His theory is that these enlightened folks will then guide the rest of us to his socialist utopia, by virtue of their thorough understanding of how capitalism works, and how socialism works.
Marx vigorously promoted this idea, giving Bakunin and the proto-anarchists the boot from the International to "clear the air, ideologically". This Marxist model became the operating paradigm for socialist revolution. Clearly, Marx sought unity of doctrine in the International -- namely, HIS doctrine. So, Bakunin and the "internationalists" (the proto-anarchists) got the bum's rush from the International.
Having achieved the needed "unity of theory" needed for action, Marx and his cronies went about their merry way, promoting their theory of what came to be known as authoritarian socialism. Let's look at the track record of the biggest, most successful Marxist revolutions, the ones everyone knows about, shall we?
In other words, to me, the Marxist model is about the worst one you could possibly have, if a freer society is your goal!
Marxist revolutionary practice invariably kills socialism and creates a new ruling class in the form of the Party vanguard itself, who use the power of the State to hold the rest of society in thrall. It amounts to state capitalism reborn in a newer form.
Now, what this says to me is that we should throw out the Marxist method of promoting revolution, because it doesn't work! Yes, it changes the politics of the society, but certainly doesn't bring about socialism, or a classless, freer society, which is the whole impetus for revolution in the first place.
What the Marxist model is good at doing is building a revolutionary vanguard, a Party, and then seizing power, and then purging and killing lots of people and destroying socialism in practice. That's the end result of every Marxist revolution.
As such, what anarchists today need to think about is their role in the whole process of social revolution. The Marxist view remains out there, toxic as ever, in which Anarchists become a revolutionary vanguard, leading the way to the future, if only in roundabout ways. They become authorities -- the novelty is you just don't call them authorities.
But I have a big problem with that premise, because it assumes that the masses somehow need anarchists to properly frame the world for them and provide this vanguardist leadership. That somehow everyone just wasn't aware that bosses suck, or that capitalism gives them the shaft, or that the world is awash in militarism -- that we need a vanguard to show us the light -- to enlighten us.
The vanguardist argument is that "well, if people wanted revolution, we'd have it already." But that's a dodge, because it mistakes people's reluctance to adopt a Marxist model of revolution for a reactionary rejection of revolution itself. They mistake this reluctance for support for the capitalist system itself.
Moreover, this view depends on a negative view of people -- that they're just too stupid, lazy, or crazy to do things without someone guiding them. That's an authoritarian view -- holding that "the masses are asses."
The "leadership of ideas" is supposed to be this benign idea of anarchists coming to lead revolutions by virtue of the quality of their ideas -- a "natural influence" that simply comes about by their enlightenment.
In theory, this leadership is supposed to be different from de facto leadership in the style of party organizations or state control. But what I see, instead, is a strong potential for a "cult of personality" to come about. It's no accident that Nestor Makhno's followers called themselves "Makhnovists" and that Luigi Galleani's followers called themselves "Galleanists" -- this leadership of ideas premise yields results similar to that of the Marxist model, and I see no reason to expect the end result wouldn't be the same.
For example, the Galleanists went on a bombing campaign around 1919, the intentions of which was to somehow arouse the working people to revolt against the society. What their campaign did was give the State the excuse to launch a crackdown (Red Scare) and smash the anarchist movement in the US. The working class recoiled in revulsion at the indiscriminate bombing tactics of the Galleanists. These committed revolutionary vanguardists had completely misread the working class, who didn't understand the value of bombings, apparently. The irony is that the Galleanists only killed working people in their spree -- yes, they targeted rich folks like J.P. Morgan and others, but the people who paid the price were everyday working folks. The Galleanists didn't succeed in bombing any of their ruling class targets -- they did, however, kill a number of working people.
Back to vanguardism. The justification for this informal leadership is that it will occur regardless, based on the superior ability of some people within the movement (usually the ones who articulate the premise in the first place!) Now, whether this is the case or not, would-be anarchists would be wise to ensure that no institutional or organizational structure cements this "leadership of ideas" into something more permanent.
This isn't an easy process at all, because some people do have good ideas -- and some people are charismatic, and can bring others in line with their attitudes, based on force of personality or innovative ideas.
The way out of this potential trap -- the trap of resurgent authoritarianism or cult of personality -- is to ensure that there are no institutional forms of power.
If "natural influence" is the only acceptable influence in anarchism, then it's clear that this influence is not natural if it's based on a finely-honed organization -- that is, if Anarchist X has a cadre of followers in his/her organization, then this person's influence is based on their organization, which they have built up around themselves.
It would take a person of incredible self-control to resist the temptation to put this organization to use however they saw fit -- and what's worse, since such neo-bolshevik organizations depend on obedience and doctrinal unity (e.g., passivity among rank-and-file) there's really nothing to prevent this process from occurring! You end up hoping the honcho at the head of Organization Y doesn't abuse their power.
