stockholm LS of SAC

UK: London Book event, 10th December, "BLACK FLAME: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism"

2011-12-05T19:03:00.009+02:00

UK: London Book event, 10th December 2011, "BLACK FLAME: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism"

Lucien van der Walt, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, will speak on "Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism," at Freedom Bookshop, London, on Saturday 10th December.

Co-authored with Michael Schmidt, also of Johannesburg, "Black Flame" examines the anti-authoritarian class politics of the anarchist/syndicalist movement, and its 150 years of popular struggle on five continents.

This groundbreaking volume has been praised by reviewers as "deeply impressive", "fascinating, revealing and often startling", "a grand work of synthesis", "remarkable" "outstanding", "inspired" and "a welcome antidote to Eurocentric accounts".

An indispensable conceptual and historical roadmap of anarchism/ syndicalism, with close attention to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, "Black Flame" looks at its:

· Opposition to hierarchy, capitalism and the state

·   Strategy: building revolutionary counter-power
·   History: labour, community, anti-imperialism
·   Agenda: participatory, cooperative economics
·   Revolutions: Mexico, Spain, Ukraine, Korea
·   Revival: today's struggles

DATE: 2pm, Saturday 10th of December
PLACE: Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Directions at link here and after text.

MORE @ http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/

REVIEWERS SAY
·   "one of its distinctive contributions is its global scope... their book is brilliant and thought-provoking ... a valuable study for activists, students and academics alike..." (Mandisi Majavu, Africa Project for Participatory Society, 'ZNET')
·   "deserves to be read by all those on the Left seeking to understand anarchism's diverse contributions to democratic socialist thinking and practice ..." (Devan Pillay, 'Amandla')
·   "illustrates the universality of anarchism, which until now, other literature has not done ... countless examples of large movements globally from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and the United States, to South Africa, Egypt, Korea and Japan ... Spain, Italy, Russia, the UK and Ireland ..." (Mandy Moussouris, 'South African Labour Bulletin')
· "extraordinary ... succeeds in bringing anarchist ideas into vivid relief in their historical contexts ... shows the increasing relevance of an anarchist critique for our own time" (Martin Miller, Duke University, author of
'The Russian Revolution', 'Kropotkin')
·   "a fascinating account of the often obscured history of anarchists, their organisations and history. There is much to commend in the book ..." (Leo Zeilig, 'International Socialism')
·   "the depth and breadth of the research are impressive, the arguments sophisticated, and the call to organize timely ..." (Mark Leier, 'Labour/Le Travail')
·   "If you have a passing interest in radical politics, get this book. If you have an interest in anarchism, get this book ..." (Deric Shannon, 'Interface: a journal for and about social movements')
·   "fascinating, revealing and often startling ..."(Alan Lipman, anti-apartheid exile, author of 'On the Outside Looking In: colliding with apartheid and other authorities')
·   "useful and insightful ... a grand work of synthesis ... an excellent starting point..." (Greg Hall, 'WorkingUSA')
·   "Brilliant ... outstanding ... Do yourself a favour and buy it now!" (Iain McKay, author of 'The Anarchist FAQ', volume 1)
· "considerable scholarship and deep reflection ... remarkable ... powerful and lucidly written ..." (Jon Hyslop, University of Witwatersrand, author of 'The Notorious Syndicalist: JT Bain, a Scottish
rebel in colonial South Africa')
·   "an outstanding contribution   ... unique in examining anarchism from a worldwide perspective instead of only a west European angle ..." (Wayne Price, author of 'The Abolition of the State: anarchist and Marxist perspectives')
·   "a must for everybody interested in nonauthoritarian social movements ... " (Bert Altena, Rotterdam University, author of 'Piet Honig, Herinneringen van een Rotterdamse revolutionair')

-----------------
Michael Schmidt is a Johannesburg-based investigative journalist/ journalism trainer and activist, with experience in Chiapas, civil war Guatemala,the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Rwanda, Darfur, and Lebanon.

Lucien van der Walt teaches at the University of the Witwatersrand. Winner of the 2008 international 'Labor History' dissertation and the 2008/2009 CODESRIA Africa thesis awards, his extensive publications include (with Steve Hirsch) 'Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1880-1940' (Brill 2010).
-----------------

UPDATE - "Black Flame" study groups: now in South Africa, Canada, Denmark, US, Australia, New Zealand ...

2011-12-04T18:00:00.004+02:00

"Black Flame" is being used in reading groups by activists in a number of countries. The book is, of course, primarily a schoalrly one, but it interfaces with the left and labour milieu in interesting ways.

There are various groups in South Africa, Canada, Denmark, US, Australia, New Zealand ...
Some examples:
The announcement for the Hamilton, Canada, group is here.
Also groups were/ are planned by Common Cause in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada.
The book is regularly used in anarchist study circles at Wits University, Johannesburg, South Africa.
There is a reading group in Soweto, South Africa.
The "Libertarian Socialists" in Denmark's Aalborg local ran/ run a "Black Flame" reading group.
There is a discussion circle in Miami, United States, on the book.
Used by the Fantin Reading Group, Melbourne, Australia.
Used in Pittsburgh, United States.
A recent group in Seattle, United States, here

Let us know of any others!

For your enjoyment, here is a poster produced by the "Libertarian Socialists" in Denmark for their Aalborg local's "Black Flame" reading group:

"Black Flame" events in Germany: Kassel (21 November), Berlin (30 November)

2011-11-13T15:04:00.023+02:00

"Black Flame" events in Germany: Kassel (21 November), Berlin (30 November)

"Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism":

Buchvorstellung zur Geschichte des Anarchismus weltweit mit einem der Autoren: Lucien van der Walt, Sozialwissenschaftler aus Johannesburg/ Südafrika (Uni Witwatersrand).

Uni Kassel: Montag, 21.11.2011 um 20 Uhr in der Agathe, Tannenheckerweg 5

FAU Lokal Berlin: 30.11.2011 um 20 Uhr, Lottumstr. 11, 10119 Berlin (U2 Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz/ U8 Rosenthaler Platz).

"Black Flame" untersucht die antiautoritäre Klassenpolitik der anarchistischen/syndikalistischen Bewegung und ihre 150 Jahre des Kampfes auf fünf Kontinenten. Eine unverzichtbarer gedanklicher und historischer Leitfaden, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bewegungen in Afrika, Asien, der Karibik und Lateinamerika.

In dem Buch "Black Flame" wird ein Überblick anarchistischen Denkens von den Anfängen im 19. Jahrhundert bis zu heutigen antikapitalistischen Kämpfen auf 5 Kontinenten gegeben. Die Autoren betrachten den Syndikalismus als wichtigsten Zweig des Anarchismus und setzten sich mit Fragen nach Organisierung, Strategie und Taktik ebenso wie mit Geschlechterverhältnissen und Rassismus auseinander.

Das Buch blickt auf deren:

* Widerstand: Gegen Hierarchien, Kapitalismus und den Staat

* Strategie: Aufbau revolutionärer Gegenmacht

* Geschichte: Arbeit, Soziales, Antiimperialismus

* Agenda: Partizipatorische, kooperative Ökonomien

* Revolutionen: Mexiko, Spanien, Ukraine, Korea

* Revival: Heutige Kämpfe

Die Veranstaltung findet auf Englisch statt und wird ins Deutsche übersetzt.

Sie versuchen eine Kategorisierung verschiedener anarchistischer Strömungen und gegenwärtiger Klassenkämpfe in verschiedenen Teilen der Welt. Auf der Veranstaltung werden zunächst die zentralen Thesen des Buchs vorgestellt und dann soll auf Wunsch von Lucien van der Walt viel Raum zur Diskussion gegeben werden.

Eintritt frei!

MORE: http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/

Kritiker sagen:

· "... deeply impressive ... a very important and much-needed work… " (Mark Leier, 'Bakunin: the creative passion')

· "... useful and insightful ... a grand work of synthesis ... an excellent starting point..." (Greg Hall, 'Harvest Wobblies: the Industrial Workers of the World and agricultural laborers in the American West, 1905–1930')

· "Brilliant ... outstanding ... Do yourself a favour and buy it now!" (Iain McKay, 'The Anarchist FAQ', volume 1)

· " ... an outstanding contribution ... unique in examining anarchism from a worldwide erspective instead of only … a west European angle ..." (Wayne Price, 'The Abolition of the State: anarchist and Marxist perspectives')

Videos from Michael's 'Black Flame' Canada tour of 2010 ...

2011-10-25T16:47:00.001+02:00

Here's some videos from Michael's March 2010 discussions of Black Flame in Ontario, Canada. Sponsored by Common Cause, Michael spoke in Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, from March 15 to 20, 2010.

First up, here's the tour promotion video:

Now, Michael at the SkyDragon, Ontario,on March 17, 2010

Part 1

Part 2

and Part 3

There is a Part 4, which will be included once its uploaded.

Reviewer's praise: Colin Darch in the'South African Historical Journal' (vol.63, no.2, 2011)

2011-08-25T18:42:00.002+02:00

Colin Darch, who is well-known for his work on the Makhnovist anarchist revolution in the Ukraine (1918-1921), published this positive review in the latest South African Historical Journal (vol.63, no.2, 2011, pp. 356-358). He describes the book as "a sympathetic, interesting and wide-ranging account of the anarchist tradition,"and an "enormous advance on the existing handful of feeble attempts by anarchists to construct an African anarchist tradition."

Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. By LUCIEN VAN DER WALT and MICHAEL SCHMIDT. Oakland, California and Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009. 395 pp. ISBN 978-1-904859-16-1.

Colin Darch

p. 356

It’s noticeable that reviews of books on anarchism often try to answer two questions that are not self-evidently related: first, is anarchism a coherent or practical ideological position, and second, is the book any good? In many cases, the answer to the second question is entirely determined by the answer to the first; if authors and reviewers agree on question one, then all is well. If not, the debate rapidly descends into polemic, often fierce. The truth, however, is that anarchists have indeed been important historical actors from time to time - notably but by no means exclusively in Spain and Ukraine- and that anarchism is a significant tendency within revolutionary socialist thought. The analysis of anarchist history cannot be abandoned by the rest of us as the exclusive preserve of libertarians.

This book is a sympathetic, interesting and wide-ranging account of the anarchist tradition, written by two South Africans, one an investigative journalist and the other an academic social scientist. It is the first of two instalments of an ambitious larger project, in which the authors’ threefold intention is to challenge ‘commonly held views about anarchism and syndicalism’, and synthesise the ‘global history of the movement’ (8).

Schmidt (the journalist) and van der Walt (the academic) are not the first to attempt a broad general account of libertarian ideas and activism, but their work is distinguished by two key features. The first is their serious attempt to derive a defendable definition of what the ‘anarchist tradition’ actually is, one that moves beyond the cliche´ of extreme individualism and opposition to the state, to relocate the roots of that tradition firmly in nineteenth-century European revolutionary socialism, and most specifically in the First International. The second key feature is one that (I hope) justifies the inclusion of this review in a journal dedicated to South African history. Schmidt and van der Walt emphasise from the start that ‘the broad anarchist tradition was an international movement that cannot be adequately understood through the focus on Western anarchism that typifies most existing accounts’ (8; emphasis added). It is clear that, despite its origins, the idea that anarchism has been mainly a European and North American rather than a global phenomenon is one of the ‘commonly held views’ that this work sets out to challenge. The question, therefore, is to what extent Schmidt and van der Walt succeed in making a case for a significant anarchist tradition in the global south.

The whole of the second chapter is devoted to arguing for a coherent and narrow definition of anarchism as essentially modern, revolutionary and socialist in character. If anarchism is stripped of its revolutionary and socialist ambitions, and reduced to a mere opposition to constraints on the individual’s freedom by the state, two consequences follow. First, class politics disappears in the present, egalitarian social organisation vanishes from the future, and we can make no informed prediction about what a future anarchist society might look like; second, all kinds of right-wing and new-age anti-statism and individualism get thrown into the mixture. Indeed, the authors argue that ‘the apparently ahistorical and incoherent character of anarchism is an artefact of the way in

p. 357

which anarchism has been studied, rather than inherent in anarchism itself ’ (44). In summary, then, their position is based on several ‘core theses’:

that the global anarchist movement emerged in the First International, that syndicalism is an integral part of the broad anarchist tradition, that this tradition centres on rationalism, socialism and anti-authoritarianism, that the writings of Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin are representative of its core ideas, and that this ‘narrow’ definition is both empirically defensible and analytically useful.[1]

Arriving at their definition, the authors then claim that anarchist doctrine is both strong (i.e. sound) and lucid as ideology. Although at least one reviewer has attacked Schmidt and van der Walt for taking this particular line, it has the significant virtue of lending structure and contour to the narrative sections that follow, and one assumes will also shape the promised world history of anarchism in the forthcoming second volume.

What about anarchism as a genuinely global tradition? Schmidt and van der Walt are to be commended for digging up accounts of largely forgotten anarchist moments around the world, as well as for their dismissal of ‘Spanish exceptionalism’ (273-275) but overall their argument so far is not entirely convincing - unproven rather than actually wrong. They freely admit that ‘large and sustained anarchist peasant movements or revolts are . . . rare’ (283), but there are obviously theoretical difficulties in arguing that anarchism is an essentially modern and proletarian movement while simultaneously hoping to find signs of libertarian activity in pre-capitalist societies.

South Africa is perhaps a special case, but as far as other African countries are concerned, much of the evidence that the authors manage to muster falls into two general categories, namely broad claims of anarcho-syndicalist influence in trade unions, and anticolonial activism by anarchists and anarchist groups in metropolitan countries. Thus the authors mention in passing the ‘syndicalist-influenced ICU [that] was revived by Charles Mzingeli in the 1940s’ in Southern Rhodesia (347_348); they also write that the ‘Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of Africa (ICU) spread across southern Africa in the 1920s and 1930s: its ideology was influenced by the IWW. . .’ (272). They cite Tragic Week in Spain in 1909, when Catalan reservists refused mobilisation to fight in Morocco; the 1911 anarchist resistance to the brutal Italian occupation of Libya; or anarchist opposition to the introduction of compulsory military service in South Africa’s 1912 Defence Bill.

South Africa’s proletariat formed early, and European immigrants brought socialist ideas with them; the local anarchist tradition can therefore be traced as far back as Henry Glasse in the 1880s, and a local syndicalist movement was active by the 1910s. It seems likely that syndicalism and communism were closely intertwined and even heterodox tendencies at this time, with such figures as T.W. Thibedi and Andrew B. Dunbar playing key roles in the foundation of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA), from which they were both later expelled. The authors do not hesitate, nevertheless, to claim both for the anarchist tradition.

