Your book, like Elizabeth Hinton’s “America on Fire,” delves into a decades-long cycle that’s played out in many US cities: Police violence, followed by uprisings, followed by promises for reform and blue ribbon commissions that ultimately produce only “modest change and a photo op.” Did you come out of your reporting with a solid idea of what a better process would look like?
Ellis: I don’t know how you can look at Minneapolis today and say they are better for choosing reform over revolution. The mayor reorganized the public safety department, then there was turnover in the leadership there. The chief who was supposed to lead the transformation of the police force recently resigned in disgrace. Like most police departments in the country, the budget continues to balloon thanks to overtime costs. And at the moment the city is failing to even meet the basics of its court-mandated reforms. By definition this is insanity, right?
I think like anything in local government, having a process for the community to guide designs and offer feedback is important. But I think the starting point has to be a total tear down, not a rebuild. That sounds simplistic, but look at where making changes on the edges has gotten us? Revised training standards and use of force policies have amounted to departments that are effectively the same. The aim needs to be so much higher.
If authoritarian Marxist-Leninists are helming a revolution, history has shown it results in disaster every time, as they never dismantle centralized power or hierarchies.
History also shows us that Anarchist revolutions, such as when Spanish Anarchists chose revolution in 1936, it can result in one of the most promising egalitarian and non-authoritarian societies in the last century.
Name one revolution that actually ended happily and positively?
The one where we ended up with slaves? Remember the English ended slavery in 1772, interesting timing
The one where they went on a killing spree? Then RETURNED to monarchy?
How about the one that resulted in a tons of death from drastic economic change?
How about the ones that resulted in theocracy, financial and economic ruin? Ecological disaster?
Revolutions make space for reform sure but we can do better. Education and safety is always going to lend itself to change better than anything.
The issue is that virtually every previous revolution did not have the goal of completely eliminating power hierarchies, they instead generally just shift who is in control of those hierarchies.
There have only been two large scale Anarchist revolutions with those goals in mind (the Ukrainian revolution during the Russian Civil War, and the Anarchist revolution during the Spanish Civil War), and both appeared to be having excellent results until an outside force violently stopped them.
The distinction between those two different types of revolution is an important one.
Because when you think about it, you can’t.
If you have a revolution, you’re forming a hierarchy to replace another. The concept of anarchism even in its smallest form is unrealistic.
Those revolutions were winning the fight but once the dust settled it would not have continued, anarchy is a lot like a shadow it can really only exist if there is an -archy to be the an- of. You know?
During both conflicts the anarchists had to from a hierarchy to function to some degree and had they won, they would’ve had to form a bigger one to run a nation
An Anarchist revolution explicitly has no hierarchies, there is no replacement hierarchy.
The anarchist collective in Catalonia compromised over 3.5 million people, and how the people operated within it without hierarchies was well documented in Sam Dolgoff’s book from 1974, The Anarchist Collectives Workers’ Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936–1939, along with Gaston Leval’s 1975 Collectives in the Spanish revolution, if you’d like to investigate the specifics, such as how they organized transportation, universal healthcare, food production, etc.
Even the Anarchist militias had no top-down hierarchy, they instead adopted a bottom-up fighting force, where a squad of volunteers would elect their squad leader (with the ability for them to immediately recall the elected leader outside of battle if they weren’t performing to the satisfaction of the squad). All the squad leaders then elected a commander above them with the same recall ability, and so on up to the general. This is totally unlike any military structure in any centralized state military.
Without trying to offend, this statement shows a clear lack of knowledge on Anarchist political theory. It is a well fleshed out idea that has all of the traits needed for long-term stability. In fact, were Anarchism adopted on a wide scale, it would be very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle, as most people in the world (except the rich or powerful hungry elites) would vastly prefer it over any other societal system tried before.
How do you convince a person who now has access to universal basic housing, food, healthcare, and transportation (where people only need to volunteer about 3 months out of the year to keep those basic needs met for everyone), to instead go back to a system where most give up most of their waking hours to working a job for the benefit of shareholders and CEOs, where most are poor and live at the whims of the rich and powerful, and where whether you potentially live or die is at the whim of Insurance companies, landlords, your boss, etc?