An effective anarchist organization is a good thing -- however, it must be an anarchist organization, rather than the vehicle for Anarchist X -- a would-be Great Leader all-too-eager to adopt the mantle of leadership within the movement as a whole. What I say again and again is that what matter is anarchism, not anarchists -- we are incidental to the larger process -- realizing social revolution.
The "Cult of Chomsky" endemic in the left is an example of this Great Leader type of impulse, although it's occurred against his wishes. I've read a lot of Chomsky's books, and consider his Propaganda Model very useful in analyzing the media. But I don't automatically put my brain on hold when Chomsky says something -- I'm not a Chomskyite -- I'm an anarchist.
Many people look at anarchist celebrities as carrying more weight -- like Chomsky, Bookchin, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, and others -- they sort of become followers of these people, rather than pure anarchists. This is a dangerous impulse, and is ultimately Marxist in nature. It's a "disease of the Left" -- leftists are notorious for rallying around their Great Leaders and adopting their name as a show of what they're all about. No anarchist should be a follower -- we are all fellow travellers, rather than leaders and followers.
To assume otherwise is to hold dear to the unspoken Marxist credo that "the masses are asses" -- that they can't do things on their own because either they're not well-versed in Marxist theory to understand who their real enemies are, or because they're too bourgeois in nature to even want to revolt. The problem is that the vanguardist point of view depends on a resoundingly negative view of the rank-and-file, seeing yourself as superior to them, and of course them inferior to you -- this is an authoritarian premise, and will undermine any effort at social revolution.
No vanguardist will agree to this characterization, of course -- in fact, they'll get very mad at me for even bringing it up, for daring to question their noble motives and lofty ideals. And this is what every authoritarian since time immemorial has done. They get pissed when you question them and then seek to purge you as an infidel once they have the power to do so. Again, this is just what Marx did with Bakunin, long ago.
To assume working people need a revolutionary vanguard to get them up and running is to assume they're too stupid/bourgeois/lazy/crazy/evil to do it themselves. It means to put yourself up on a pedestal and deliver words of wisdom from on high.
Now, because everyday people reject such blowhards, the strategy of the would-be vanguardist then revolves around creating a core apparatus -- a vehicle or power base upon which to make themselves revelant to working people. This is the goal behind vanguardist organizing, libertarian rhetoric notwithstanding. The focus is to continue to add converts to the organization, so so grow in size so that eventually, they'll be able to take over power.
This is what vanguardists have done in practice time and again. I find it incredible that an anarchist would even consider such a methodology, given its poor track record and proven inability to bring about a social revolution, versus a political switching of bosses.
Marxist apologists hem and haw about that, but the truth is that the organizations they created made things like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin inevitable, rather than aberrations. Marx saw working people as bystanders -- just this lumpen mass to be molded by the superior minds of the vanguardist revolutionaries.
Anarchists who seek to revive this outdated and ineffective model doom themselves to political irrelevance (thankfully) or become other than what they say they are.
Rather than an absence of good intentions, what working people lack is an organizational framework to express the good intentions they have. These good intentions are what some vanguardists call "the revolutionary instinct."
It isn't for the anarchist to guide or lead working people in any way -- rather, we get the information on how to organize out there, so that a genuine bottom-up, periphery-to-center organizing can occur. Leaderless resistance depends on this kind of decentralized, mass-based organizing. Anything else will yield a new authority and the betrayal of the original idea.
It is also a tactic that the revolutionary left have never undertaken, because they've always proceeded from the Marxist model, which takes everyday workers out of the equation -- they're "not ready" for anything, but need our guidance, instead.
What working people need isn't guidance, indoctrination, or control -- what they need is an understanding that they're not alone in this capitalist cesspool, and a practical outlet for their revolutionary instinct -- something which anarchists can provide, should they desire it.
The instinct is already there -- entirely independent of revolutionaries. It is a fundamental part of what makes us human. Bakunin characterized it well when he said the surest way to get someone to do something was to tell them not to do it!
Our role is merely to show how people can work toward their freedom in a popular manner -- the means and methods of libertarian organizing, rather than trying to indoctrinate them in our ways.
This has been my approach on my page for a long time; I've tried to put nuts and bolts information on it for the use of working people everywhere. The links to historical and theoretical information is mostly to show working folks what's been done before, so they can learn from others' successes and mistakes, rather than me assuming people need to know anarchist history before they can be "real" anarchists.
Ask yourself why you decided to drop by my page. Why take that first step and explore anarchism at all? Were you converted by someone, or did you simply explore on your own and find that others felt the way you did, and began delving deeper? This is the anarchistic way -- self-directed enlightenment, in other words. Not conversion or indoctrination.
Dave Neal
11/14/97