Libcom’s Essay and the Theoretical Bankruptcy of Appeasement
Background of Structural Transformation and Theoretical Struggle
At every turning point in human history, particularly in the liberation struggle of exploited and oppressed working people, theoretical clarity has always played a central role. In the current capitalist and bureaucratic world order, merely transferring state power or capital cannot bring about permanent liberation. What is needed is a radical structural transformation—one that is not limited to changing the ownership of the means of production, but brings about a profound revolution at every level of human existence, starting from the world of thought to the production system, social relations, and beyond. The state apparatus itself is an instrument of exploitation; therefore, the primary goal of the liberation struggle should not be merely to capture it or alter its form, but to destroy it.
However, it is a matter of great regret that in the theoretical arena of global leftist and revolutionary movements, strategic opportunism and reformist appeasement often obscure the core goals of revolution. Recently, the essay titled "Our Dogmatism and Theirs," published on the international anarchist platform Libcom, has emerged precisely as a document of this kind of theoretical deviation. The response or counter-reply presented by this essay to my previously published writing, "Bolshevik Confusion and the Theoretical Bankruptcy of Anarchists," is not merely a common difference of opinion; rather, it demands a profound theoretical settlement of the fundamental conflict between revolutionary anarchism and bureaucratic Leninism.
Writers like Black Freighter have attempted to legitimize a kind of opportunistic appeasement in the name of so-called "solidarity" with Leninist and Bolshevik parties, throwing the fundamental principles of anarcho-syndicalism to the wind. Their core argument is that, given the plight of workers or immediate economic crises, regardless of how flawed the leadership of a union or its political ideology might be, those ideological differences should be ignored for the sake of solidarity or cooperation. This position not only amounts to a betrayal of the core philosophy of anarchism, but also helps conceal the exploitative character of Bolshevik bureaucracy and destroys the foundation of the working class's independent self-organization.
1. Reformist Appeasement: The Core Crisis and Outline of Theoretical Deviation in Libcom's Essay
Anarchism is not a fragmented or sporadic charitable activity; it is an uncompromising revolutionary struggle against the state, capital, and any form of party dictatorship. The foundation of anarcho-syndicalism is direct action by the working class, decentralization, and the building of entirely independent self-organization outside of state or party bureaucracies. But the path of theoretical surrender chosen by Libcom's writers in the name of strategic realism is in direct conflict with this fundamental struggle and theory.
When an international network legitimizes the affiliated organizations of Leninist parties, they unknowingly strengthen that very bureaucratic state apparatus against which anarchists' primary struggle is supposed to be directed. At every stage of history, the Leninist and Bolshevik trend established an unprecedented party dictatorship over the working class after seizing state power. The brutal suppression by the Bolshevik party of the Kronstadt rebellion or the Makhnovist movement in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution bears witness to this historical truth: Bolsheviks were never in favor of spontaneous and decentralized worker power; rather, they have consistently used the labor movement as a stepping stone to serve their own party's political interests. The Soviet state built under the hands of Lenin, Trotsky, and later Stalin was essentially a terrifying form of state capitalism, where workers merely exchanged bourgeois factory masters to become slaves of an all-encompassing master called the state.
The maneuvers carried out by platforms like Libcom to cover up this dangerous contradiction prove nothing more than their own theoretical bankruptcy. Solidarity cannot mean shaking hands with the enemy by abandoning fundamental theoretical and practical methods. True solidarity is possible only when it is established on the basis of the independent liberation and self-determination of the oppressed, not through a license of bureaucratization or party affiliation. This appeasement in the name of theoretical compromise kills the core spirit of the revolution and forever turns the labor movement into the vassal of the ruling class or petty-bourgeois leadership.
2. The Bangladesh Context and the Dragon Sweaters Movement: Theoretical Surrender in the Name of Strategic Realism
The account presented in Libcom's essay regarding the August 2020 labor movement at the "Dragon Sweaters" factory in Dhaka and the connection between the International Confederation of Labour (ICL) and the Bangladesh Garment Workers Trade Union Center (GWTUC) is essentially a shining document of theoretical surrender disguised as strategic realism.
Those who celebrate as a "victory" the financing or support provided by international anarchist networks to a trade union directly controlled by the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and bound by Bolshevik bureaucratic discipline fail to understand that this permanently closes the path for the independent self-organization of the working class in the long run. A former leader of that party blocked me on Facebook because of my criticism of Stalinism. Yet, my statements contained nothing hostile toward the working class. Why, then, did they feel no need for unity with me in the interest of working-class solidarity? The reason is likely that I do not wish to financially support them, or they cannot use my support in Bangladeshi society and politics to present themselves as the vanguard of the working class. Therefore, these Leninist groups deviated from their political ideology long ago, but that does not mean they have become anarcho-syndicalists. It means their opportunistic character has been exposed, and they hesitate at no deceit against the working class to secure these benefits.