It literally does have hierarchies though that was a controversial thing among them during the time, they realized just by forming goals a hierarchy would form around how to accomplish the goal. Even if the way you organize is bottom to top, that is a hierarchy which leads some anarchists to break away and form their own anarchist factions which give way to the same problem over and over. You just are choosing not to see it as such, the majority holds the power over their superior officers, that is a form of order. It’s not that big of a deal I’m not saying anarchy isn’t real but this is common in anarchist spaces. Any form of organization of any sort, is genuinely forming a hierarchy and stops being anarchism. Anarchists start to suffer from the “no true scotsman” thing.
You realize this is a bit of a contraction? A well fleshed out idea does not equal long term stability unless it does in fact create long term stability. Maybe in theory but as time went on anarchists took positions that placed them above others; police captains, government positions, even if it was just social where one anarchist was seen as smarter than another that is forming a social hierarchy. Saying it is a well fleshed out idea with long term stability is like me saying my well thought out d&d campaign is going to be completed solely because it is well thought out, it’s neglecting the reality that other’s autonomy actually can directly lend to its downfall. Hell even forming a plan is even slight steps away from anarchy, which they understood and constantly debated over.
You genuinely cannot have anarchy, it is only in the face of a differing usually opposing hierarchy can you engage in being an anarchist and practice anarchy.
This is why many anarchists started embracing socialist tendencies, because their anarchist goals ended up forming socialist systems. You can totally form systems with the mindset of reducing a hierarchies power and aiming for anarchist goals but again, it soon becomes not anarchy once the system is formed.
Convincing a person isn’t really relevant to what I’m saying. My whole point is revolutions always start off strong and once the need to handle a system appears, it’s not seamless typically kinda dangerous and often extremely prone to issues because being well thought out is only just that, it doesn’t suddenly become functional and reliable. When the founding fathers formed America after their revolution this was understood and they tried to make a system that was flexible so as their system formed they could adjust as needed. When the anarchists began accruing power, you see plenty of them fall back into a system hierarchy because that’s really just how organization works especially when you’re talking about millions of people, then they understand they’re drifting from anarchy and they shatter into smaller and smaller groups while the more effective ones with a hierarchy will full steam ahead accomplish their goals and leave the rest in the dust.
I remember learning about this in school, a big reason why the anarchists lost is because they started to collapse from infighting and feeling conflicted about what it meant to be an anarchist and what was required to run a system.
Spanish anarchists specifically really relied on the concepts of situational leadership which directly contributed to their defeat and fascist and communist groups were able to make decisions while anarchist groups were stuck in a crisis of decision making. Power vacuums are inevitable and will always lead to the direct downfall of anarchist movements once they acquire a degree of power. People will say superior outside fascist forces or communist forces but the reverse to that is inferior, slow moving anarchist forces that failed at the one thing that wins wars and battles – logistics. It’s much easier to unite anarchists when they share a common threat.
At the end of the day anarchy in all forms in all goals is directly made to destroy a state or hierarchy and abolish a power structure. Once they do, a power vacuum forms and whichever in-group holds the most power or can organize the fastest will overtake the general anarchist movement and no longer be anarchist. Anarchy is like an ouroborous by nature.
I’m sorry, but to suggest that the most egalitarian way to fight fascists was the cause for Anarchists leaving is… A bit absurd. What source informed you this was common?
Again, this is showing a severe lack of knowledge of what Anarchism is. Where did you come across those ideas?
Anarchists embraced socialism/communism from the very beginning. That has been their goal for over a hundred years. I’d advise reading about Mikhail Bakunin and the First International.
Could you provide the sources for that? I have not come across any source that says the Anarchist militias were slow to respond or ineffective with the meager supplies they had, where did you learn this?
In Ukraine, they were crushed not due to a power vacuum, but because their allies the Bolsheviks betrayed them completely and utterly after the White Army was on the run. This was an unprecedented event in history, it was not generally expected at that time that the Communists would become violent toward people who shared supposedly similar goals. It was not due to a power vacuum, there was no threat that emerged from the already Anarchist controlled areas.