This is all fascinating, but there seems to be little direct evidence of anarchist activity per se in (rather than about) colonial sub-Saharan Africa. To be fair, however, these concrete references constitute an enormous advance on the existing handful of feeble attempts by

p. 358

anarchists to construct an African anarchist tradition. For example, the Nigerian Henry Dowa attempted in 1962 to claim the novelist Es’kia Mphahlele (1919_2008) as an anarchist on the basis of some vague expressions of individualism in his writings.[2] Maurice Goldman, who studied at Wits and at Cape Town, was able to write sweepingly in the same issue that ‘the structure of African society . . . did not know boundaries . . .’.[3] Wisely, Schmidt and van der Walt pass by this type of contribution in silence. It must also be noted that we are promised more detailed accounts of anarchist and syndicalist movements in Africa, Asia and the Americas in the forthcoming second volume.

I should disclose that the authors mention me by name in the acknowledgements (3) and in several places reference is made to my work of the 1980s and early 1990s on the Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno, work that is accurately described as ‘fairly hostile’ (266) to the anarchist project. Much of that work was devoted to demonstrating the fragility of any assertions at all about the class character of the Makhno revolt, a fragility that I suspect is also characteristic of much of the evidence about similar movements around the world.

Finally, it may be worth noting that the word ‘anarchist’, like ‘communist’ is currently widely used in the mass media as a term of abuse, a mere synonym for nihilist or even terrorist. During student demonstrations in London in December 2010 against the British government’s raising of fees for higher education, incidents of violence were pretty much uniformly attributed to ‘anarchists’. Schmidt and van der Walt’s book shows us that the real historical - and indeed contemporary- picture is much more complicated and much more interesting than a bunch of students throwing bricks at policemen. So, returning to the first two questions: anarchism? Probably not. This book? Definitely yes.

Notes

1. L. van der Walt, ‘Black Flame and the broad anarchist tradition: a reply to Spencer Sunshine’, Anarchist Studies, 18, 1 (2010), 116.

2. H. Dowa, ‘Africans and Anarchism’, Anarchy, 16 (June 1962), 183_186.

3. M. Goldman, ‘Anarchism and the African’, Anarchy, 16 (June 1962), 179.

COLIN DARCH

University of Cape Town

Review of Black Flame by Zolile Bam, in 'Miyela' by the Miyela Collective

2011-05-17T19:25:00.004+02:00

Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism by Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt: a book review by Zolile Bam, in Miyela journal.

Miyela is a fantastic Soweto-based project, a "collective for positive social interaction", aiming at empowering people to question authority, fight oppression, and change. It says "the revolution is not an instant, it is not election day or the day the masses storm the streets. revolution is a slow process of changing the face in the mirror, of learning to read and right, of men learning to play with their children and laugh till they cry. the breaking down of old corrupt states starts with the slow building up of the people. freedom comes slowly but once there can not be taken away because it does not sit in parliament but rests squarely in the heart and soul of a man." More about Miyela here.

Review of Black Flame, by Zolile Bam, Miyela, 2010

I`ve got to comment, this book is one of the most compelling non-fiction books I`ve read in my lifetime.

This book is a chronicle description of anarchy from the 1860s to the 1930s. Anarchy as explained by the authors is very broad and it must not be narrowed down to some linear explanation as advocated by the pop media. Anarchy is not strictly an economic or political theory it is a bit of both, anarchist believe that the only way to truly emancipate the people is by abolishing the class system. This is a very tremendous task that is where the syndicalism comes in. Syndicalism is similar to anarchy in a number of ways. The biggest difference is that syndicalist want to emancipate the people from economic slavery through the unions and the working class, this does not mean that syndicalism is exclusive to the working class.

The broad anarchist tradition has its roots in Kropotkin and Bakunin from the First International founded in the mid 1800s, this is contradictory to the held perception that anarchy is as old as human civilization. The purpose of the First international I shall narrowly explain was to unite workers from all over the globe in an effort to combat the ruling class.

The First international was the first of its kind; for starters it wanted to put an end to patriotism. The First International believed that patriotism widened the gap between the working class who were being oppressed by essentially the same ruling class.

It is a concern to the authors that when most people think about anarchists they think of a group of people who generally hate the government. That can be attributed to the widely read books by people who knew almost nothing about anarchy such as Eltzblacher who concluded that anyone who was anti-state was an anarchist.

Through very dedicated individuals and groups anarchy grew into a formidable and practical force it was not just an ideology, take for instance the Spanish revolution of 1936 where anarchist and syndicalist ran the city of Barcelona for 3 months before being defeated by "counter revolutionary" measures.

The purpose of this book other than to define the broad anarchist tradition, its revolutionary beginning, is to give as an alternative. Truth is when we think about what theory we want to follow in terms of how society should be managed we almost always fall in to two categories mainly Communism or Capitalism. It must be said communism and capitalism are like two sides of the same coin. Communism as put by the authors is `State capitalism` anarchy is gives us an alternative to the hierarchical structure of any state.

This book describes how anarchist and syndicalist have fought for the emancipation of the biggest class the world has ever seen, the popular class, this includes but not limited to, the employed, the unemployed and the peasants.

How do they hope to achieve this? Through the solidarity of the popular class. The anarchist and syndicalist believe "When we have but the will to do it, that very moment shall justice be done: that very instant shall the tyrants of the earth bite the dust." Workers must stop deluding themselves into believing that some of them a better than others because they have better jobs. We all face the same tyranny from the same system.

The two movements were not just for the intellectuals they also had programs to educate the community about anarchy, democracy, life science amongst other things. The syndicalist and anarchist believed that they should not limit the popular class to their agenda and ideologies. It must also be included that anarchist were not only men. Some women activist fathomed the movements’ popularity.

Anarchist believe that the class system is what causes discrimination against race, gender, nationality amongst others, they believe if the class system is abolished so will most of the worlds problems.

The book was a good read but it had a few glitches, for instance it is a difficult read if you are not an academic. The other thing, the number of quotations makes it difficult for the reader to keep track of the authors` opinions and that of their references, the best advice I could give is to ignore them and only pay attention to the ones that interest you.

This book was an eye opener it radicalized my thinking I would recommend it to anyone from those people on the extreme right to the people on the extreme left and anyone in between.

Anxious for volume two when they authors discuss anarchy from the 1940s onwards!

Rave reviews for "Black Flame" at GoogleBooks

2011-04-02T18:23:00.005+02:00

From here and here

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Miquixote - Goodreads FIVE STARS

Brilliant research on the history of anarcho-syndicalism and platformism. At times too critical of Marx, but they are anarcho-syndicalists, sworn enemies. Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Matt - Goodreads FIVE STARS

A comprehensive, well-referenced look at the history and major ideological platforms of historical anarchism and syndicalism, from Bakunin and the First International to the major labor movements of ... Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Mackel - Goodreads FIVE STARS

Holy shit. I just only finished the introduction and this book rocks. I'm looking forward to it. Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - matthew - Goodreads

what a nice book! one of the few books on the history of anarchism that comes through clearly and totally not boring. their argument for the anarchist tradition is great and hope it really catches on Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Kris - Goodreads FIVE STARS

One of the best books I've read about the history and theory of anarchism. Highly recommend to anyone interested in this radical political theory. Interview with authors: http:// Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Goodreads

One of the best books on anarchist history I've ever read. Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Jankyhellface Hellface - Goodreads FOUR STARS

I've already said that this is an amazing book, but now that I've gotten through it all I have a better grasp on the entire work. Some comments: 1) The "anarchist tradition" argument needed to be made ... Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Tom - Goodreads FOUR STARS

A historical review of social anarchism and syndicalism from the time of the first international in the 1860s to World War 2. The authors -- correctly in my view -- clearly differentiate social ... Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Adam - Goodreads FIVE STARS

So far its great. A key text that I think all folks who want to seriously learn and have a fair understanding of revolutionary anarchist politics should read. There's a number of interesting arguements that attempt to reframe how anarchism is understood. More later. Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Flint - Goodreads FIVE STARS

This has come highly recommended to me. Read full review

Review: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counterpower Vol 1)

User Review - Mandy - Goodreads FIVE STARS

Just got this from the AK Book Club. I am very excited! Read full review

Review/ debate on "Black Flame," by Wayne Price, for "Social Anarchism"

2011-03-18T17:31:00.006+02:00

Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism; Counterpower, Vol. 1

This is a remarkable book, a wonderful book. I wish I had had it years ago when I was developing my politics. Everyone interested in anarchism should read this book.

A review of Schmidt and van der Walt's Black Flame, a study of the broad anarchist tradition
Wayne Price

Based on a review written for Social Anarchism. Online here.

Plus RESPONSES TO PRICE FROM VAN DER WALT: online here.

Price: This is a remarkable book, a wonderful book. I wish I had had it years ago when I was developing my politics. Everyone interested in anarchism should read this book. Although not without some quirky judgments, it is clearly committed to anarchism and is carefully and deeply based on scholarly research. It is not a history of anarchism (apparently that will be volume 2), but a thematic discussion of various aspects (although frequently going into the historical background of the topic under discussion).

Instead of the usual Eurocentric presentation, Schmidt and van der Walt place the movement in a world context. Of course the authors know that the anarchist movement began in Europe. Capitalism and the industrial revolution began in Europe and so did the ideological reactions to it: modern democracy, liberalism, socialism (of all varieties), nationalism, internationalism, etc. These ideologies spread around the globe, interacting with and merging with local cultures and struggles. When discussing an aspect of anarchism, the authors may cite examples from France or the USA, but are as likely to give examples from Japan, China, Argentina, or South Africa.

Rather than treating anarchism as a set of great ideas developed by a series of wise sages, the authors regard it as essentially a movement. Rooted in the mass struggles of workers, as well as peasants, along with all the oppressed, the great ideas of anarchism came out of this movement. Even at times when the popular movement dies down and only a small number of revolutionaries hold to the ideal, anarchist ideas are still directed toward the next upswing of mass struggle. While there were libertarian precursors, the anarchist movement, as a movement, began in the 1860s, under the initiative of Michael Bakunin and his companions in the First International, in conflict with Karl Marx. The ideas were developed further by Peter Kropotkin and others, and incorporated into the syndicalist movement (radical, libertarian-democratic, unionism). They call this “the broad anarchist tradition.”

To them, this is anarchism. “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view it is the only anarchism” (p. 19). Even Proudhon does not make the cut. The first to call himself an anarchist, he advocated a reformist program, a market economy, and was against unions and strikes, besides being misogynist. However, they freely admit that Proudhon influenced Bakunin and other anarchists. Nor are they factually wrong, in that, as a movement, anarchism did begin with Bakunin (against the opposition of most Proudhonians). Similarly, they deny that the individualists such as Benjamin Tucker were anarchists, and the same for anyone else who was not pro-working class, revolutionary, and libertarian socialist or communist.

As a matter of historical judgment, I find this a bit quirky, but not terribly wrong. Whether we should call Proudhon a libertarian who influenced Bakunin’s anarchism or say he was an early anarchist is not a big deal. The problem is its current application. A very large proportion of people who sincerely call themselves anarchists today are not for working class revolution. These radicals desire an end to the state, capitalism, and all oppressions—that is, they share the goals of the broad anarchist tradition (unlike, say, so-called pro-capitalist “libertarians”). They seek to achieve this by gradual, nonviolent, steps, living in nonconformist styles, and building alternate institutions. These will, they think, eventually replace the capitalist economy and state.

I have no problem saying that they are outside the broad anarchist tradition of revolutionary, working class, anarchist-communism. They are. But, it seems to me to be pointless to declare that they are not anarchists. This would involve us in a terminological dispute which makes us look sectarian. It is more useful, I think, to argue that such reformists are programmatically wrong and will not achieve the goals they share with revolutionary anarchism

Disputes Among Anarchists and Syndicalists

The authors focus on disputes within the broad anarchist tradition. Covering such disputes, they try to give a fair account of each side in each disagreement but conclude with their own opinion. They are almost always correct in their judgments—which is to say, I agree with them. They begin with the dispute between “insurrectionist anarchism” and “mass anarchism” (I prefer “mass struggle anarchism”). The question is whether individuals or small groups should refuse to “wait” for mass struggles and should engage in “propaganda by the deed” to hopefully inspire the people to rise up. Or whether anarchists should participate in the lives and struggles of workers and others, to build mass movements and organizations, which may eventually erupt in mass uprisings (popular insurrections) This is the approach they recommend. They note that insurrectionism has a long history in anarchism, but overall has been a minority tendency.

From Bakunin on, the revolutionary anarchists have aimed for a mass working class base in the radical union movement of syndicalism. Within syndicalism, there have been a variety of political orientations, including those who were explicitly anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism) and those who were not explicitly anarchist (revolutionary syndicalism) and even some who were explicitly Marxist and anti-anarchist (Daniel De Leon). The last two types contributed to the overall syndicalist movement and therefore the authors regard them as part of the broad anarchist tradition. (Including explicit Marxists who denounced anarchism, such as the authoritarian and sectarian De Leon, as part of the anarchist tradition also seems quirky to me, although the key point is correct: they contributed to the broader syndicalist movement.)

They review disputes among anarchist syndicalists as to whether to work inside existing (bureaucratic-conservative) unions, whether to create only revolutionary unions, or whether to only build rank-and-file groupings outside the union structures. Other union issues are covered. They conclude, “A tactic cannot be made into a principle; different conditions merit different tactics” (p. 233). This is an eminently sensible approach.

Another issue is whether anarchists should take a dual-organizational strategy, that is, build organizations of anarchists around common programs while working in broader organizations and movements, such as unions and community organizations. This is opposed to the anti-organizationalist approach of those who only want local groups in loose networks or those syndicalists who only sought to build unions. They review the controversies around the dual-organizationalist Platform. They claim that the idea of a specifically anarchist organization goes back to Bakunin and is not a new concept.

They discuss the relationship of working class anarchism and syndicalism to non-class issues (which overlap with class). This includes a review of the way in which syndicalists have worked to build community-based struggles around housing and culture. That is part of the overall approach of building counterculture and counterpower institutions to oppose capitalism, preparatory to revolution. (This is what Gramsci called the struggle over “hegemony”). They discuss the class struggle of peasants. While not as frequently anarchist as workers’ struggles, peasants have turned to anarchism in several heroic rebellions. In relation to women’s liberation, anarchists have, they point out, historically excellent theoretical positions. But their practice has often fallen sadly short of what it should be—although there are significant examples of anarchist women’s struggles.

