AnarWiki/markdown/As_We_Don't_See_It_(Pamphlet).md

**As We Don't See It** is a 1972 pamphlet written by [Chris
Pallis](Chris_Pallis "wikilink") and published in
[Solidarity](Solidarity_\(UK\) "wikilink"). It builds upon his previous
1967 pamphlet, [As We See It](As_We_See_It_\(Pamphlet\) "wikilink") and
responds to many of the confusions about his pamphlet, and doubles down
on a harsh criticism of [authoritarian
socialism](Authoritarian_Socialism "wikilink").

## Transcript

When, in 1967, we first published *As We See It* we felt it would be
both accurate and a fairly concise summary of our views. Alternatives
had been discussed and every possible effort had been made to avoid
ambiguities. We thought we had produced a fairly explicit text,
acceptance of which should be the basis of adherence to a *Solidarity*
group.

Over the years we have come to realize that we were wrong. There was
either something the matter with the document - or with some of those
who read it. Or perhaps there was something the matter with us - for
having thought the text was self-explanatory. Radicals repeatedly told
us that they agreed with every word of the statement ... and in the next
breath asked us why we were not doing faction work in the Labour Party,
or living in communes, or campaigning for the trade union "lefts", or
eulogizing the [Black Panthers](Black_Panther_Party "wikilink") or
Karume's anti-imperialist regime in Zanzibar, or participating in the
anti-Common-Market agitation. Some even asked why we were not advocating
the launching of a "real revolutionary, Leninist party".

We now feel it necessary to dot some i's and cross some t's. What
follows is an attempt to state explicitly thoughts that were only hinted
at, and to formulate in writing propositions that were only implied. *As
We Don't See It* would convey the general tenor of what follows. In an
attempt to avoid further ambiguity we will also discuss some matters
that were not dealt with in the original text.

1\. "Throughout the world" means exactly what it says. It does not mean
everywhere except Social-Democratic Sweden, Castro's Cuba, Tito's
Yugoslavia, Israel's [kibbutzim](kibbutzim "wikilink") or Sékou Touré's
Guinea. "Throughout the world" includes pre-Stalinist, Stalinist and
post-Stalinist Russia, Ben Bella's and Boumedienne's Algeria and the
People's Republics of Uzbekistan and North Vietnam. Everywhere also
includes Albania (and China).

Our comments about contemporary society apply to all these countries
just as much as to the USA or to Britain (under either
[Labour](Labour_Party_\(UK\) "wikilink") or Conservative governments).
When we talk of privileged minorities who "control the means of
production" and who "use the whole machinery of the state" to maintain
themselves in power we are making a universal critique to which, at the
moment, we can see no exceptions.

It *follows* that we don't regard any of these countries as socialist
and that we don't act as if we had lurking suspicions that they might be
something other than what they are: hierarchically-structured class
societies based on wage slavery and exploitation. Their identification
with socialism - even as deformed variants - is a slander against the
very concept of socialism (abortions, after all, share some of the
attributes of their parents). It is moreover a source of endless
mystification and confusion. It also follows from this basic assessment
that we do not support China against Russia, or Russia against China (or
alternatively the one and then other), that we do not carry NLF flags on
demonstrations (the enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our
friends), and that we refrain from joining sundry choruses demanding
more East-West trade, more Summit Conferences or more ping-pong
diplomacy.

In every country of the world the rulers oppress the ruled and persecute
genuine revolutionaries. In every country the main enemy of the people
is their own ruling class. This alone can provide the basis of genuine
internationalism of the oppressed.

2\. Socialism cannot be equated with the "coming of power of parties
claiming to represent the working class". Political power is a fraud if
working people do not take over and retain power *in production*. If
they achieve such power, the organs exerting it (Workers' Councils) will
take and implement all the necessary political decisions. *It follows*
that we don't advocate the formation of "better" or "more revolutionary
political parties whose objective would remain the "capture of state
power". The *Party's* power may grow out of the barrel of a gun. The
power of the *working class* grows out of its management of the economy
and of society as a whole.

Socialism cannot be equated with such measures as the "nationalization
of the means of production". These may help the rulers of various class
societies to rationalize *their* system of exploitation and solve *their
own* problems. We refuse to choose between options defined by our class
enemies. *It follows* that we don't urge nationalization (or anything
else for that matter) on governments of either "right" or "left".

