Anarchism and the death of social democracy

That matters have reached this impasse would not surprise any self-respecting anarchist. Libertarian socialists had always argued that social democracy could not lead to socialism and that it would largely end up being class collaborationist, as it in fact has.

For example the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a significant early force in labour movement politics, had argued that Labor parliamentarians could not be trusted to serve the interests of the broader movement and would end up being more concerned with protecting their own power.

The most sophisticated version of this can be found in the work of Robert Michels. He had argued, during his anarcho-syndicalism phase, that an "iron law of oligarchy" would ensure that paid officials and elected parliamentarians would assume leadership of social democratic parties and that they would go on to fashion largely hierarchical and authoritarian power structures. If need be, these oligarchic leaders would be prepared to betray the interests of the broader working class movement in order to protect and enhance their power and privilege.

There can be no doubt that the leaders of the parliamentary Labor Party have abandoned the social contract in favour of pro corporate economic restructuring so that they may win elections in a corporate dominated society.

One reason for this is that the oligarchic power structure within the ALP relies upon maintaining client-patron networks, best maintained when in office. A core movement has been the gradual cementing of power within the ALP to a few hands at the top of the parliamentary wing, a process first begun by Gough Whitlam.

Mark Latham is the most well known exponent of this view in Australia today. It is not often realised that the key first chapter of his diary is largely on a par with the traditional anarchist critique of social democracy. As is his suggested remedy of voting informal and abandoning parliamentary politics for other means of political action.

It is important to add that the anarchist critique of Marxism has been somewhat similar. Anarchists had always argued that Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat," envisaged by Marx to hold sway during the transition to communism, would in fact lead to a "dictatorship over the proletariat." It was the seminal anarchist thinker, Mikhail Bakunin, who argued that Marxism, should it remain true to this concept, would lead to a tyranny that would "beat the people with the people's stick." Of course, Lenin and the Bolsheviks' conception of a revolutionary vanguard party that would monopolise the power of the state led precisely to such a tyranny.

Anarchism, by which I refer to anarcho-syndicalism, should be construed as the application of classical liberal principles to a complex and modern industrial society. When one examines the underlying reasons why classical liberal thinkers valued freedom it is possible to see that personal autonomy, personal fulfilment and the exercise of creativity through free labour were what individual freedom was supposed to foster and nurture.

An industrial society where work and economic concentrations are organised in a hierarchical and authoritarian manner from the top down, is not one in accord with the reasoning that underpins classical liberal thought. But notice that a system of workers self-management and industrial democracy, alongside a political order based on self-governance rather than a centralised state, most certainly is. Neoliberalism has little to do with liberalism; it's simply a doctrine justifying the extension of corporate power and profit.

Movements inspired, even if unconsciously, by anarchist thought are a significant social force. The Occupy Wall Street movements, that have brought to relief both massive inequalities and the essence of the state as the protector of private power (notice we praised the occupy Tiananmen Square movement but not something similar at home), with their affinity groups and self-governing assemblies are largely anarchist in their structure.

Moreover, it is estimated that 130 million Americans are members of self-managing economic firms and that 13 million Americans work in worker owned businesses. From such seeds, as Bakunin pointed out, new social and economic orders may emerge.

Is an anarchist society feasible? That is another topic.

What we can say is that the anarchist critique of social democracy and much of what we call Marxism is correct. Socialism is to be libertarian or it is not to be at all.