Attitudes toward oppressed nations and races are highly conflicted among anarchists. All anarchists are against imperialism, national oppression, and white supremacy. But many anarchists oppose national liberation as a concept, on the grounds that it leads to new states and new ruling classes—as nationalists advocate but which anarchists are rightly opposed to. After reviewing the various opinions, Schmidt and van der Walt conclude that anarchists should “…participate in national liberation struggles in order to shape them, win the battle of ideas, [and] displace nationalism with a politics of national liberation through class struggle…” (p. 310). They cite the many cases where anarchists have participated in wars of national liberation, from Makhno’s Ukraine to Korea and elsewhere.

Anarchists’ View of Marxism
Although an anarchist, I been deeply influenced by Marxism, both libertarian-autonomist Marxism and dissident Trotskyism. So I was interested in how they discussed the interaction between anarchism and Marxism. Fundamentally they get it right. They acknowledge that both anarchism and Marxism come out of the same working class, socialist, movement. Both trends have the goals of a stateless, classless, society without oppression, to be achieved by international revolution of the working class and other oppressed people. From Bakunin onwards, many anarchists have valued Marx’s economics and his broader historical materialism. As mentioned, the authors recognize that some Marxists made contributions to syndicalism. They also note that there has been an antistatist minority trend within Marxism which has been neither Leninist nor social democratic. It has interpreted Marxism as almost the same as class-struggle anarchism. They cite the council communists, but could have also cited William Morris, the Johnson-Forest Tendency, and more recent autonomous Marxists. So it is possible to hold at least some of Marx’s views and still have an antiauthoritarian politics

They also raise the anarchist criticisms of Marxism. They refer to Marx’s determinism, which has often been interpreted in a mechanical way. Marx was a centralist, as opposed to anarchism’s decentralized federalism. While both Marx and Bakunin advocated unions (unlike Proudhon), Marx subordinated them to building working class political parties to run in elections, contrary to anarchism’s anti-electoralism. (This was the main practical issue in dispute between Marx and Bakunin in the First International; surely the verdict of history is on the side of the anarchists.) Marx advocated a transitional state after the revolution. While a small minority of Marxists have been libertarian, the mainstream of Marxism has been overwhelmingly either pro-imperialist social democratic or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian. Whatever its virtues, this is what Marxism, in the main, led to. So, Marxism has useful aspects for anarchists but is not something to be simply integrated with anarchism. “There are ambiguities and contradictions in Marx’s thought, which can be interpreted as ‘two Marxisms’…” (p. 93).

However, in a number of topics the authors make mistakes about Marxism, a subject which they do not know as well as they know anarchism (but few Marxists know much about anarchism!). For example, Marx did not think that commodity prices were directly due to the labor-time invested in the commodity (its value). He thought that the relation between labor-time values and prices was indirect and complicated (what has been called the “transformation problem”; Mattick, 1969). Marx did not believe in a specific “strategy of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (p. 99) to create a state ruled by a centralized party. To Marx, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (writing in a time when “dictatorship” had a different meaning than today) meant neither more nor less than the rule of the working class as a class, such as in the radically-democratic Paris Commune (Draper, 187; Price, 2007). There are other issues where their discussion is less than fully accurate (as when considering Marx’s views on the peasants; Draper; 1978).

One problem with the authors understanding of Marx is that they tend to merge together the views of Marx, Kautsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, into one ideology, called “classical Marxism.” However the continuity between Marx’s Marxism and Mao’s Marxism, while real, is limited and distorted. Despite his defects, Marx did not at all aim for the murderous totalitarian state capitalism of Soviet Russia or Communist China. But, to repeat, overall the authors have a correct appreciation of the relation of Marxism to anarchism.

The lack of a background in Marxism does become a problem in various ways. For example, when discussing the differences between insurrectionalist anarchism and mass anarchism, they state that insurrectionalism is “impossibilist,” meaning that it regards the struggle for reforms as futile. But , they say, mass anarchism is “possibilist, believing that it is both possible and desirable to force concessions from the ruling classes” (p. 124). This prepares the way for a social revolution.

This is a valuable point, but it leaves something out. We are now in the epoch of imperialism and capitalist decline. The tendency of the falling rate of profit and the trend toward monopoly have caused a trend toward stagnation, which capital has fought by expanding fictitious profits, looting the environment, and attacking the working class. This has been apparent again since about 1970, with the end of the post-World War II apparent prosperity, and is now clearer than ever. Reforms and concessions can still be forced from the ruling class, yes, but it is becoming harder and harder over time, as the crisis deepens. Mass struggle anarchists must participate with the workers in fighting for even the most limited of benefits. But we should also warn them that attacks will worsen and that a revolution is needed if we are to avoid a new Great Depression, fascism, nuclear war, and ecological catastrophe. In the current period, we are possibilist in only a limited sense.

I have touched on only some of the topics raised by the authors. Overall this book is a brilliant and complex discussion of what class-struggle revolutionary anarchism—the broad anarchist tradition—really is and what it may yet become. I look forward to volume 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Draper, Hal (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution; Vol. 2: The Politics of Social Classes. NY, NY: Monthly Review.
Draper, Hal (1987). The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” from Marx to Lenin. NY, NY: Monthly Review.
Mattick, Paul (1969). Marx and Keynes; The Limits of the Mixed Economy. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
Price, Wayne (2007). The Abolition of the State: Anarchist and Marxist Perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
Van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism; Counterpower: Volume 1. Oakland CA: Ak Press.

Review: "Black Flame" and the anarchist tradition - Darragh Mcaoidh, "Irish Anarchist Review"

2011-02-07T15:51:00.000+02:00

Review: Black Flame and the anarchist tradition
by Darragh Mcaoidh, Irish Anarchist Review #2, 2010
http://www.wsm.ie/c/black-flame-anarchist-tradition-review

This new history of anarchism provides a thorough and approachable examination of the tradition’s key ideas, debates and strategies, placing them in the context of the social struggles in which they arose. For all those on the left, this book will provide a valuable introduction to, and explication of, anarchist thought, with a powerful assertion of its historical and intellectual depth as well as its continuing relevance to the project of human emancipation. For anarchists, this will be a remarkable synthesis of movement history, a spur for additional research and study. But most of all, it is a powerful assertion of the value of our tradition, as a guide in strategic debate and a continuing source of inspiration.

Workers and popular organizations connected to the anarchist movement
rally on May Day 2009 in a public square in Argentina.

Title: Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism
Author: Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt ISBN: 9781904859161, AK Press, at akpress.org for $22.95

This new history of anarchism provides a thorough and approachable examination of the tradition’s key ideas, debates and strategies, placing them in the context of the social struggles in which they arose. Anarchism is not blessed with the most attractive of brand names. While dictionaries and news media alike have successfully associated it with disorder and chaos, the anarchist political pantheon itself seems to share these traits; anarchism is label to both capitalists and communists, radical individualists and revolutionary socialists.What can ‘anarcho-capitalists’ such as Murray Rothbard have in common with revolutionaries such as Mikhail Bakunin and Piotr Kropotkin? Even the latter, among the most important of the movement’s theorists, himself claimed that anarchism’s political pedigree stretched back as far as Ancient Greek philosopher Xeno and Lao Tzu, the originator of Taoism. If one tries to and accommodate such a diversity of personas under this single term, the word loses all meaning.

It is understandable then, that the first task attempted in Black Flame is to define the tradition more clearly. The authors place it clearly and distinctly within the confines of revolutionary socialist thought from the 1860s onward, excluding the non-socialist elements often ascribed to anarchism. “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view, it is the only anarchism.” The purpose of this act of definition is quite straightforward; having clearly defined what anarchism is, the authors can then explore its key elements and internal divisions, and outline a history that is coherent without being uniform. As the first instalment of a two-volume study, Black Flame focuses on the ideas of anarchism, and uses the historical background to clarify debates and strategy, leaving in-depth historical study to the sequel.

ANARCHISM VS. MARXISM
By sacrificing political breadth, Schmidt and van der Walt find intellectual depth, and the work undertakes a thorough exploration of the debates and questions that shaped anarchism, tracking the movement’s engagement with other socialist currents, its internal debates, and its crucial points of development. They argue, contrary to some other radical writers, that despite familial connections between anarchism and Marxism, the differences are too deep for the two to be synthesised.The anarchist critique of Marx and Marxism is highlighted, emphasising the critical appropriation of elements of Marxian economics (Kropotkin notably challenged the Labour Theory of Value), while forcefully dismissing his conceptions of historical and political change.

The determinism of Marx’s vision of progress through historical changes was attacked by Bakunin as both irrational and nationalistic, as seen in the former’s advocacy of German and British imperialism as necessary preconditions for world revolution. Politically, Marx’s conception of the Communist Party as the true representative of the working class, with the planned route to socialism passing via state rule was seen as meaning that Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat would become the dictatorship of the Party.

DISTINCTIONS WITHIN ANARCHISM
While these political distinctions from Marx and Marxism are shared by all anarchists, the level of strategy is itself the basis for distinctions within anarchism, between what the authors call ‘mass anarchism’, or strategy aimed at building and radi-calising mass movements to create change, and insurrectionist anarchism, which emphasises violent action as the path to revolution.The violent assassinations and ‘propaganda by the deed’ of the late 19th and early 20th century marked the ascendancy of the insurrectionist strand, and anarchists were responsible for the murders of monarchs, industrialists and presidents throughout this period.

However, this tendency soon declined dramatically as militants realised its ineffectiveness; they had invited repression without advancing their influence. As Malatesta commented, “these attentats, with the people insufficiently prepared for them, are sterile, and often, by provoking reactions which one is unable to control, produce much sorrow, and harm the very cause they were intended to serve.” Other former advocates of insurrectionary strategy such as Kropotkin, Johann Most and Alexander Berkman turned instead to building a popular movement, deciding that “the key strategy was to implant anarchism within popular social movements in order to radicalise them, spread anarchist ideas and aims, and foster a culture of self-management and direct action”. They would find in the emergent syndicalist movement the manifestation of their principles, “anarchism made practical”.

ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM
The strategic turn to a gradual development of class strength is, for Schmidt and van der Walt, a turn back to the original lines of anarchist thought. Syndicalism, they stress, had been advocated by Bakunin and his followers in the First International, having argued that the International should strive to be an international labour federation not, as Marx wished, a grouping of political parties.

Again, there is opposing trends in history writing with which to engage. Some historians have attributed syndicalism to Sorel, a romantic French writer, while others have claimed it for Marxism. The authors point out that the former was entirely unconnected to the contemporary syndicalist movement, while Marx and Engels themselves had attributed syndicalism to Anarchism, lamenting the ‘Bakuninist’ belief that the “general strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started.”This continuing emphasis, the authors argue, indicates that syndicalism should be understood as an element of the broad anarchist tradition, and thus that syndicalists can be claimed as part of this tradition. While this assertion may have surprised Marxist syndicalists such as James Connolly or Daniel De Leon, the broad argument for syndicalism as the progeny of anarchism is well-made
.
Anarchist activism and influence within the unionmovement reached its peak between the 1890s and 1920s, and there was much debate about how this involvement could best be turned to building a revolutionary movement. A common emphasis the authors find is “the project of creating a revolutionary counterculture within the popular classes.”

COUNTER-POWER AND COUNTER-CULTURE
The unions were the most powerful arm of the workers movement, but they would not themselves, however democratic, lead the way to revolution. Instead anarchists must work within and outside such structures, to spread their ideas and build a revolutionary counter-culture among workers and peasants, an “oppositional counter- public”. Syndicalist unions would be capable of pursuing both reforms to improve daily life, but it would take conscious work from revolutionaries to ensure that they were also spaces for politicisation and education.

The authors find that the most powerful movements were those which spanned across many different spheres, and that libertarian “schools, centres, media, and theatre” all played a role in the politicisation and empowerment of the popular classes.The Spanish anarchist Buenaventura Durruti wrote that “we carry a new world in our hearts”. The new world was not confined there, but could be found in the daily lives of millions, in the practices and institutions of working class counter-power.

A GLOBAL MOVEMENT

Although Spain is the most well known site of anarchist power, it was no exception. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm had explained away the power of the Spanish anarchist movement as due to an irregularity in ‘Spanish character’. Instead we see that anarchism was present and prominent throughout the world, from the Pacific Rim to the Southern Cone, with anarchists at the forefront of strong class movements wherever they were. Indeed, the point is made that anarchism’s period of strength, from 1880 to the 1920s coincided with the globalisation of the world economy, and it was the free movement of labour that was the source of much of its power. Militants were often expelled from home countries only to organise in the colonies, and anarchists and syndicalists were the first to create multi-racial unions in Africa and the Americas, advancing class unity and organisation.

In the current phase of globalisation, then, the authors hope that such strength can be found again, that the current crisis of progressive politics can give way to “a multiracial and international movement with a profound feminist impulse, a movement with an important place in union, worker, and rural struggles, prizing reason over superstition, justice over hierarchy, self-management over state power, international solidarity over nationalism, a universal human community over parochialism and separatism”.

For all those on the left, this book will provide a valuable introduction to, and explication of, anarchist thought, with a powerful assertion of its historical and intellectual depth as well as its continuing relevance to the project of human emancipation. For anarchists, this will be a remarkable synthesis of movement history, a spur for additional research and study. But most of all, it is a powerful assertion of the value of our tradition, as a guide in strategic debate and a continuing source of inspiration.

[Rio de Janiero] Rediscutindo o Anarquismo e o Sindicalismo, "BLACK FLAME", Sábado, dia 06/11 às 14h

2010-10-31T19:05:00.004+02:00

[RJ] CELIP convida: Rediscutindo o Anarquismo e o Sindicalismo

Rediscutindo o anarquismo e o sindicalism, com palestra com Lucien van der Walt

Rio de Janiero

Quando: Sábado, dia 06/11 às 14h.
Onde: Centro de Cultura Social: Rua Torres Homem 790, Vila Isabel, Telefone: 2520-7101.

Favor ajudar a repassar
***

O historiador sul-africano Lucien van der Walt (fundador da Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front ( ZACF) estará no Brasil nos próximos dias e participará de eventos para a discussão do livro que escreveu em co-autoria com Michael Schmidt. "Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism" ["A Chama Negra: a política revolucionária e classista do anarquismo e do sindicalismo"] foi publicado pela AKPress dos EUA em 2009 e aguarda publicação em outros idiomas.