Section 2 implies that modern capitalism *can* further develop the means
of production. At a cost, it can improve living standards. But neither
of these has any socialist content. Anyone who wants three square meals
a day and the prospect of endless employment can find them in any
well-run gaol. *It follows* that we don't denounce capitalism primarily
on the basis of its inadequacies in these fields. Socialism, for us, is
not about transistors for the prisoners. It is about the destruction of
the industrial prison itself. It is not only about more bread, but about
who runs the bakery.

The section finally emphasizes the multiple methods whereby the system
perpetuates itself. By mentioning *propaganda* as well as policemen,
*schools* as well as prisons, *traditional values* and *traditional
morality* as well as traditional methods of physical coercion, the
section stresses an important obstacle to the achievement of a free
society, namely the fact that the vast majority of the exploited and the
manipulated have internalized and largely accepted the system's norms
and values (for example such concepts as hierarchy, the division of
society into order-givers and order-takers, wage labour, and the
polarity of sexual roles) and consider them intrinsically rational.
Because of all this *it follows* that we reject as incomplete (and hence
inadequate) notions which attribute the perpetuation of the system
solely to police repression or to the "betrayals" of various political
or trade union leaders.

A crisis of values and an increased questioning of authority relations
are, however, developing features of contemporary society. The growth of
these crises is one of the preconditions for socialist revolution.
Socialism will only be possible when the majority of people understand
the need for social change, become aware of their ability to transform
society, decide to exert their collective power to this end, and know
with what they want to replace the present system. *It follows* that we
reject analyses (such as those of every variety of Leninist or
Trotskyist) who define the main crisis of modern society as "a crisis of
leadership". They are all generals in search of an army, for whom
recruitment figures are the main yardstick of success. For us
revolutionary change is a question of consciousness: the consciousness
that would make generals redundant.

3\. When we refer to the "traditional parties of the left" we don't only
have in mind the social-democratic and "communist" parties. Parties of
this type have administered, administer and will continue to administer
exploitative class societies. Under the title of "traditional parties of
the left" we also include the trad revs \[traditional revolutionaries\],
i.e. the various Leninist, Trotskyist and Maoid sects who are the
carriers of state capitalist ideology and the embryonic nuclei of
repressive, state-capitalist power.

These groups are prefigurations of alternative types of exploitation.
Their critiques of the social-democratic and "Stalinist" or
"revisionist" left appear virulent enough, but they never deal with
fundamentals (such as the structure of decision-making, the locus of
power, the primacy of the Party, the existence of hierarchy, the
maximization of surplus value, the perpetuation of wage labour, and
inequality). This is no accident and flows from the fact that they
themselves accept these fundamentals. Bourgeois ideology is far more
widespread than many revolutionaries believe and has in fact deeply
permeated their thinking. In this sense Marx's statement about "the
dominant ideas of each epoch being the ideas of its ruling class" is far
more true than Marx could ever have anticipated.

As far as authoritarian class society (and the libertarian-socialist
alternative) is concerned *the trad revs are part of the problem*, *not
part of the solution*. Those who subscribe to social-democratic or
Bolshevik ideology are themselves either victims of the prevailing
mystification (and attempts should be made to demystify them), or they
are the conscious exponents and future beneficiaries of a new form of
class rule (and should be ruthlessly exposed). In either case *it
follows* that there is nothing "sectarian" in systematically proclaiming
opposition to what they stand for. Not to do so would be tantamount to
suppressing our critique of half of the prevailing social order. It
would mean to participate in the general mystification of traditional
politics (where one thinks one thing and says another) and to deny the
very basis of our *independent* political existence.

4\. Because the traditional parties cannot be "reformed", "captured", or
converted into instruments of working class emancipation - and because
we are reluctant to indulge in double-talk and double-think - *it
follows* that we do not indulge in such activities as "critically
supporting" the Labour Party at election time, calling for "Labour to
Power" between elections, and generally participating in sowing
illusions, the better at a later date to "take people through the
experience" of seeing through them. The Labour and Communist Parties may
be marginally superior to the Conservative Party in driving private
capitalism along the road to state capitalism. The trad revs would
certainly prove superior to them both. But we are not called upon to
make any choice of the kind: it is not the role of revolutionaries to be
the midwives of new forms of exploitation. *It follows* that we would
rather fight for what we want (even if we don't immediately get it) than
fight for what we don't want ... and get it.

The trade union bureaucracy is an essential component of developing
state capitalist societies. The trade union leaders neither "betray" nor
"sell out" when they manipulate working class struggles and seek to use
them for their own ends. They are not "traitors" when they seek to
increase their material rewards or to lessen the frequency with which
they have to submit to election - they are acting logically and
according to their own interests, which just happen to be different from
those of working people. *It follows* that we do not urge people to
elect "better" leaders, to "democratize" the unions or to create new
ones, which under the circumstances of today would suffer exactly the
same fate as the old ones. All these are "non-issues" about which only
those who have failed to grasp the real root of the problem can get
worked up.