The same in Spain, they were not destroyed from within, but from ML’s betraying them sooner than expected, and ultimately by overwhelming logistical firepower from Fascists.
If we were to follow your own logic; the reason France, Poland, and all the other nations that fell to the Nazi’s in WWII must’ve mainly been due to them being capitalist liberal democracies (when in reality, it was mainly due to modern military strategies by Germany combined with their logistical ability).
Look I learned this in school I don’t run around collecting sources for what is essentially a blip in human history. I understand what you’re saying but in general this is the huge flaw in not just anarchist movements but liberal movements entirely, purity tests.
I think my favorite description heard of it is the concept of a circular firing squad. Once an individual or faction starts making moves others don’t consider anarchist/libertarian/liberal enough they begin infighting and fracturing. And once that cooperation stutters even a little the machine starts to struggle.
Yes to a degree. It’s long been argued that fascism’s greatest strength is the speed at which decisions can be made, they will rip through everything to put their man in charge. The Nazis military structure literally leans into this and relied heavily on Nazi high command to orchestra its movements. They had an over-centralization, which directly led to them losing some fights. On the flip side of that anarchist movements have a lack of centralization that can often paralyze decision making in a crisis. Democracies tend to be in between with decentralized representation in the form of elections and some degree of centralization with their military structures. But democracies also had the unfortunate benefit of being well-established. Obviously this is a super watered down version but you want a like 60 page essay on an analysis of centralized vs decentralized command structures I’m sure people have already written about this.
It did take me a bit to find but I think “the CNT in the Spanish revolution” by Jose Peirats was one I’ve seen countlessly cited. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jose-peirats-the-cnt-in-the-spanish-revolution-volume-1#toc14
It’s pretty fucking exhausting to read but it basically just outlines the consistent battle between how local groups fought against larger regional influence and often at times just neglected calls for higher degrees of organization in favor of their own autonomy. If I had to sum it up it’s just showing repeatedly how often they had to form an assembly that resulted in representatives asking for people to come together time and time again, often without a degree of success that was needed for victory. And sometimes lending itself to further infighting cause once they start doing or saying things people didn’t agree with, their hype and motivation wanes which kills collectivism.
I’m also pretty sure Orwell has written about this detailing the lack of supplies that are tied directly to a failure of logistics although I’m not sure he touches upon that exactly, I think he just talks about their lack of supplies and the situation they found themselves in.
It’s very easy to try and paint it that they were simply overpowered which is true but part of them being overpowered was their own weakness to establish a central command necessary for wartime decision making. They also refused outside help in fear it would kneecap their revolution. Logistics wins wars that’s history 101, anarchism does not lend well to large scale logistics.
The Anarchists lost to the pro-Nazis government, idk why everyone tries to use that as an example. Really depressing to think about.
There are really only two large scale examples of revolution ending in a democracy: France and USA.
In the case of the USA it led to a lot of genocide of natives but you could argue the crown would have eventually done the same.
The way I see it is if reform is an option: take it. If reform is not an option then, and only then, will violent revolution have a chance at resulting in a better or equal system.
“Two guys beat up one guy, how could the one guy’s ideas make any sense at all?”
But that’s such a dumbed down misunderstanding.
The one guy fell apart because he couldn’t make decisions and fell to decision paralysis. While the other two were faster decision makers.
It’s not like the two guys liked each other, their goals conflicted too. The anarchists were just the far easier target because they failed at what it takes to win warss. Logistics. Which requires decision making from a hierarchy of some kind.
Anarchy has unstable leadership. Have you ever been part of a group with unstable leadership facing a group with stronger, more stable leadership? Sports is the easiest example for this I can think of, a strong coach is literally central to an effective sports team. A strong central power is essential to an effective government. You need decision makers who aren’t subject to playing musical chairs all the time.
Okay buddy
There’s a really fantastic 6-part documentary that goes over the conflict in great detail, but to give the short version:
It failed for a multitude of reasons, but when I did my own deep dive on this, Anarchism itself wasn’t one of those reasons. I found that the specific time it took place, as well as the previous industrial capacity of Spain itself, were likely two of the biggest contributors.