Considerado por muitos o melhor livro de história do anarquismo já publicado, "Black Flame" é fruto de um trabalho de 10 anos, possui uma análise global e discute anarquismo e sindicalismo no mundo todo, tanto a partir de uma análise política/sociológica, como histórica. Um dos únicos livros que baseia suas conclusões em análises dos acontecimentos que envolveram o anarquismo e o sindicalismo em todos os cantos do mundo, incluindo o Brasil.

Trata de diversos temas: (re)definição do que é anarquismo, a partir de uma análise histórica bastante completa e não-eurocêntrica; a discussão dos primeiros tempos com as primeiras concepções da análise social; estratégia e tática diferenciando as duas principais linhas do anarquismo, o anarquismo de massas e o anarquismo insurrecionalista; anarquismo e sindicalismo; luta armada e violência; sindicalismo duplo, reformas e debates táticos; organização política anarquista; classe, internacionalismo, gênero, raça e imperialismo.

Para leitores do inglês, ver: http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/.

Onde: Centro de Cultura Social: Rua Torres Homem 790, Vila Isabel, Telefone: 2520-7101.

Como chegar: # ônibus 438, 432, 433, 232, 268, 638. # trem descer na estação maracanã e pegar qualquer ônibus que passe no boulevard 28 de Setembro. # metrô comprar o bilhete integração para Vila Isabel, descer na estação São Francisco Xavier e pegar o ônibus do metrô para Vila Isabel. # referências: Escola de Samba Vila Isabel, último ponto do Boulevard 28 de Setembro e Pizzaria Parmê.

Realização:
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ)
http://www.farj.org/

Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (FASP)
http://www.anarquismosp.org/

Email:: farj@riseup.net

São Paulo, Brazil, 3ª feira (feriado), dia 2/11 às 16h30: Rediscutindo o anarquismo e o sindicalism, com palestra com Lucien van der Walt

2010-10-28T03:13:00.014+02:00

Favor ajudar a repassar

***

Rediscutindoo anarquismo e o sindicalismo

Palestra com Lucien van der Walt

São Paulo

Quando: 3ª feira (feriado), dia 2/11 às 16h30.

Onde: Ay Carmela: Rua das Carmelitas, 140, Metrô Sé (paralela à Rua do Carmo, travessa da Rua Tabatinguera)

Telefone: 3104-4330.

O historiador sul-africano Lucien Van der Walt (fundador da Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front – ZACF) estará no Brasil nos próximos dias eparticipará de eventos para a discussão do livro que escreveu em co-autoria com Michael Schmidt. “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism” [A Chama Negra: a política

revolucionária e classista do anarquismo e do sindicalismo] foi publicado pela AKPress dos EUA em 2009 e aguarda publicação em outros idiomas.

Considerado por muitos o melhor livro de história do anarquismo já publicado, “Black Flame” é fruto de um trabalho de 10 anos, possui uma análise global e discute anarquismo e sindicalismo no mundo todo, tanto a partir de uma análise política/sociológica, como histórica. Um dos únicos livros que baseia suas conclusões em análises dos acontecimentos que envolveram o anarquismo e o sindicalismo em todos os cantos do mundo, incluindo o Brasil.

Trata de diversos temas: (re)definição do que é anarquismo, a partir de uma análise histórica bastante completa e não-eurocêntrica; a discussão dos primeiros tempos com as primeiras concepções da análise social; estratégia e tática diferenciando as duas principais linhas do anarquismo, o anarquismo de massas e o anarquismo insurrecionalista; anarquismo e sindicalismo; luta armada e violência; sindicalismo duplo, reformas e debates táticos; organização política anarquista; classe, internacionalismo, gênero, raça e imperialismo.

Para leitores do inglês, ver: https://email.wits.ac.za/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/.

Realização:

Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (FASP)

http://www.anarquismosp.org/

Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ)

http://www.farj.org/

BRAZIL: "Black Flame" events, October and November 2010

2010-10-20T11:32:00.006+02:00

Black Flame comes to Brazil.

Black Flame co-author Lucien van der Walt will discuss the book at the forthcoming conference "Labour Histories from the Global South", 25-28 October 2010, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, UFSC (Florianópolis, SC, Brazil).

Lucien's book discussion will be part of a panel on new books, Lançamento de Livros, and will take place on Tuesday 26th October, 18:15-19:00, presumably in the Auditório da Reitoria at UFSC. For more on the conference, see here.

Lucien will also be presenting a paper at this conference, on “Indian revolutionary syndicalists in Durban, South Africa, 1915-1921: race, class and Indian Ocean networks”. This is provisionally scheduled for the 7pm session in the Auditório da Reitoria on Monday 25th October.

There will also be Black Flame events in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, in the week of 1-6 November.

Copies of the book will be on sale at all events.

A march by Brazil's Landless Workers Movement
(Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra - MST).

Modern anarchism: report on Michael's tour of Canada

2010-10-16T18:31:00.002+02:00

Modern Anarchism

Linda Givetash, March 17, 2010, The Cord, Wilfrid Laurier University, here.

On Monday, South African journalist and author Michael Schmidt delivered a lecture at Wilfrid Laurier University, where he discussed the influence of social anarchism and syndicalism on labour structures and class movements.

Schmidt’s talk focused on the tradition of anarchism as presented in his book Black Flame (Counter-power, Volume 1), which he co-wrote with Lucien van der Walt, a professor at the University of Witwatersrand.

“We actually wound up with a much broader tradition than we expected,” said Schmidt. Black Flame analyzes the impact of anarchy around the world in the last 150 years, beginning with what Schmidt identified as its first wave from 1867 to 1894.

Schmidt exemplified later movements that had a greater impact on class and labour structures with the development of an international union called the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

The formation of the IWW – whose power peaked in the 1920s – is one of several “organized industrial trade unions [viewed] as a radical working class movement,” according to Schmidt.

Schmidt attributed the growth of what began as a maritime application to syndicalism with the growth of the IWW.

“Through seafaring members of the IWW and returning immigrants, the idea of industrial unionism spread to Australia, Latin America and Europe.” Finally, Schmidt explained that anarchism today is in the form of anti-capitalist movements.

He concluded by quoting an edition of the New York Times: “Anarchism remains an idea that will not die.”

Grahamstown "Black Flame" seminar, Wed. 6 Oct., Rhodes Sociology, Eastern Cape

2010-10-01T11:03:00.003+02:00

Grahamstown seminar, Wed. 6 Oct. -> 'Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism', @ Rhodes Sociology, Eastern Cape

RHODES UNIVERSITY, GRAHAMSTOWN, EASTERN CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA

The Faculty of Humanities together with the Department of Sociology invite you to attend the following seminar :

"Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics Of Anarchism And Syndicalism"
PRESENTED BY: Lucien van der Walt & Michael Schmidt
DISCUSSANT: Dr Kirk Helliker, Sociology Dpt.
VENUE: Faculty of Humanities Seminar Room, cnr Prince Alfred and Somerset Street, Grahamstown
TIME: 06 October 2010 @ 5pm

FURTHER INFORMATION: Karen Kouari, 046 6038362 or k.kouari@ru.ac.za

ABOUT THE BOOK: http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com

'Black Flame' examines the anti-authoritarian class politics of the anarchist/syndicalist movement, its 150 years of popular struggle on five continents, and its vision of a decentralized self-managed society. An indispensable conceptual and historical roadmap, with close attention to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, looking at its:
· Opposition to hierarchy, capitalism and the state
· Strategy: building revolutionary counter-power
· History: labour, community, anti-imperialism
· Agenda: participatory, cooperative economics
· Revolutions: Mexico, Spain, Ukraine, Korea
· Revival: today's struggles

REVIEWERS SAY:
- "brilliant and thought-provoking ... for activists, students and academics alike..." (Mandisi Majavu, Africa Project for Participatory Society, 'ZNET')
- "deserves to be read by all those on the Left seeking to understand anarchism's diverse contributions to democratic socialist thinking and practice ..." (Devan Pillay, 'Amandla')
- "illustrates the universality of anarchism, which until now, other literature has not done ... countless examples of large movements globally from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and the United States, to South Africa, Egypt, Korea and Japan ... Spain, Italy, Russia, the UK and Ireland ..." (Mandy Moussouris, 'South African Labour Bulletin')
- " ... extraordinary ... succeeds in bringing anarchist ideas into vivid relief in their historical contexts ... shows the increasing relevance of an anarchist critique..." (Martin Miller, Duke University, author of 'The Russian Revolution', 'Kropotkin')
- "a fascinating account of the often obscured history of anarchists, their organisations and history..." (Leo Zeilig, 'International Socialism')
- "the depth and breadth of the research are impressive, the arguments sophisticated, and the call to organize timely ..." (Mark Leier, 'Labour/Le Travail')
- "... an active reflective utterance and a valuable reference work for some years to come ... " (Ian Liebenberg and Petrus de Kock, 'South African Journal of Philosophy').
- "If you have a passing interest in radical politics, get this book. If you have an interest in anarchism, get this book ..." (Deric Shannon, 'Interface: a journal for and about social movements')
- "... fascinating, revealing and often startling ..." (Alan Lipman, anti-apartheid exile, author 'On the Outside Looking In: colliding with apartheid and other authorities')
- "useful and insightful ... a grand work of synthesis ... an excellent starting point..." (Greg Hall, 'WorkingUSA')
- "Brilliant ... outstanding ... Do yourself a favour and buy it now!" (Iain McKay, author of 'The Anarchist FAQ', volume 1)
- "... considerable scholarship and deep reflection ... remarkable ... powerful and lucidly written ..." (Jon Hyslop, author of 'The Notorious Syndicalist: JT Bain, a Scottish rebel in colonial South Africa')
- "The book is so good that every anarchist should read it and set up discussion groups on it ... go read the book" (Nate Hawthorn, 'Ideas and Action')
- "an outstanding contribution ... unique in examining anarchism from a worldwide perspective instead of only a west European angle ..." (Wayne Price, author of 'The Abolition of the State: anarchist and Marxist perspectives')
- "a must for everybody interested in nonauthoritarian social movements ... " (Bert Altena, Rotterdam University, author of 'Piet Honig, Herinneringen van een Rotterdamse revolutionair')

THE AUTHORS:
Michael Schmidt is a Johannesburg-based investigative journalist/ journalism trainer and activist, with experience in Chiapas, civil war Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Rwanda, Darfur, and Lebanon.

Lucien van der Walt teaches at Wits. Winner of the 2008 international 'Labor History' dissertation and the 2008/2009 CODESRIA Africa thesis awards, his extensive publications include (with Steve Hirsch) the forthcoming 'Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1880-1940' (Brill 2010).

MORE @ http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com

Nice review in "Ideas and Action" by Nate Hawthorne (and a response or two)

2010-09-15T11:56:00.005+02:00

Nate Hawthorn, writing in the most recent Ideas and Action, a North American anarcho-syndicalist paper, says the following in a a review with the wonderful title "Let’s Talk About Another Burning Color: Black Flame vs. Red Fire Extinguisher?"

"The book is so good that every anarchist should read it and set up discussion groups on it. The organization I belong to, the Workers Solidarity Alliance, and our sister organizations should hold speaking events for this book, where we present its main arguments and encourage people to read it. We should also discuss the book more in our movements’ publications, both carrying out further analysis using the book’s framework as well as debating the framework. I mean all this sincerely: go read the book".

Every rose has some thorns, of course, and here's some from Nate's paper: "At the same time, in this article I’m going to talk about one area where the book is not as good, which is Black Flame’s treatment of marxism". He argues we need to engage with libertarian Marxists, and treat Marxism too harshly and crudely.

A small reply:
We will do a formal response in Ideas and Action soon (ish), but its worth stressing that we do agree that libertarian Marxists have a lot in common with anarchists, and that there should be a discussion - although not a synthesis - between the two. However, there is no getting around the fact that the "classical Marxism" that Black Flame discusses is far and away the the main current in Marxism, comprising most of Marxist history, most Marxists and (of course) every single Marxist regime. And Marx's "public persona" (Black Flame, p. 93) stressed precisely the determinism (pp. 93-4) and statism upon which these regimes drew (pp. 23-24, 88). We're for a historical - which means properly balanced - view of Marxism, not the view that all Marxisms are equally worthy of discsussion.

EXCHANGE on "Black Flame" between Spencer Sunshine and the authors, in recent "Anarchist Studies"

2010-09-02T13:11:00.007+02:00

NEW: Italian translation here.

Anarchist Studies, which describes itself as "an inter-disciplinary journal of scholarly research into the history, culture and theory of anarchism", recently carried a critical review of Black Flame by Spencer Sunshine. The authors were permitted to write a reply, which addressed some of the issues raised by Sunshine.

In summary, Sunshine's review praised Black Flame for "the best assemblage of research I have encountered on classical anarchism’s complex relationship to questions of nationalism, imperialism and race", and its "stress on the rich anarchist and syndicalist traditions in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean," "a ‘crucial corrective to Eurocentric accounts’". However, he also claimed the book was "infuriating", since it had a "highly unusual" definition of anarchism (i.e. anarchism as a form of libertarian socialism), leading to the exclusion of the (so-called) "philosophical, individualist, spiritual and ‘lifestyle’ traditions" (supposedly the "majority" of today's anarchists).