The real need is to concentrate on the *positive* task of building the
alternative (both in people's minds and in reality), namely *autonomous
job organizations*, linked to others in the same industry and elsewhere,
and controlled from below. Sooner or later such organizations will
either enter into conflict with the existing outfits claiming to
"represent" the working class (and it would be premature at this stage
to define the possible forms of this conflict), or they will bypass the
old organizations altogether.

5\. This section differentiates our concept of socialism from most of
those prevailing today. Socialism, for us, is not just a question of
economic reorganization from which other benefits will "inevitably"
follow, without *consciously* being fought for. It is a *total* vision
of a *completely* different society. Such a vision is linked to the
*total critique* of capitalism we have previously referred to.

Social-democrats and Bolsheviks denounce equality as "utopian",
"petty-bourgeois", or "anarchist". They dismiss the advocacy of freedom
as "abstract", and reciprocal recognition as "liberal humanism". They
will concede that the radical transformation of all social relations is
a valid ultimate objective, but cannot see it as an essential, immediate
ingredient of the very process of meaningful change.

When we talk of "man's positive self-consciousness" and of "his
understanding of his environment and of himself we mean the gradual
discarding of myths and of all types of false consciousness (religion,
nationalism, patriarchal attitudes, the belief in the rationality of
hierarchy, etc.). The precondition of human freedom is the understanding
of all that limits it. Positive self-consciousness implies the gradual
breakdown of that state of chronic schizophrenia in which - through
conditioning and other mechanisms - most people succeed in carrying
mutually incompatible ideas in their heads. It means accepting
coherence, and perceiving the relation of means and ends. It means
exposing those who organize conferences about "workers' control" ...
addressed by union officials elected for life. It means patiently
explaining the incompatibilities of "people's capitalism",
"parliamentary socialism", "Christian communism", "anarcho-Zionism",
"Party-led 'workers' councils' ", and other such rubbish. It means
understanding that a non-manipulative society cannot be achieved by
manipulative means or a classless society through hierarchical
structures. This attempt at both gaining insight and at imparting it
will be difficult and prolonged. It will doubtless be dismissed as
"intellectual theorizing" by every "voluntarist" or "activist" tendency,
eager for short cuts to the promised land and more concern with movement
than with direction.

Because we think people can and should understand what they are doing,
*it follows* that we reject many of the approaches so common in the
movement today. In practice this means avoiding the use of revolutionary
myths and the resort to manipulated confrontations, intended to raise
consciousness. Underlying both of these is the usually unformulated
assumption that people cannot understand social reality and act
rationally on their own.

Linked to our rejection of revolutionary myths is our rejection of
ready-made political labels. We want no gods, not even those of the
Marxist or anarchist pantheons. We live in neither the Petrograd of 1917
nor the Barcelona of 1936. We are *ourselves*: the product of the
disintegration of traditional politics, in an advanced industrial
country, in the second half of the twentieth century. It is to the
problems and conflicts of *that* society that we must apply ourselves.

Although we consider ourselves part of the "libertarian left" we differ
from most strands of the "cultural" or "political" underground. We have
nothing in common, for instance, with those petty entrepreneurs, now
thriving on the general confusion, who simultaneously promote such
commodities as oriental mysticism, black magic, the drug cult, sexual
exploitation (masquerading as sexual liberation) - seasoning it all with
big chunks of populist mythology. Their dissemination of myths and their
advocacy of "non-sectarian politics" do not prevent them from taking up,
in practice, many reactionary stances. In fact, they ensure it. Under
the mindless slogan of "Support for people in struggle", these
tendencies advocate support for various nationalisms (today always
reactionary) such as those of both IRAs and of all the NLFs.

Other strands, calling themselves "libertarian Marxist", suffer from
middle class feelings of guilt which make them prone to workeritis.
Despite this, their practice is both reformist and substitutionalist.
For instance, when they (correctly) support struggles for limited
objectives, such as those of squatters or Claimants' Unions, they often
fail to stress the revolutionary implications of such collective direct
action. Historically, direct action has often clashed with the reformist
nature of the objectives pursued. Again, such tendencies support the
IRAs and NLFs and refrain from criticizing the Cuban, North Vietnamese
or Chinese regimes. Having rejected the Party, they nevertheless share
with Leninism a bourgeois concept of consciousness.

