Submitted by Majrelende in Anarchism (edited )

But those two parties... the first of them well organised, the second dancing obediently to the tune of the cunning Lenin... managed to win over the revolutionary masses at the right moment: and luring them behind with the formula: ‘Power to the local Soviets of the Worker, Peasant and Soldier Deputies’, and complimenting them upon their slogan ‘The land to the peasants, the factory and workshop to the workers’, they stemmed the Revolution: then, with enormous amounts of paper and huge numbers of printing presses at their disposal, they flooded the towns and the countryside with their manifestoes, statements and programmes.

In the aforementioned coup d’état in Petrograd, Moscow and other industrial towns, anarchists played an exceptionally salient part, in the van of the sailors, soldiers and workers. But, for want of structures they were unable to bring to bear upon the country a revolutionary influence comparable with that of these two parties which had formed a political bloc under the direction of that same guileful Lenin and knew precisely what they had to set about above all else at that time, and the degree of strength and energy at their disposal.

Their voice made itself heard across the country at the key moment, loudly clamouring for the age-old dream of the mass of the toilers: the conquest of land, bread and liberty.

Meanwhile the anarchists, disorganised, were unable to discover a way of exposing the ideological falsehoods and impoverishment of those two parties, to the masses... parties which, in order to seize the reins of the revolution, had recourse to essentially anti-governmental slogans utterly at odds with their underlying principles.

I think a lot of people here would be more opposed to organisation, which is justified. Most organisations are cliquish, and carry a tone of superiority, as it is difficult not to. However, earlier in the book, Makhno mentions:

I wish with all my heart that those who go to the peasants without knowing them, but with a high opinion of themselves, might listen to the delivery of such reports, if ever any are submitted in the name of our anarchist groups. There is a lot for them to learn from them, and the echo which they draw from the masses of the people will afford them some grasp of the peasants’ mentality. Thus will they learn once and for all that the latter will never approach them for advice or permission a propos of anything to do with their own, independent and fruitful revolutionary action.

It is up to us to go to them and to strive to understand them.

Although I don't know where to find the report in question-- at times I find myself lost-- I think that this shows some of Makhno's attitude towards organisation, which, as an anarchist project, is not essentially about control, but rather guidance towards people's natural inclinations to freedom.

Today I was considering this. Organisations, (including most anarchist-approaching ones, I suppose) and governments, always appear demeaning and unpleasant to associate with because they deny us, the people, any trust. They want to control our minds, not side with us; they do not trust our nature, which is very understandable in a wholly unnatural society, but it isn't something we want to emulate. To guide back to nature, one does not explain or persuade; one only releases the ancient spirit of humanity from its thralldom.

Edit: I didn't mean to directly deny all organisation; this is where they generally go rancid, though.

Later on in the book, while looking for the second quote, I found this one:

When the will is there, one can always get through to the peasants: one need only settle among them and work honestly and tirelessly alongside them. When, out of ignorance, they attempt to establish something that may turn into an agency harmful to the development of a free society, it has to be explained to them and they have to be convinced that what they aim to do will be a heavy burden upon them and something else which, while meeting their needs, is at odds... with the anarchist ideal has to be proposed to them.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

nature anarchy..?

4

Majrelende OP wrote (edited )

Something I made up over the last week. I kind of called myself primitivist for a while, but feel like it is not quite right. Also, I don't like attaching myself to labels. Maybe I will change it next week to Mindless Exorcism of What is Throughout.

The name "primitivist" itself implies time is an element, to go to what is first; whereas for me, the presumed nature anarchist, time is just the turning of the sun and moon and stars. What is first or last anyways? Couldn't my stomach be first and my ear last? Or my nose first and my eyelid last? Why don't we say that, for instance, getting rid of Roe v. Wade came first in the history of civilisation, and Gilgamesh last?

I don't care what other people think, or what I think, about things anymore; I care more about not thinking, but listening, seeing what is and what is not, and rummaging beneath the surface of existence, making my mind the earth (not literally-- I still have a long time left until that), and following that. I might write something about the Mindless Exorcism of What is Throughout, if I have the patience.

Sorry if this came out odd. I am in a rambling-mind mood today.

8