In response, Lucien van der Walt noted that Sunshine provided no serious evidence to refute the book's core theses e.g. that the global anarchist movement emerged in the First International, that syndicalism is an integral part ... that this tradition centres on rationalism, socialism and anti-authoritarianism ... the writings of Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin ... and that this ‘narrow’ definition is both empirically defensible and analytically useful". In presenting the book's view of anarchism as a "highly unusual", he ended up having to present the views of pretty much all major anarchists and syndicalist activists and movements as "highly unusual" forms of anarchism, and to do this through the use of loaded rhetoric.
Below, we include first the review, followed by the refutation: REVIEW, Anarchist Studies 18.1, pp. 113-115

p. 113
Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, Edinburgh & Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2009

Black Flame is an intriguing and infuriating work which deserves to be read and debated. Rich in both theory and history, the authors say their conclusions are ‘quite striking’ and result in a ‘rethinking’ of the anarchist canon (p.17). Furthermore, they very fairly say that ‘if this book succeeds in promoting new research into anarchism, even if that research contradicts our arguments, we consider our work well done’ (pp.26-7). However, the particularities of the argument, and the tone in which they are presented, distract from the possibilities of serious discussion regarding many of the book’s stances.
Of particular interest is the last chapter, which is the best assemblage of research I have encountered on classical anarchism’s complex relationship to questions of nationalism, imperialism and race. Black Flame’s stress on the rich anarchist and syndicalist traditions in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean serves as a ‘crucial corrective to Eurocentric accounts’ (p.21). Also of much interest is the careful explanation of the differences between different syndicalist unions.
Black Flame is also important in that it situates anarchism in its social and historical context. The authors argue that the notion of anarchism as a timeless part of human existence originates in Paul Eltzbacher’s 1900 book Anarchism. It is only afterwards that anarchists themselves (especially Kropotkin) incorporate this
idea into their own beliefs. Black Flame notes that ‘if anarchism is a universal
p. 114
feature of society, then it becomes difficult indeed to explain why it arises, or to place it in historical context, to delineate its boundaries, and analyze its class character and role at a particular time.’ Therefore the traditional perspective ‘fails to historicize the broad anarchist tradition, or explain why it arose as well as why it appealed to particular classes’ (p.18).
The authors stress the necessity of a bounded definition of anarchism for scholarship: ‘A good definition is one that highlights the distinguishing features of a given category, does so in a coherent fashion, and is able to differentiate that category from others, thereby organizing knowledge as well as enabling effective analysis and research’ (p.43).
Unfortunately, their definition is achieved through a series of retroactive baptisms and excommunications. What they call the ‘broad anarchist tradition’ is actually exceedingly narrow in relation to self-identified anarchists. They start with ‘class struggle anarchism’ (which includes anarcho-communists, Platformists, the
Friends of Durruti and Galleanist insurrectionists), and to this they add syndicalism – as such. Almost the entire membership of every global syndicalist union receives a mass anarchist baptism, along with Daniel DeLeon and James Connolly. In one rhetorical move, the ‘broad anarchist tradition’ gains millions of adherents.
But excommunicated are (what are quite possibly) the majority of today’s self-identified anarchists. This includes the entirety of the philosophical, individualist, spiritual and ‘lifestyle’ traditions. The authors say ‘we do not regard these currents as part of the broad anarchist tradition … “Class struggle” anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view, it is the only anarchism’ (p.19). They disagree with Murray Bookchin for even using the derogatory term ‘lifestyle anarchism’, since ‘it is incorrect to label these sects anarchist at all; they have no place in the anarchist tradition, for they are not anarchist’ (p.170). (Yet, according to their cosmology, Bookchin is also not an anarchist!)
Their highly unusual definition is based on the claim that anarchism can be defined solely by the moment when Bakunin, during his stint in the International, authored some (arguably) narrowly workerist tracts. Black Flame claims syndicalism emerges directly from this period of Bakunin; correspondingly, they dub him an ‘unreserved’ syndicalist (p.134). They attempt to enrol many other anarchists as syndicalists, for example arguing that Errico Malatesta can be seen as ‘an outright syndicalist’ (p.202). Kropotkin, they claim, wrote Mutual Aid ‘to prove the possi-
p. 115
bility of a free socialist society, which was to be created by a class revolution’ (p.302). Meanwhile, inconveniently proto-fascist syndicalists like Sorel and Labriola are excommunicated from this ‘broad’ tradition by similar rhetorical manoeuvres.
The authors are owed a great credit for their comprehensive assemblage of research on nationalism and imperialism, and for making the long overdue call to re-situate the classical tradition in its social and historical context. But their grand claims regarding what constitutes the misnamed ‘broad anarchist tradition’ strike
me not only as unconvincing, but as unhistorical. Indeed, I actually found many of the positions Black Flame argues against – such as the notion that anarchism can be understood as a ‘point of intersection of several ideologies’ (p.40), and that anarchism and syndicalism are ‘different, albeit overlapping, tendencies’ (p.149) – to be far more convincing than the book’s own claims.

Spencer Sunshine
PhD candidate, CUNY Graduate Center in New York City

RESPONSE
Black Flame and the broad anarchist tradition: a reply to Spencer Sunshine
Anarchist Studies 18.1, pp. 115-117

p. 115
As Michael Schmidt and I noted in the opening chapter of Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, our book achieves its main aim when it provokes debate about the ideas, history and relevance of the broad anarchist tradition. As we wrote, ‘good scholarship proceeds through debate, rather than the creation of new orthodoxies’. We welcome challenges and corrections based on research. It is in this spirit that we read Spencer Sunshine’s review.
Yet debate is only fruitful when due care is taken to substantiate claims, and to argue points. And, regrettably, our reviewer has been rather careless in developing his criticisms, relying on the use of polemical language, assertions rather than refutations, and trivial anecdote.
Sunshine suggests that the ‘particularities of the argument’ in Black Flame detract from ‘the possibilities of serious discussion regarding many of the book’s stances’. The ‘particularities of the argument’ are, however, precisely what require ‘serious discussion’. And ‘serious discussion’ is what his review lacks.
p. 116
Rather than provide a substantive and substantiated criticism of Black Flame's core theses, the reviewer relies instead on loaded language to delegitimise those theses. Thus,Michael and I (he claims) operate essentially through a series of 'retroactive baptisms and excommunications' and the construction of a 'cosmology' via 'rhetorical manoeuvres'. Sunshine thus deploys religious metaphors in an attempt to negate the weight of evidence and logical argument that the book (the first in a set of two) develops over nearly 400 pages via an unmatched and genuinely global survey of 150 years of anarchist history on five continents. The vast synthesis involved, the textual evidence, the broad sweep of history, the innumerable cases cited - these are trivialised by a labelling strategy strong on style and imagery, but rather short on content.
No evidence is adduced to dispute our core theses: that the global anarchist movement emerged in the First International, that syndicalism is an integral part of the broad anarchist tradition, that this tradition centres on rationalism, socialism and anti-authoritarianism, that the writings of Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin are representative of its core ideas, and that this 'narrow' definition is both empirically defensible and analytically useful.
Sunshine, having presented the authors as pronouncing ex cathedra, tends, in short, to base his major critique on assertions of faith, rather than demonstrations of fact.
He then claims, in all seriousness, that Black Flame has a 'highly unusual' understanding of the anarchist tradition. Black Flame has sinned in having 'excommunicated' what is ('quite possibly') the 'majority' of 'today's self-identified anarchists', the so-called 'philosophical, individualist, spiritual and "lifestyle" traditions'.
This time some evidence is provided - but it is mere anecdote. Personal impressions of a small segment of (an implicitly all-American) scene are offered as a refutation of a scholarly survey of 150 years of global history. Sunshine is himself understandably a bit unsure about the validity of generalising from such data: thus,
the caveat 'quite possibly'.
We now find ourselves in an analytical cul-de-sac where the views of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons, Liu Sifu, Ricardo Flores Magón, Nicolás Gutarra, T.W. Thibedi, Nestor Makhno, Juana Belém Gutiérrez de Mendoza, Kôtuku Shûsui, Shin Ch'aeho, Ba Jin, James Connolly,
Chu Cha-Pei and many, many others, and the politics of organisations like the
p.117
Spanish CNT/CGT, the Australian IWW, the Bolivian FOL, the Mexican CGT, the Uruguayan FAU/OPR-33, the South African ISL/IWA, the Hunan Workers' Association, the Eastern Anarchist League, the Black Flag Alliance, Ghadr, the Bulgarian FAKB, Egypt's International Union of Workers and Employees, the Russian SKT and many, many others are treated as exemplifying 'highly unusual' aspects of the anarchist tradition. A mere byway in a tradition supposedly embodied by certain 'philosophical, individualist, spiritual and "lifestyle" traditions' - in America, today. Having argued along these lines, Sunshine concludes with the odd claim that it is, in fact, Black Flame's analysis that 'strikes' the reader as 'unconvincing' and 'unhistorical'.
Again, however, the problem is an analysis centred on style (in this case, reducing anarchism to 'self-identity'), rather than on substance (movement politics and praxis).
Sunshine's review is correct in noting that Black Flame argues for a bounded, historical, precise definition of anarchism, and that the work aims at developing a 'crucial corrective to Eurocentric accounts'. His curt dismissal of the book, however, rests upon precisely the rather shaky analyses of anarchism and syndicalism
that the book contests.
There is little room for generative debate in this sort of intervention, and it would be a pity if readers of Anarchist Studies were to dismiss Black Flame as a result of this review.

Lucien van der Walt
Department of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand, RSA

VIDEO: Michael Schmidt, "Black Flame" co-author, speaks in Canada, 2010

2010-08-14T16:40:00.001+02:00

Michael Schmidt, co-author of Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, talks to an audience at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario in March 2010. The talk was presented by Common Cause and AK Press.

Go here.

From a new review in the "South African Journal of Philisophy" (extracts)

2010-08-14T15:50:00.004+02:00

Ian Liebenberg and Petrus de Kock, " Review Article: Transforming the state away from the State? Radical social action and ‘minority attractions’ under scrutiny", South African Journal of Philosophy, 2010, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 195-208

"Anyone interested in the theory and socio-philosophical background to anarchism and syndicalism will find the Black Flame an active reflective utterance and a valuable reference work for some years to come ... despite ‘multiple deaths’, anarchist philosophy and action still manifests itself [and] forms part of and influences social movements that continue to utter a radical “No!” to centralist power, global capitalism and economic exploitation, ecological destruction included".

"The authors demonstrate that anarchism ... furthers a thoughtful historical and social body of direct action ... The issue at stake is the transformation of society based on communitarianism, social action and the attainment of direct democracy ...

"Various critical theorists observe that globalisation and global capitalism result in a further widening of the gap between rich and poor, with the predictable outcome being marginalisation, alienation, communal violence, crime and generalised planetary conflict ... To this, very few intellectuals of our time have an answer...

"... The authors of the Black Flame situate anarcho-syndicalism in the contemporary world ... [and] introduce the readers to a wide range of anarchist thinkers but demonstrate the links between anarchists and syndicalists in the world of work ... to anarchism and its manifestations on the globe since the middle of the 1800s...

"... the work infuses the current discourse with new perspectives and challenges and a warehouse of lessons learnt – and perhaps future steps that may benefit the debate on state oppression and capitalist exploitation...

"The anarchist intellectual streams insist on persistent/permanent decentralisation of the state. The state in the form we know it is per se both a parasite and a cruel bloody hegemony. The only compromise with the state then lies in the direct action of all workers (not an elected/ selected few)...

"Van der Walt and Schmidt contend – and demonstrate – in their substantial work the socio-historic and economic legacy of the discourse from yesteryear until now. Anarchist-syndicalism still leaves powerful states and the corporate capitalists uneasy. While anarchism and syndicalism were seen by Marxist revisionists as a ‘minority ttraction’ and was blamed by hard-line Marxists as ‘non-proletarian in character’, while simultaneously being vilified by advocates of global capitalism, corporate empires and militarists, it seems that despite ‘multiple deaths’, anarchist philosophy and action still manifests itself in different ways on the globe. Anarchist thought forms part of and influences social movements that continue to utter a radical “No!” to centralist power, global capitalism and economic exploitation, ecological destruction included.

"Anyone interested in the theory and socio-philosophical background to anarchism and syndicalism will find the Black Flame an active reflective utterance and a valuable reference work for some years to come."

Jozi Book Fair event: BLACK FLAME: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, SUN 8 August @ 3 pm

2010-08-03T11:42:00.006+02:00

Jozi Book Fair event:
BLACK FLAME: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, SUN 8 August @ 3 pm

JOZI BOOK FAIR 2010
http://www.jozibookfair.org.za/

BOOK LAUNCH/ EVENT
BLACK FLAME: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism
Lucien van der Walt & Michael Schmidt
'Black Flame' examines the anti-authoritarian class politics of the anarchist/syndicalist movement, and its 150 years of popular struggle on five continents.

An indispensable conceptual and historical roadmap, with close attention to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, looking at its:

·   Opposition to hierarchy, capitalism and the state
·   Strategy: building revolutionary counter-power
·   History: labour, community, anti-imperialism
·   Agenda: participatory, cooperative economics
·   Revolutions: Mexico, Spain, Ukraine, Korea
·   Revival: today's struggles

MORE @ http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com

Sunday, 8th AUGUST, 3 pm
@ 4th floor, Conversation Room North, Museum Africa, Newtown, Johanesburg

REVIEWERS SAY
·   "one of its distinctive contributions is its global scope... their book is brilliant and thought-provoking ... a valuable study for activists, students and academics alike..." (Mandisi Majavu, Africa Project for Participatory Society, 'ZNET')
·   "deserves to be read by all those on the Left seeking to understand anarchism's diverse contributions to democratic socialist thinking and practice ..." (Devan Pillay, 'Amandla')
·   "illustrates the universality of anarchism, which until now, other literature has not done ... countless examples of large movements globally from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and the United States, to South Africa, Egypt, Korea and Japan ... Spain, Italy, Russia, the UK and Ireland ..." (Mandy Moussouris, 'South African Labour Bulletin')
" extraordinary ... succeeds in bringing anarchist ideas into vivid relief in their historical contexts ... shows the increasing relevance of an anarchist critique for our own time" (Martin Miller, Duke University, author of 'The Russian Revolution', 'Kropotkin')
·   "a fascinating account of the often obscured history of anarchists, their organisations and history. There is much to commend in the book ..." (Leo Zeilig, 'International Socialism')
·   "the depth and breadth of the research are impressive, the arguments sophisticated, and the call to organize timely ..." (Mark Leier, 'Labour/Le Travail')
·   "If you have a passing interest in radical politics, get this book. If you have an interest in anarchism, get this book ..." (Deric Shannon, 'Interface: a journal for and about social movements')
·   "fascinating, revealing and often startling ..." (Alan Lipman, anti-apartheid exile, author of 'On the Outside Looking In: colliding with apartheid and other authorities')
·   "useful and insightful ... a grand work of synthesis ... an excellent starting point..." (Greg Hall, 'WorkingUSA')
·   "Brilliant ... outstanding ... Do yourself a favour and buy it now!" (Iain McKay, author of 'The Anarchist FAQ', volume 1)
·   "considerable scholarship and deep reflection ... remarkable ... powerful and lucidly written ..." (Jon Hyslop, University of Witwatersrand, author of 'The Notorious Syndicalist: JT Bain, a Scottish rebel in colonial South Africa')
·   "an outstanding contribution ... unique in examining anarchism from a worldwide perspective instead of only a west European angle ..." (Wayne Price, author of 'The Abolition of the State: anarchist and Marxist perspectives')
·   "a must for everybody interested in nonauthoritarian social movements ... " (Bert Altena, Rotterdam University, author of 'Piet Honig, Herinneringen van een Rotterdamse revolutionair')

Michael Schmidt is a Johannesburg-based investigative journalist/ journalism trainer and activist, with experience in Chiapas, civil war Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Rwanda, Darfur, and Lebanon.