Because we think our politics should be coherent we also reject the
approach of others in the libertarian movement who place their whole
emphasis on personal liberation or who seek individual solutions to what
are social problems. We dissociate ourselves from those who equate the
violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed (in
condemnation of "all violence"), and from those who place the rights of
strikers on the picket line on the same footing as the right of scabs to
blackleg (in an abstract defence of "freedom as such"). Similarly,
anarcho-Catholicism and anarcho-Maoism are internally incoherent
outlooks, incompatible with revolutionary self-activity.

We feel that there should be some relation between our vision of
socialism and what we do here and now. *It follows* that we seek as from
now, and starting with those closest to us, to puncture some of the more
widely held political myths. These are not confined to the "right" -
with its belief that hierarchy and inequality are of the essence of the
human condition. We consider irrational (and/or dishonest) that those
who talk most of the masses (and of the capacity of the working class to
create a new society) should have the least confidence in people's
ability to dispense with leaders. We also consider it irrational that
most radical advocates of "genuine social change" should incorporate in
their own ideas, programmes and organizational prescriptions so many of
the values, priorities and models they claim to oppose.

6\. When we say that socialist society will be "built from below", we
mean just that. We do *not* mean "initiated from above and then endorsed
from below". Nor do we mean "planned from above and later checked from
below". We mean there should be no separation between organs of decision
and organs of execution. This is why we advocate workers' "management"
of production, and avoid the ambiguous demand for workers' "control".
(The differences - both theoretical and historical - between the two are
outlined in the introduction to our book on *The Bolsheviks and Workers'
Control, 1917-1921*.)

We deny the revolutionary organization any specific prerogative in the
post-revolutionary period, or in the building of the new society. Its
main function in this period will be to stress the primacy of the
Workers' Councils (and of bodies based on them) as instruments of
decisional authority, and to struggle against all those who would seek
to lessen or to bypass this authority - or to vest power elsewhere.
Unlike others on the left who dismiss thinking about the new society as
"preoccupation with the cookshops of the future" we have outlined our
ideas about a possible structure of such a society in some detail in our
pamphlet on *Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed
Society*.

7\. This section is perhaps the most important and least understood of
the whole statement. It is the key to how we view our *practical work*.
It defines yardsticks with which we can approach everyday political life
and rationally use our mental and physical resources. It explains why we
consider certain questions significant while others are dismissed as
non-issues. Within the limits of our own coherence, it explains the
content of our paper.

Because we do not consider them of particular relevance to the attitudes
and aptitudes we seek to develop, we do not get worked up about such
matters as parliamentary or trade union elections (getting others to do
things for one), the Common Market or the convertibility crisis
(partisan involvement in the problems of the rulers is of no help to the
ruled), or about the struggle in Ireland or various putsches in Africa
("taking sides" in struggles waged under the domination of a totally
reactionary false consciousness). We cannot ignore these events without
ignoring a portion of reality but we can at least avoid endowing them
with a relevance to socialism they do not possess. Conversely we think
the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the French events of May 1968
*were* deeply significant (for they were struggles against bureaucracy,
and attempts at self-management in both Eastern and Western contexts).

These yardsticks also help clarify our attitude to various industrial
disputes. While most are a challenge to the employer, some have a deeper
socialist content than others. Why for instance are "unofficial" actions
on conditions of work, waged under the close control of the rank and
file, usually of deeper significance than "official" actions on
questions of wages, run from afar by the union bureaucrats? In terms of
the development of socialist consciousness *how* a struggle is waged and
what it is *about* are of fundamental importance. *Socialism*, after
all, *is about who takes the decisions*. We believe this needs
stressing, *in practice*, *from now*.

In our accounts of disputes our guide line is that one cannot tidy up
reality, and that more is gained by honestly analyzing real difficulties
than by living in a mythical world, where one takes one's wishes for
reality. *It follows* that we seek to avoid the "triumphalist" (in
reality manipulatory) tone that mars so much of the "interventions" of
the trad revs.

Finally the emphasis on self-activity, and its warning about the harmful
effects of manipulation, substitutionism or reliance on others to do
things for one have deeper implications, or relevance to our own
organization.

8\. We are not pacifists. We have no illusions about what we are up
against. In all class societies, institutional violence weighs heavily
and constantly on the oppressed. Moreover the rulers of such societies
have always resorted to more explicit physical repression when their
power and privileges were really threatened. Against repression by the
ruling class we endorse the people's right to self-defence, by whatever
means be appropriate.