The civil war occurred during a period when there were powerful states on the world stage, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, who were ready and willing to supply needed logistics and manpower to other right-wing states. It also happened when both of those states were not yet embroiled in their own world war, giving them the opportunity to send more resources and aid than they would’ve have been able to justify a handful of years later.
On the other hand, the Anarchists (and Liberals) of Spain had no allies on the world stage willing to help them besides some meager aid from Mexico (who lacked the ability to send airplanes or tanks), and a few secret shipments of aid from France. The USSR ended up sending the most weaponry, but only to the Marxist-Leninist faction so they could control the country if they won, and those same marxist leninists targeted the Anarchists towards the end of the war in an effort to shore up their power.
Spain simply hadn’t developed enough military industrial capacity before the war to avoid being so reliant on foreign logistics. As General Pershing supposedly once said, “Infantry win battles, logistics win wars.” That’s ultimately why the allies were able to defeat the Axis in WWII as well, since the combined industrial and logistical capacity of the allies (especially with the introduction of the US’s industrial capacity), simply become overwhelming.
Any system or ideology in the same circumstances as the Anarchists in Spain is not going to have good odds of succeeding.
The point of people such as myself using it as an example is that it proved out that society organized around Anarchist concepts does work, and it doesn’t result in authoritarianism like revolutions from other ideologies tend to.
And if there is a civil war in the USA between anarchists and fascists, I expect that the fascists will be better funded.
A straight up confrontation like Spain was able to do would indeed be impossible without part of the military fracturing and joining the resistance.
A more feasible scenario would probably look like the Irish Troubles.
Even then, the agreement has led to a dysfunctional devolved government and conditions of the agreement which are in jeopardy due to Brexit.
To be clear, I don’t think a troubles like civil war would be a good outcome, but if that’s the only tool left in the shed, I could see some people going that route in the hopes that it avoids the US turning into an oligarchic mafia state like Russia.
Ideally we can avoid that outcome by mass civil disobedience, unions banding together in a general strike, and grassroots communities building up an alternative system via prefiguration.
I understand you’re talking through the process, which is what I’m asking about.
I look at it as, if it gets to that point, there is a significant amount of risk that the right team will win and then there is a significant amount of risk that the right team will actually do what they are saying. It then gets into what other actions are out there which are viable and which other actions are easier to implement.
I feel like people forget there was a lot of violence and bloodshed over civil rights and that was political action through non-violent means. There also becomes the issue where a political movement has to implement the policies they are supporting; policies requiring greater government involvement require better administrators than what is currently out there and there will be tradeoffs.
And there will be conflict, but it is a lot easier to win a conflict with an army of voters than to try to muster an actual army.
Voting only works if both parties are willing to accept an outcome of a vote. There’s usually a tipping point where a group angling for dictatorship through violent means is not going to care about whatever the outcome of a vote is once they feel they have enough ability to force any opposing group to submit through violence.
Going back to the Spanish Civil War, the conflict kicked off because the fascists attempted a military coup, as they did not like the outcome of the votes. The options left to the non-fascist factions were to either peacefully accept the new non-democratic military dictatorship, or violently oppose it.
Hitler and Mussolini both had to play the political game only up until the point they had enough military might that was both loyal and willing to follow orders (Blackshirts and Brownshirts), enabling them to threaten or kill any faction that opposed them in their respective parliaments. At that point a populace voting no longer has any effect.
We are currently witnessing the US right-wing attempting as best they can any method available to achieve that loyal military might, mostly through ICE currently, but also trying as best they can to convert the US Military and three letter agencies to become loyal arms of the regime by replacing their leaders with loyalists.
Hopefully they will fail to suppress the midterms simply due to the sheer scale of the country and the still inadequately sized ICE to cover it, but should they succeed, it is likely the tipping point will be reached, and voting beyond that point will have no meaningful effect toward slowing or preventing a dictatorship, leaving only unions, individual states resisting, etc. If the dictatorship then increases violence to try to crush those forms of resistance, and unions submit, disobedience dissolves, states cease fighting, that that would leave essentially a troubles situation along with less overt everyday resistance (slowdowns, trying to make the machine less efficient, etc).