Lucien van der Walt teaches at Wits. Winner of the 2008 international 'Labor History' dissertation and the 2008/2009 CODESRIA Africa thesis awards, his extensive publications include (with Steve Hirsch) the forthcoming 'Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1880-1940' (Brill 2010).

THE JOZI BOOK FAIR RUNS 7-9 AUGUST AT MUSEUM AFRICA IN NEWTOWN, JOHANNESBURG
A Khanya College initiative
More:
http://www.jozibookfair.org.za
jozibookfair@khanyacollege.org.za

A Khanya College initiative
More:
http://www.jozibookfair.org.za/
jozibookfair@khanyacollege.org.za

Endorsement by Prof. Martin Miller

2010-07-08T19:29:00.001+02:00

Professor Martin Miller, Duke University editor of The Russian Revolution (2001) and P. A. Kropotkin. Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution (1970, 1976) , and author of Freud and the Bolsheviks: Psychoanalysis in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union (1998), The Russian Revolutionary Emigres, 1830-1870 1986) and the definitive biography Kropotkin (1976), writes:

This extraordinary volume should be required reading for anyone interested in the relevance of political thought on all sides of the spectrum. It is the most comprehensive analysis of anarchist theory to date, covering the entire sweep of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. While making clear their own interpretive preferences for the transnational and syndicalist aspects of anarchism, the authors are judicious in their assessment of the entire movement’s wide range of thinkers from Bakunin to Bookchin. The scholarship is impressive and the book provides a wealth of references for further research. Black Flame not only succeeds in bringing anarchist ideas into vivid relief in their historical contexts, but also shows the increasing relevance of an anarchist critique for our own time.

A fine review in 'Labour/Le Travail', no. 65, 2010, by Mark Leier

2010-06-19T14:56:00.000+02:00

Mark Leier, review essay 'Under the Black Flag: Anarchist Histories', Labour/ Le Travail, no. 65, 2010, pp. 175-180

The contribution of this book is three-fold: it offers a much-needed corrective to the liberal lifestyle and philosophical trends that have attached themselves to anarchism; it demonstrates and contributes to the diversity,themes, and arguments within anarchism; and it draws our attention to movements that have ... too often been ignored, often for political rather than historical reasons. In lively yet carefully crafted prose, the authors have provided an excellent analysis of anarchism rooted in class struggle, and a proposed second volume will examine the influence of anarchism around the world. The depth and breadth of the research are impressive, the arguments sophisticated, and the call to organize timely.

... Anarchism is increasingly filling the role that Marxism did in the 1970s and 1980s, providing a new generation of academics and activists with a framework to make links between theory and practice and excavate the history of movements that have been ignored and marginalized. In fields such as philosophy, anthropology, history, and political science, many have been turning to anarchism to hold accountable the oppressive liberalism of the twenty-first century and a Marxism that is often burdened with a sclerotic scholasticism. As a result, anarchism as a theoretical project and as a subject of historical investigation has flourished over the last ten years.

Three recent books demonstrate some of the diversity, sophistication, and energy of anarchist historical studies... Black Flame ... puts politics at the centre of anarchism, and in doing so, stakes out a provocative and important thesis. Many historians, including George Woodcock and Peter Marshall, trace anarchist thought back to antiquity. As Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt argue, creating such a pedigree requires lumping together thinkers from Lao-tze to William Godwin to Leo Tolstoy to anonymous Wobblies to libertarian capitalists, all of whom may have been anti-state but have little else in common. Such a tradition, the authors note, is no tradition at all. It obscures the very real differences between such disparate thinkers; it is ahistorical; and it reinforces the notion that anarchism is essentially an extreme but liberal critique of the state. Instead, Black Flame argues that it is historically more accurate and politically more useful to see anarchism as a reaction to capitalism. It is an ideology that dates from about the mid-nineteenth century, and is fundamentally opposed to capitalist relations; as the authors deine them, all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists.

This insistence on the political and analytical importance of class struggle is welcome, and means this will be a difficult book for the contemporary movement of post-anarchism.This turn, represented by authors such as Todd May and Saul Newman, looks to Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, and Lacan for inspiration and harkens back to Max Stirner and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to characterize anarchism, approvingly, as a philosophical position based on idealism and individualism.Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, however, insist Stirner and Proudhon should not be categorized as anarchists. Acknowledging that these philosophers provided useful ideas and critiques, Schmidt and van der Walt make clear that they did not have a radical critique of capitalism and so, however valuable their contributions, they cannot be considered part of the anarchist movement. Instead, they argue that the first theorist of anarchism was Bakunin, followed by Kropotkin.

At the same time, the authors reject the notion that anarchism is largely an intellectual movement that descended from great thinkers. They are more interested in anarchist organizations and the anarchist inluence on labour and peasant movements, and turn their attention to a broader tradition of people and movements that includes syndicalists, the Ukrainian insurgents during the Russian Revolution, Spanish anarchists, Chinese peasants, and many others. In particular, this volume, largely based on secondary sources, outlines the political themes and issues that have united and divided anarchists since the split with Marx in the First International, with detailed attention to the arguments within anarchism over violence, racism, sexism, reform, mass insurrection, syndicalism, and organization.

The contribution of this book is three-fold: it ofers a much-needed corrective to the liberal lifestyle and philosophical trends that have attached themselves to anarchism; it demonstrates and contributes to the diversity,themes, and arguments within anarchism; and it draws our attention to movements that have ... too often been ignored, often for political rather than historical reasons. In lively yet carefully crafted prose, the authors have provided an excellent analysis of anarchism rooted in class struggle, and a proposed second volume will examine the influence of anarchism around the world. The depth and breadth of the research are impressive, the arguments sophisticated, and the call to organize timely.

If there is a potential misstep here, it is in the analysis of Marx. Schmidt and van der Walt acknowledge the crucial contribution Marx's analysis of capitalism made to anarchist thought, especially in delivering it from the idealism that characterized Proudhon's thought. They are careful to delineate Marx from various Marxists, and point out that too often Marx's critics, including those in the anarchist movement, have attacked not Marx but a caricature of him. At times, however, their take on Marx seems to come from a reading of some of his less temperate pronouncements that imply a teleological understanding of history. While they are correct to attack that rigid teleology, it is not so clear how accurate it is to label Marx that way. But this is a relatively small criticism of a book that is impressive in its sweep, its detailed research, its innovative ideas, and its sustained polemic. It may not budge the post-anarchists, but it does suggest why they have had little impact outside the graduate seminar.

* Professor Leier, director of the Centre for Labour Studies at Simon Fraser University (Canada). Author of works like Where the Fraser River Flows: The Industrial Workers of the World in British Columbia, Red Flags and Red Tape: The Making of a Labour Bureaucracy, and Bakunin: The Creative Passion.

Review in "Amandla" by Devan Pillay

2010-06-10T15:57:00.001+02:00

Devan Pillay (University of the Witwatersrand), in Amandla ("SA's new progressive magazine, covering politics and more. Now stocked at more than 80 booksellers nationwide!"), Issue 13 March / April 2010

"For those who have learnt about anarchism only through the writings of Marxists and Leninists, this volume gives fascinating insight into the early world of anarchism. It is a highly readable synthesis of a wide range of secondary sources, covering events and personalities in many different countries. It deserves to be read by all those on the Left seeking to understand the diverse contributions to democratic socialist thinking and practice.

"The word ‘anarchist’ for some conjures up notions of violent and extremist behaviour ... anti-government and anti-capitalist ‘rabble-rousers’ who ... fight the police, or smash the windows at MacDonalds. They are also known for provocative slogans, such as ‘Eat the Rich’ – direct, in your face, but in the end achieving little ...
"These pictures of anarchism are, however, anathema to journalist Michael Schmidt and Wits sociologist Lucien van der Walt, authors of a new book that both narrows the boundaries of what ‘anarchism’ is, and also paints a much more complex picture of anarchism and its trade union variant, syndicalism... the book clears the decksby throwing out all variants of ‘anarchism’ that are not explicitly “a type of socialism” that is “against capitalism and landlordism”, but unlike “classical Marxism” is also a libertarian type of socialism” that privileges “individual freedom” in a context of “democracy and equality”. To achieve this, “class struggle and revolution” are necessary to achieve a social order based on “common ownership, self-management, democratic planning from below, and production for need, not profit” (p.6).

"... anarchism begins with the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin, a contemporary of Karl Marx, and Pytor Kropotkin, who from the 1860s laid the foundations for anarchist thinking and political practice ... Nevertheless, for the authors anarchists owe an enormous debt to both Proudhon, who first outlined an anarchist vision of radical working class democracy in the early nineteenth century, and Marx, for his analysis of capitalism ...

"The book identifies two main variants of anarchism, namely the insurrectionist approach, that seeks liberation through violence and assassination, and the mass anarchist approach, particularly syndicalism – the belief in the trade union movement as the centre of working class organisation (which includes unions fighting non-workplace battles, as well as forming tactical and strategic alliances with other socialist organisations, including political parties). The book has clear sympathies towards the latter approach, which involves building strong, accountable organisations – including, for the authors, the need for a democratically accountable revolutionary core that directs the struggle towards a communist end.

"While anarchism has not featured prominently in the recent history of South Africa, elements of syndicalism reared its head in the 1970s trade union movement. Syndicalist-type ideas formed part of the complicated shop-floor tradition in the early revival of trade unionism in the 1970s, forming a key pillar of the Federation of SA Trade Unions (Fosatu), and to an extent the General Workers Union and the Food and Canning Workers’ Union in the Western Cape. The unions were wary of forging close links with political actors, and refused to join the ANC-aligned United Democratic Front (UDF) in 1983. Whether these union activists were aware of the anarchist-syndicalist roots of aspects of their thinking or not is unclear. Some of their thinking came from the rank-and-file movement in 1970s Britain – which itself has roots in the early syndicalist movement. Other ideas came from the anti-Soviet New Left of the 1960s, which in part drew on participatory-democratic anarchist and syndicalist thinking.

"‘Syndicalists’ were lumped together with economistic unionism under the broad label ‘workerism’ by their SA Communist Party (SACP) detractors, for allegedly refusing to participate in political struggles against the apartheid state. They were accused of favouring workplace struggles against capital. The ‘syndicalists’, on the other hand, denied that they were ignoring the anti-apartheid struggle. They insisted, however, that in order to challenge the apartheid state, it was necessary to build strong, democratically accountable organisations that could both survive state repression, as well as ensure that the working class actually leads the anti-apartheid struggle. This differed sharply from the SACP’s notion of working class leadership, which meant that the working class party, namely the SACP, leads.

"Syndicalist thinking and practice is clearly evident in what some call ‘social movement unionism’ – namely a combination of both democratic workplace organisation and struggle, as well as action against the state outside the workplace, often in alliances with other organisations ... to this day Cosatu asserts its independence, a clear legacy of syndicalist thinking, even if many decry its drift towards a more incorporated political unionism in recent years...

"There is much to be learnt from this impressive volume, which deals mainly with the early history of anarchism, in particular its “glorious period” from the mid-1890s to the mid-1920s- although significant movements operated long before and long after then too. Anarchists, particularly syndicalists ... in many countries were more popular than Marxist organisations. For example, how many are aware that May Day began as an annual commemoration of the Haymarket Martyrs – five American anarchist labour leaders – executed in 1887 after the 8-hour day struggle? Or that “An Injury to One is an Injury to All” is a slogan developed by the syndicalist IWW?

"... for those who come from a libertarian Marxist perspective, there is much common ground beween mass anarchism, particularly syndicalism, and an open Marxism (as opposed to Marxist-Leninism). Indeed, for many who promoted independent but engaged social movement unionism, it is fascinating to learn about the early anarchist contribution to such thinking. With the failure of so many statist experiments in building socialism, and the search for a truly democratic political praxis that avoids the pitfalls of statism, mass anarchism has much to offer ...

"For those who have learnt about anarchism only through the writings of Marxists and Leninists, this volume gives fascinating insight into the early world of anarchism. It is a highly readable synthesis of a wide range of secondary sources, covering events and personalities in many different countries. It deserves to be read by all those on the Left seeking to understand the diverse contributions to democratic socialist thinking and practice."

Review: "A Flame to Extinguish Capital" - Deric Shannon in "Interface: a journal for and about social movements"

2010-06-10T15:38:00.001+02:00

"If you have a passing interest in radical politics, get this book. If you have an interest in anarchism, get this book. If you are an anarchist already, whether you agree with the authors' perspective or not, get this book. This is a thoroughly researched narrative of a political movement that promises freedom, equality, and social viability for us all..."

Deric Shannon* (University of Connecticut), "A Flame to Extinguish Capital", Interface: a journal for and about social movements, volume 2 (1): 381 - 414 (May 2010), pp. 399-403

"... after reading Black Flame, it's impossible not to reflect on the massive amount of research that such a work must have entailed. The book is a narrative about anarchism and, with interest in anarchism on the rise worldwide, it could not have come at a better time ...

"Black Flame offers a reminder to us that anarchism is a part of the socialist movement and that a concern with social oppression without a commitment to ending class society is just liberalism that is sometimes dressed up in anarchist colors--albeit with some noble goals ... Throughout this well-researched history, Schmidt and van der Walt touch on many other important issues within the anarchist milieu ...

" ... they research and write about anarchist positions on national liberation struggles, race, gender, internationalism, armed action--this list could go on--all with painstaking research and detail. There is too much content to comment on in a single review.

"And, importantly, Schmidt and van der Walt do so paying critical attention to anarchism as an international movement, citing anarchists from as disparate places as Germany, Britain, China, Japan, Uruguay, and so on. The authors have done a great service to the anarchist community by drawing out these international ties and decentering the West within anarchism's historical tradition showing that we are, indeed, an international movement and that the demands for socialism combined with freedom within anarchism are not limited to the West.

"As a reviewer, it is common practice to recommend a book one finds valuable and interesting. If you have a passing interest in radical politics, get this book. If you have an interest in anarchism, get this book. If you are an anarchist already, whether you agree with the authors' perspective or not, get this book. This is a thoroughly researched narrative of a political movement that promises freedom, equality, and social viability for us all..."