The power of the rulers feeds on the indecision and confusion of the
ruled. Their power will only be overcome if confronted with ours: the
power of a conscious and self-reliant majority, knowing what it wants
and determined to get it. In modern industrial societies the power of
such a majority will lie where thousands congregate daily, to sell their
labour power in the production of goods and services.

Socialism cannot be the result of a putsch, of the capture of some
Palace, or of the blowing up of some Party or Police Headquarters,
carried out "on behalf of the people" or "to galvanize the masses". If
unsuccessful, all that such actions do is to create martyrs and myths -
and to provoke intensified repression. If "successful", they would only
substitute one ruling minority for another, i.e. bring about a new form
of exploitative society. Nor can socialism be introduced by
organizations themselves structured according to authoritarian,
hierarchical, bureaucratic or semi-military patterns. All that such
organizations have instituted (and, if "successful", are likely to
continue instituting) are societies in their own image.

*The social revolution is no Party matter*. It will be the action of the
immense majority, acting in the interests of the immense majority. The
failures of social-democracy and of Bolshevism are the failure of a
whole concept of politics, a concept according to which the oppressed
could entrust their liberation to others than themselves. This lesson is
gradually entering mass consciousness and preparing the ground for a
genuinely libertarian revolution.

9\. Because we reject Lenin's concept that the working class can only
develop a trade union (or reformist) consciousness *it follows* that we
reject the Leninist prescription that socialist consciousness has to be
brought to the people from outside, or injected into the movement by
political specialists: the professional revolutionaries. It further
follows that we cannot behave as if we held such beliefs.

Mass consciousness, however, is never a theoretical consciousness,
derived individually through the study of books. In modern industrial
societies socialist consciousness springs from the real conditions of
social life. These societies generate the conditions for an adequate
consciousness. On the other hand, because they are class societies, they
usually inhibit accession to that consciousness. Here lies both the
dilemma and the challenge confronting modern revolutionaries.

There *is* a role for conscious revolutionaries. *Firstly*, through
personal involvement, in one's own life and where possible at one's own
place of work. (Here the main danger lies in "prolier than thou"
attitudes, which lead people either to believe that there is little they
can do if they are not industrial workers, or to pretend to be what they
are not, in the false belief that the only relevant areas of struggle
are in relation to industry.) *Secondly*, by assisting others in
struggle, by providing them with help or information they are denied.
(Here the main danger lies in the offering of "interested help", where
recruitment of the militant to the "revolutionary" organization is as
much an objective of the "help" as is his victory in the struggle in
which he is involved.) *Finally*, by pointing out and explaining the
deep (but often hidden) relations between the socialist objective and
what people are driven to do, through their own experiences and needs.
(This is what we mean when we say revolutionaries should help make
"explicit" the "implicitly" socialist content of many modern struggles.)

10\. This section should differentiate *Solidarity* from the traditional
type of political organization. We are not a leadership and do not
aspire to be one. Because we do not want to lead or manipulate others,
we have no use for hierarchy or for manipulatory mechanisms within our
own ranks. Because we believe in the autonomy - ideological and
organizational - of the working class, we cannot deny groups such
autonomy within the Solidarity movement itself. On the contrary, we
should seek to encourage it.

On the other hand we certainly wish to influence others and to
disseminate Solidarity ideas (not just any ideas) as widely as possible.
This requires the co-ordinated activity of people or groups,
individually capable of self-activity and of finding their own level of
involvement and their own areas of work. The instruments of such
co-ordination should be flexible and vary according to the purpose for
which co-ordination is required.

We do not reject organizations as necessarily implying bureaucracy. If
we held such views there would be no socialist perspective whatsoever.
On the contrary, we hold that organizations whose mechanisms (and their
implications) are understood by all can alone provide the framework for
democratic decision-making. There are no institutional guarantees
against the bureaucratization of revolutionary groups. The only
guarantee is the perpetual awareness and self-mobilization of their
members. We are aware, however, of the danger of revolutionary groups
becoming "ends in themselves". In the past, loyalties to groups have
often superseded loyalties to ideas. Our prime commitment is to the
social revolution - not to any particular political group, not even to
Solidarity. Our organizational structure should certainly reflect the
need for mutual assistance and support. But we have *no* other ulterior
objectives, aspirations or ambitions. We therefore do not structure
ourselves as if we had.

## External Links

  - [As We Don't See
    It](https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1972/as-we-dont-see-it.htm)
    at [marxists.org](marxists.org "wikilink")