Deric Shannon teaches sociology at the University of Connecticut, and is co-editor of Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy (Routledge 2009) and co-author of Political Sociology: Oppression, Resistance, and the State (Pine Forge Press forthcoming).

Review in the "South African Labour Bulletin"

2010-04-24T11:41:00.006+02:00

"What is unique about Black Flame is that it illustrates the universality of anarchism, which until now, other literature has not done as it has tended to focus on the European anarchist tradition ... [with] ... countless examples of large movements globally from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and the United States, to South Africa, Egypt, Korea and Japan, and of course Spain, Italy, Russia, the UK and Ireland ...

"For South Africans in particular the final chapter provides important insights into the anarchist perspective on issues which continue to undermine our struggles. It shows how anarchism, based on the fundamental tenets of equality and solidarity, was non-racial, non-sexist and supportive of the struggles against imperialism long before other socialist movements.

"In South Africa while the Communist Party of South Africa was supporting white workers' calls for the colour bar in the early twentieth century, the anarchists were organising multi-racial unions which included all workers.

"Black Flame sets out to both clarify what anarchism is and to demonstrate the significant impact anarchism has had in the struggle of the working class on a worldwide scale over the past 150 years. The arguments in the book are backed by considerable evidence based on the authors' extensive knowledge of anarchist theory, movements and struggles across the world. It provides a rich, well-researched and dense account of the anarchist movement and the theories behind it .... The authors provide extensive evidence to argue that syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism in particular formed the underlying strategy of the mass anarchist movement ...

"I would highly recommend Black Flame to activists as this much information and insight on anarchism cannot be found in any other book on the subject."

Mandy Moussouris, labour / social movement activist, South African Labour Bulletin, volume 34, number 1, March/April 2010.

Praise from Brian Morris, Emeritus Professor, University of London

2010-04-24T11:33:00.001+02:00

"Black Flame comes like a breath fresh air. An excellent text - readable, free of jargon, engaging, well-researched, and very well argued, and, most gratifying, affirming the importance and centrality of
anarchist communism or revolutionary socialism."

Brian Morris, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, Goldsmiths College at University of London, author inter alia of Kropotkin: the politics of community (2004) and Bakunin: the philosophy of freedom (1993).

"Black Flame" and COSATU

2010-04-02T23:13:00.012+02:00

In the political report for the 2-milllion-strong-COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) 2009 congress, prepared by Zweli Vavi (long text, which specifically cited Black Flame), there are a few "points of interest":

"... Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders ... to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left ...For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality ...As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism ..."

http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?include=docs/reports/2009/index.html&ID=2408&cat=Congress

In the political report for the 2-milllion-strong-COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) 2009 congress, prepared by Zweli Vavi (long text, which specifically cited Black Flame), there are a few "points of interest":

... The project of building Marxism must also engage openly with critiques from the right and the left of socialist theory and practice. It does not mean accepting these views on face value but to evaluate what is useful and can enrich our theory in contemporary society.

Thus Marx has given us the tools to understand society but not a blueprint. It falls on our shoulders, using the tools developed by Marx, to scientifically uncover the nature of global capitalism and how it can be transformed. That is what it means to Build Marxism. In carrying out this task we must be open-minded and grasp what is useful in critiques of Marx from both the right and the left. It is a pointless exercise to be stuck in debates between Marx and his contemporaries or between the Bolsheviks; if in the end we do not add anything new to advance the theory of Marxism. It must be borne in mind that even the nature of capitalism that Marx studied has undergone profound changes in the last hundred years.

For example, the communitarian anarchist movement, critique of classical Marxism on the grounds that is has latent features of authoritarianism, has to be engaged. Anarchists by definition are anti-authority and hierarchy. They make a compelling argument that hierarchical organisations or societies like capitalism tend to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality. Further, the anarchist critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalism in which a 'coordinator class' of bureaucrats has replaced the bourgeoisie to exploit the working classes challenges us to think about how working class democracy is practiced and enriched in a post-capitalist society. That is, it cannot be taken for granted that working people will effectively be in control without a conscious and deliberate effort.

This anarchist critique is directed at two canons of the communist movement, namely 'vanguardism' and its relationship to proletarian democracy. Rosa Luxembourg also echoed similar concerns regarding the latent authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks. We can spend time explaining the contingencies that led to authoritarianism of the Soviet Union but this is not useful in taking forward the struggle for socialism. We must bother ourselves with questions of how not to repeat this negative experience of the Soviet political system.

An attack from the Trotskyites is also worth engaging in so far as revolutionary strategy is concerned ...

The anarchists, especially the collectivist or communitarian anarchist like Bukunin and Kropotkin, on the other hand, were wary of a political system based on hierarchical relations and division of labour. They argued that a 'class of coordinators' whether under capitalism or socialism tends to monopolise power and become a self-serving bureaucracy, which will expand and defend its privilege. In the worst case scenario democracy is a hollow affair because the bureaucracy is better informed than the rest of the people. The people, aware of their limitation will always defer and concur with the bureaucrats thus becoming co-conspirators in their own enslavement and marginalisation. The anarchist antidote to hierarchical political relations was the decentralisation of power to self-managed workers' council and consumer councils, under guidance by national or international council that is democratically elected.6

As socialists anchored in the Congress and Comintern tradition we differ with some of the theoretical, strategy and tactics of the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists, but it will be folly to ignore some of their valuable critique of bureaucratic socialism. As we confront the challenge of developing a vision for socialism in the 21st century we cannot sweep these critiques under the carpet. While we retain most of the communist canon including the notions of vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, we must however, concretely define how workers will be empowered to be their own liberators and run the post-capitalist society. If we postpone these issues to a mythical future, the likelihood is that we may repeat the mistakes of the Bolsheviks. In fact acknowledging what the Troskyites and Anarcho-Syndicalists are saying will actually lay the bases for the unity of the left in our country....

6) For further reading of the anarchist views refer to Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism, Robert Knowles, Political Economy from below: communitarian anarchism as a neglected discourse in the histories of economic thought, John Bekken's Kropotkin's Anarchist Critique of Capitalism, or Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt's Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism

Two more discussions ..

2010-04-01T18:07:00.001+02:00

First up: "Using a fresh and thoughtful framework, Black Flame analyses the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, producing a coherent and cohesive overview of tactics, strategies and praxis to both illustrate an anarchist history of struggle and revolution, and to push the current movement forward... Black Flame is a truly valuable and practical book, with something to offer both the newbie to anarchist thought, or those looking to further their own previous understandings". More here

Second:
In "Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism: a critical review of the book by Fabiana Toledo, from the visions of Michael Schmidt, Lucien van der Walt and Alexandre Samis", Brazilian writer Felipe Corrêa draws on "two great books published in 2009" - Black Flame, and Minha Pátria é o Mundo Inteiro: Neno Vasco, o anarquismo e o sindicalismo revolucionário em dois mundos, de Alexandre Samis by Alexandre Samis - to interrogate Edeline Toledo's Anarquismo e Sindicalismo Revolucionário: trabalhadores e militantes em São Paulo na Primeira República. Tledo's book is a study of anarchism and syndicalism in Brazil. The English-language translation of Corrêa's piece is here and the Portuguese-language original is here

"Black Flame" on Facebook ...

2010-03-24T12:13:00.000+02:00

You can go to the Facebook page here ...

"Black Flame" book tour: Ontario, Canada, organised by Common Cause

2010-03-15T16:49:00.001+02:00

South African writer and activist Michael Schmidt, co-author of Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, will be in several Ontario cities between March 15 and March 21 to promote and discuss this important new book on the global history of anarchist movements and ideas. The tour, organized by Common Cause with support from AK Press and several local sponsors, is scheduled to pass through the following cities listed below.

To promote the tour Common Cause has also produced a short video which can be seen here and set up a Facebook page. Copies of "Black Flame" will be available for purchase at each tour stop.

Read the full story here

And check out this poster:

Another (fine) review: the Kate Sharpley Library bulletin

2010-03-02T10:06:00.005+02:00

The Kate Sharpley Library, based in the UK, specializes in anarchist history - it has produced a series of wonderful pamphlets and bulletins; its work played no small part in inspiring the authors of Black Flame. See http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/ So, a review by the KSL is of especial interest. The full review by "M. Bookunin" (!) is online at http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/c2frv6.

Here are some highlights to whet your appetite for that thoughtful commentary:

"This ... introduction to the history and ideas of anarchism [is] ... not like any you’ve read before ... Against the lowest-common-denominator approach of writers from Eltzbacher to Marshall they limit anarchism to the class struggle anarchist movement (that is, libertarian socialism) from the mid-nineteenth century onwards ... This is a helpful and necessary distinction ...

"... Schmidt and van der Walt take a global approach, pushing beyond the 'usual suspects' in Western Europe and North America, to Latin America, southern Africa and East Asia ...their potted biographies of thinkers and militants are very useful ... Thankfully, the authors are able to make their discussion of anarchist ideas accessible. There’s no jargon introduced for its own sake ...

"This book is obviously the result of a huge amount of work and a valuable synthesis of an awful lot of historical and political writings. Their clear idea of what they wanted from it has kept their writing to the point ...

"... unlikely to end debates about 'what is anarchism?' ... it’s a useful (if not perfect) contribution to them ... a great contribution to anarchist history. Not everyone will like the political choices they make, but anyone would be able to learn something from their work.

"... this is not just about history, nor just about ... internal affairs ... After the blind alley of authoritarian 'socialism', it’s about putting liberation back on the agenda, and how to make it a reality.

"It’s enjoyable to read something where the 'big picture' is handled so confidently. Roll on volume two, a global history of anarchism."

Soweto: "Black Flame" workshop on Class Struggle, Anarchism and Syndicalism, 6 March 2010

2010-02-26T12:03:00.001+02:00

Invitation to a workshop on class struggle, anarchism and syndicalism (revolutionary trade unionism) as part of the launch of the book Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism by Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt
We find ourselves at a critical juncture - nearly a million jobs have been lost in South Africa since the onset of global crisis in 2008. The planet is teetering on the brink of environmental collapse. The United States continues to wage war on the world's poorest regions.

The workers' movement remains the key force for defending the popular classes from neoliberal and government onslaughts, and in building a sustainable, egalitarian and just society. If we do not act, we should not complain.

But how? In his Political Report to the 10th Cosatu national congress, Zwelinzima Vavi argued for the need to "Build Marxism" by learning from other left traditions. In particular, he mentioned anarchism as useful for "developing a vision for socialism in the 21st century", laying "the basis for the unity of the left in our country".

Vavi made especial mention of a new book from South Africa: Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, by Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt. This was launched at Wits University last year, at a major gathering of intellectuals, trade unionists, social movement and students activists.

A Soweto launch of this book is being organised by the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) and the Orlando West study circle on anarchism. This will be part of a workshop on class struggle and revolutionary trade unionism on the 6th of March 2010 at 1 pm. Both authors of "Black Flame" will be present to discuss topics covered in the book, and the importance of anarchism for the revolutionary social and political praxis of the workers' movement and the socialist project.

We hereby invite you, or your organisation to send shop-stewards, organisers and rank-and-file delegates to this event, which we have no doubt will prove to be both very informative and inspiring, giving us lots to consider as we set about building a revolutionary workers' movement for the 21st century.

Date: Saturday 6 March, 2010
Time: 13h00
Place: Funda Centre, Soweto
http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/

"Black Flame", Cape Town launch, Thursday 11 March, 5:30 for 6:00

2010-02-18T18:25:00.007+02:00

The Book Lounge presents the Cape Town launch of

BLACK FLAME: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism
Lucien van der Walt & Michael Schmidt

'Black Flame' examines the anti-authoritarian class politics of the anarchist/syndicalist movement, and its 150 years of popular struggle on 5 continents. An indispensable conceptual and historical road map, with close attention to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, looking at its:

·   Opposition to hierarchy, capitalism and the state
·   Strategy: building revolutionary counter-power
·   History: labour, community, anti-imperialism
·   Agenda: participatory, cooperative economics
·   Revolutions: Mexico, Spain, Ukraine, Korea
·   Revival: today’s struggles

This groundbreaking volume has been praised by reviewers as "deeply impressive", "fascinating, revealing and often startling", "a grand work of synthesis", "remarkable" "outstanding", "inspired" and "a welcome antidote to Eurocentric accounts".

THURSDAY 11 MARCH 2010 @ 5.30 for 6.00

The Book Lounge, 71 Roeland Street (corner of Buitenkant), Cape Town

ALL WELCOME!

With thanks to Leopard's Leap Wines.

Please RSVP to booklounge@gmail.com / 021 462 2425.

MORE INFO: http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/
LAUNCH POSTER:

New review, Sean Benjamin, in "Upping the Anti"

2010-02-09T12:11:00.000+02:00

A recent issue of Upping the Anti: A Journal of Theory and Action (no. 9, November 2009, Toronto, Canada: www.uppingtheanti.org) has a fine (and carefully considered) Black Flame review by Sean Benjamin. Its entitled "Fanning the Flames" (p. 159 onwards). Some quotes:

"... Schmidt and van der Walt avoid the 'great thinkers' approach to historical research instead focusing on excavating the histories of largely unknown individuals and movements in order to analyze various strategies and tactics among these groups. They devote less attention to individual thinkers and focus instead on anarchist ideas and the movements they informed ... "

"While most historical studies of anarchism have focused on Western Europe and North America, Black Flame counters this Eurocentric approach. As the authors explain, 'the broad anarchist tradition was an international movement that cannot be adequately understood through the focus on Western anarchism that typiﬁes most existing accounts' (8). Anarchist movements in Africa, East Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and (to a lesser extent) the Middle East are amply documented."

"In recent years, there has been an upsurge in class struggle anarchism, or social anarchism ... In these circumstances, there is a need for a clear and more forceful theoretical statement of principles, and Black Flame serves as an excellent opening statement of the relevance of class struggle anarchism in a twenty-ﬁrst century context. Whether or not one accepts all of the components of the authors’ analysis
of the broad anarchist tradition, this book is an impressive introduction to the history of anarchist theory and anarchist movements.

"It radically reframes the debate over anarchism and how it is perceived by both its advocates and the world at large, and successfully argues for anarchism’s relevance in contemporary struggles. Their forthcoming second volume, Global Fire: 150 Fighting Years of International Anarchism and Syndicalism, will focus on the history of the global anarchist movement to complement the theoretical focus of Black Flame. If the second volume is as good as the ﬁrst, they will stand together as a truly signiﬁcant contribution to both anarchist theory and history."

"Black Flame" Review, in German, Gabriel Kuhn for "Direkte Aktion"

2010-01-16T15:19:00.005+02:00

The January/ February 2010 issue of Direkte Aktion (no. 196) includes a review of Black Flame. Direkte Aktion is published by the German anarcho-syndicalist group, the Free Workers Union (Freien ArbeiterInnen-Union, FAU). The reviewer, Gabriel Kuhn, is editor of the forthcoming Gustav Landauer, Revolution and Other Writings: a political reader (PM Press, 2010).

Here are some translated quotes:
"With its more than 400 pages, Black Flame is a remarkable study of (social) anarchism's international history, and a reflection on key issues of organization, strategy, and tactics ...

"Considering the range and scope of the collected material, the book must count as a milestone, and it will without doubt claim its place in the canon of anarchist historiography. This is certainly well deserved. The book's international reach ... is exceptional and can only be compared to Max Nettlau's notes, with two main differences: van der Walt and Schmidt were able to collect much more material on Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and they had the time to work their data into an immaculately structured and highly readable narrative...

"In conclusion, the virtues of Black Flame are without question: it is an outstanding study, and highly recommended to all anarchists! Those who agree with the authors' definition of anarchism will rejoice. Those who don't will be challenged to assess their understanding of anarchism in relation to the syndicalist, anarcho-communist, and platformist traditions."

Another glowing review

2010-01-16T14:00:00.000+02:00

"... a corrective to the previous histories of anarchism by the likes of Peter Marshall and George Woodcock ... clearly written and well-presented and the arguments well put ... AK Press have done an excellent job with the book, there's enough illustrations to show the human face of anarchism and the international coverage is exemplary. The price should be within range of most libraries ... and even many comrades should be able to afford a copy ... I look forward to seeing the second volume!" - Richard Alexander, in Black Flag no. 230, 2009.

KDVS Interview with Lucien van der Walt, co-author of "Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism"

2010-01-11T13:49:00.002+02:00

Richard Estes and Ron Glick interviewed Lucien van der Walt, co-author of Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, on their show “Speaking In Tongues,” KDVS, 90.3 FM, University Of California, Davis. The interview took place on September 25, 2009.

The transcript (which I’ve edited slightly for clarity- Charles Wiegl) is below. If you’d like an audio recording of the interview, go here or here. For a higher quality recording of the entire show, go here.

And thanks to Richard and Ron, who have interviewed several AK authors and collective members on their show.

The interview is wide-ranging, covering issues like anarchism and trade unionism today, globalisation, immigration, race, and of course, Black Flame.

The full interview is here.

Black Flame launches in Mexico!

2009-11-20T19:16:00.002+02:00

Black Flame co-author Michael Schmidt held a mini-launch of the book at a colloquium with professors of journalism and international affairs at the Tecnológico de Monterrey in Guadalajara, Mexico, on October 26. Schmidt was invited to Mexico to train Tec students in covering conflict in transitional societies, especially given the drug war currently ravaging Mexican society. Extracts of his talk, "The Journalist as Activist", in which he located activist journalism within the Mexican anarchist tradition, follow: click here.

'Black Flame' event: Guadalajara, Mexico, 26 October 2009

2009-11-16T18:45:00.002+02:00

Co-author of Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, Michael Schmidt, recently spoke on the book in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Addressing a colloquium on "The Journalist as Activist" at the Tecnologico de Monterrey on Monday October 26, his address located the book within Mexico's 's traditions of social activism and linked it to Mexico's own anarchist journalist tradition exemplified by greats like Práxedis Guerrero, Juana Belém Gutiérrez de Mendoza, and Antonio Díaz Soto y Gama.

Black Flame was formally launched in South Africa on Wednesday 7 October 2009, the first in a series of events to promote this popular book.

More reviewers' praise for 'Black Flame'

2009-11-16T18:30:00.002+02:00

"... one of its distinctive contributions is its global scope. Further, the book's intellectual exploration goes deep, and, most importantly, the whole project is carried out with remarkable independence of thought ... their book is brilliant and thought-provoking. I think Black Flame is a valuable study for activists, students and academics alike. I am inspired by the independent thinking that Schmidt and van der Walt employed in carrying out this project. This is the proper way to pay homage to the anarchist history and anarchist tradition..." - Mandisi Majavu, Africa Project for Participatory Society, in ZNET.

"... an important contribution to labour radicalism and the potential for building global worker movements bottom up ... a great book!" - Immanuel Ness, coordinating editor, International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest.

'Black Flame' launch, Johannesburg, South Africa, 7 October 2009

2009-11-16T18:28:00.002+02:00

Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, was launched at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, on the 7th October 2009.

The event was held under the auspices of the Amandla! Forum, and was sponsored by the University's department of Sociology

It was a great success, with the venue soon jam-packed. It attracted academics and activists (and academic activists), and around 120 people present.

Click here for the launch poster.

Click here for a report on the event by a participant.

Still fanning the flames: An interview with 'Black Flame's' Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt

2009-11-16T18:26:00.002+02:00

AK Press writes:

"Dearest readers: We're absolutely thrilled to bring you this wonderful new interview with Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, the authors of AK's stunning new book Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. In recent months, we've posted excerpts from the book, and a roundup of recent reviews, but with today's post, we're able to bring you, for the first time, Michael and Lucien's own thoughts on the book, its genesis, and its usefulness in our current context. Read and enjoy!"

Click here.

Reviewers' praise for 'Black Flame'

2009-11-16T18:08:00.002+02:00

What people say:

Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, has scored good reviews from academics and activists (and academic activists) alike:

* "A book with a deeply impressive quality of research, analysis and writing, this very important and much-needed work is an unexpected delight and an excellent piece of work". - Mark Leier, Simon Fraser University, author of Bakunin: the creative passion

* "... one of its distinctive contributions is its global scope. Further, the book's intellectual exploration goes deep, and, "An enjoyable read, from which I have learnt a great deal - fascinating, revealing and often startling. Thanks to both and each of you". - Alan Lipman, anti-apartheid activist and exile, winner of South African Institute of Architecture's 'Award for Excellence' for the Workers Library and Museum (Johannesburg), author of On the Outside Looking In: colliding with apartheid and other authorities

* "A useful and insightful treatment of one of the most fascinating alternatives to industrial capitalism and the modern nation state. At the heart of their scholarship is an effort to provide clarity to a much maligned and misunderstood movement and also to examine it as a social history of ideas that percolated from below as well as directed from above by intellectual giants. The authors are careful to present their analysis in a jargon-free language. Readers will be introduced to influential historical actors from across the globe. A grand work of synthesis. An excellent starting point". - Greg Hall, Western Illinois University, author of Harvest Wobblies: The Industrial Workers of the World and Agricultural Laborers in the American West, 1905-1930, in WorkingUSA

* "Brilliant, a really wonderful book and an outstanding contribution to anarchist theory and history. What does Black Flame get right? Well, almost everything! It is comprehensive, discussing all important issues, people and movements, and the authors do a great job in discussing the ins and outs of our movement and theory, using history to illuminate the ideas and show how they were applied in practice. Do yourself a favour and buy it now! You won't be disappointed".- Iain McKay, author of The Anarchist FAQ, volume 1

* "This highly worthwhile book represents the fruit of considerable scholarship and deep reflection. The authors have done a remarkable job in drawing together a vast international body of literature, showing convincingly that anarchism and syndicalism were far more significant political forces than historians have generally given them credit for, and providing excellent accounts of the movement's global political reach. Van der Walt and Schmidt also make a powerful and lucidly written case for anarchism as a serious and coherent political philosophy".- Jonathan Hyslop, University of the Witwatersrand, author of The Notorious Syndicalist : JT Bain, a Scottish rebel in colonial South Africa

* "Black Flame is an outstanding contribution to a modern anarchist perspective. Its view is focused on the working class but also supportive of every struggle against oppression. Besides covering the major controversies within historical anarchism in a fair way, it is particularly unique in examining anarchism from a worldwide perspective instead of looking at it only from a west European angle. I learned a good deal from reading it, and think others will also".- Wayne Price, author of The Abolition of the State: anarchist and Marxist perspectives

* "This book fulfils a daunting task. Covering anarchism in all parts of the world and emphatically tying it to class struggle, the authors present a highly original and challenging account of the movement, its actions and ideas. This work is a must for everybody interested in nonauthoritarian social movements".- Bert Altena, Rotterdam University, author of Piet Honig, Herinneringen van een Rotterdamse revolutionair

* "A well-thought out and nuanced study of the intellectual, political, and social history of anarchism".- Steven J. Hirsch, University of Pittsburgh, contributing editor, Handbook of Latin American Studies

* "The first in a two-volume mega-work called Counterpower ... the authors ... use their conceptual rubric to demonstrate conclusively the coherent international character of the Anarchist movement, a welcome antidote to Eurocentric accounts of the movement and its history. We can't wait for volume 2!" - Red Emma's Bookstore Coffee House, Baltimore

Basic description and chapter outline of 'Black Flame'

2009-11-16T17:29:00.002+02:00

Edition:pb
ISBN:9781904859161
Publisher:AK Press
Release Date: 2009-02-12

Black Flame is the first of two volumes that re-examine anarchism's democratic class politics, its vision of a decentralized planned economy, and its impact on popular struggles in five continents over the last 150 years. From the ninenteenth century to today's anticapitalist movements, it traces anarchism's insights into questions of race, gender, class, and imperialism, significantly reframing the work of previous historians on the subject, and critiquing Marxist approaches to these same questions.

Here is a list of chapters:
*****
Table of Contents
Preface, by Stuart Christie
Acknowledgments

Chapter 1 Introduction
Our Project
Beyond Capitalism: History, Neoliberalism, and Globalisation
Rethinking the Broad Anarchist Tradition
Social Base and Global Reach
What Is the Broad Anarchist Tradition?
Insurrectionist Anarchism, Mass Anarchism, and Syndicalism
Organisational Dualism
War, Gender Issues, and Anti-Imperialism
Anarchism and Marxism
Before We Start

Part 1 Theory and Analysis
Chapter 2 Socialism from Below: DefiningAnarchism
The Meaning of Anarchism: Debating the Literature
The Need for a New Approach
Starting Again: Socialism, Bakunin, and the First International
Against Hierarchy
Against Capitalism and Landlordism
Against the State
The Rejection of State Socialism
Elements of the Social Revolution
The Popular Classes
Internationalism, Social Equality, and Anti-imperialism
Counterpower and Counterculture
For a New World
Crime and Social Order
Anarchism Redefined: Socialism, Class, and Democracy
In Conclusion: The Modernity of Anarchism

Chapter 3 Proudhon, Marx, and Anarchist Social Analysis
Cooperatives, Proudhon, and Peaceful Change
A Critical Appropriation of Marxist Economics
Marxist Economics and Anarchist Communism
History, Progress, and the State
The Vanguard and the State
State Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism
Economic Determinism and the Broad Anarchist Tradition
The Anarchist Understanding of Class
In Conclusion: Toward an Anarchist Social Analysis

Part 2 Strategy and Tactics
Chapter 4 Roads to Revolution: Mass Anarchism versus Insurrectionist Anarchism
Anarchist Communism versus Anarcho-syndicalism?
The Insurrectionist Tradition
Mass Anarchism, Possibilism, and Syndicalism
Syndicalism: Prefiguring the Future in the Present
Against Economism: Direct Action versus “Political Action”
Anarcho-syndicalism, Revolutionary Syndicalism, and
De Leonism
In Conclusion: Building Tomorrow Today

Chapter 5 Anarchism, Syndicalism, the IWW, and Labour
Bakunin, Sorel, and the Origins of Syndicalism
The First International and the First Syndicalists
The First Wave: Syndicalism before the French CGT
The IWW and Syndicalism
De Leon and Connolly
The “Glorious Period” of the mid-1890s to mid-1920s
In Conclusion: Syndicalism and the Broad Anarchist Tradition
Chapter 6 Ideas, Structure, and Armed Action: Unions, Politics, and the Revolution
Union Activism, Anarchist Ideology, and Union Bureaucracy
Mass Anarchism, Radical Counterculture, and Syndicalism
Anarchist Schools and Syndicalist Education
Democracy and Direct Action
An Iron Law of Oligarchy?
Alliances and the Struggle outside the Workplace
Defending the Revolution
The Question of Power and the Spanish Revolution
In Conclusion: Anarchism, Syndicalism, and Counterpower

Chapter 7 Dual Unionism, Reforms, and Other Tactical Debates
The Antimilitarist Tradition and Popular Revolt
Reforms, Laws, and Compromises
Boring from Within and Dual Unionism
Tactics in Context and Organisational Dualism
Syndicalism and Rank-and-file Movements
In Conclusion: Reform and Revolution

Chapter 8 Militant Minority: The Question of Anarchist Political Organisation
Insurrectionist Anarchists, Antiorganisationalism, and Stirner’s
Ghost
Syndicalism and Anarchism without Adjectives
Bakuninism, the Organisation of Tendency, and the “Platform”
From Bakunin to the “Platform”
Rethinking the “Platform” Debate
Other Responses to the “Platform”
In Conclusion: Militant Minority and Mass Movement

Part 3 Social Themes
Chapter 9 The Class Character and Popular Impact of the Broad Anarchist Tradition
The Case against “Spanish Exceptionalism”
Broader Impacts and Infusions
The Class Character of the Broad Anarchist Tradition
The Broad Anarchist Tradition in the Countryside
Behind the Rise of Peasant Anarchism
In Conclusion: Labour Movements and Peasant Revolts

Chapter 10 Anarchist Internationalism and Race, Imperialism, and Gender
Anarchist Class Politics and Race
An International and Internationalist Movement
Imperialism and National Liberation
Anarchists and Syndicalists in Anti-imperialist Struggles
Anarchism, Syndicalism, and Women’s Emancipation
Women, Class, and Counterculture
Anarchist and Syndicalist Woen’s Activism
In Conclusion: Class Politics and Human Emancipation

Chapter 11 Conclusion to Volume 1 and Prologue to Volume 2

Bibliography
Index

An excerpt from 'Black Flame': 'Our Project'

2009-11-16T17:00:00.001+02:00

AK PRESS writes:

'Below we offer a brief snippet from the introduction of Black Flame, in which the authors outline the contours of their important, and exhaustive, project.'

Click here.

'And, following that, you can check out the book’s table of contents.'

Click here.