Trade unions tied to the apron strings of leftist parties in Bangladesh are essentially instruments of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois politics. Within them, party dominance, parliamentary politics, and political bargaining take precedence over the genuine interests of workers. These unions never lead the class struggle of workers toward a radical transformation; instead, they trap them within a specific political circle.
Looking at Bangladesh's labor market, despite the garment industry being a major driving force of the national economy today, its workers are victims of extreme exploitation. Various party-affiliated unions seek to take control of the spontaneous rebellions or movements that erupt among workers against this exploitation in order to reap political dividends. Trade unions under the control of parties like the CPB never want workers to independently build their own unions, because doing so would threaten their party guardianship. When international anarchist networks finance or ally with such party-subservient unions, they unknowingly become partners in the process of trapping the Bangladeshi labor movement inside the cage of Bolshevik bureaucracy. This is not merely a strategic mistake; it is an ideological betrayal of the international anarchist movement.
3. Deception, Political Intolerance, and the Hegemonic Character of Leninist Parties in Bangladesh
In the political and leftist history of Bangladesh, the role of Leninist parties has consistently been the embodiment of dual hypocrisy and extreme intolerance. While wearing the mask of theory to project themselves as the "sole representative" and "vanguard" of the proletariat, in practice they have always striven to suppress independent labor movements and establish their own exclusive party dominance. In the context of Bangladesh, Leninist or so-called communist parties have never allowed the spontaneous class consciousness of workers to develop; instead, they have held workers hostage through bureaucratic structures.
Time and again in the history of the Bangladeshi labor movement, whenever workers have taken to the streets independently of any party subordination to demand wage increases or a life of dignity, leaders of trade unions controlled by these Leninist parties have played a brokerage role from behind the scenes. Making secret compromises with management, diverting workers' movements, and diluting workers' genuine demands to compromise with parliamentary or petty-bourgeois politics are among their key political tactics. The internal culture of these parties is intensely bureaucratic and intolerant. The directives of the central committee or petty-bourgeois intellectuals are final; ordinary workers and grassroots activists are nothing more than a "vote bank" or fodder for party processions.
These Leninist parties cannot tolerate any alternative ideology or the voice of independent labor organizations. They ruthlessly suppress any independent or anarchist initiative outside their sphere of influence, character-assassinate them, and in some cases join hands with the ruling class's thugs to crush the movement. Today, the intolerance and deceitful character of Leninist parties on Bangladeshi soil are as clear as daylight. Yet, international platforms like Libcom have completely ignored this ground reality and provided theoretical and financial validation in the name of solidarity with these Bolshevik-controlled unions—an act equivalent to stabbing the independent working class of Bangladesh in the back.
4. The Contradiction of International Workers' Solidarity and Theoretical Refutation of Libcom's Misinterpretations
Libcom's essay claims that the ICL is not a pure anarchist organization, but rather a federation of various trade unions that accommodates diversity. This argument is extremely ridiculous and clever. While an international federation may have ideological or methodological differences, if their core principle is independent workers' solidarity and the struggle against state or party dominance, how can they support unions whose overt goal is the establishment of a centralized communist state and party dictatorship? Ignoring this fundamentally opposing stance on ideology, one cannot justify all kinds of opportunism simply by shouting slogans like "We stand with the workers."
The comparison drawn in Libcom's essay by citing Australia's CFMEU and the Labor Party is entirely irrelevant and misleading. Australian trade union politics and the political reality of Bangladesh are never the same. There is a gulf of difference between the dynamics of trade unions in advanced capitalist countries and the party-subservient labor politics of developing countries. In the context of Bangladesh, unions controlled by leftist parties use workers as a staircase for party power rather than achieving their true liberation. Accepting the dominance of Leninist parties in the name of solidarity there means welcoming a new form of exploitation. Measuring the institutional privileges of developed-world trade unions and the struggle-ridden, oppressed labor market realities of the third world with the same yardstick is extreme political blindness.
This dual stance of anarchist and Leninist groups in the name of international solidarity is severely confusing the global labor movement. The attempt by Libcom's writers to cover up this theoretical collapse by brandishing the bogeyman of solidarity with exploited workers is nothing less than a betrayal of the movement. Solidarity with workers does not mean handing over the lease of their movement to petty-bourgeois or Bolshevik leaders. True anarchists always encourage workers to build their own independent organizations, never teaching them to be subservient to any Leninist party. The tone with which Libcom's essay attempts to justify the alliance between international organizations and Bolshevik-controlled unions is actually a manifestation of the bankruptcy of the reformist lobby hidden within the global anarchist movement.
5. Historical Background: Lessons of the Russian Revolution, Kronstadt, and the Makhnovist Movement
A review of historical documents concerning Bolshevik ideology and its application reveals that it has consistently generated bureaucracy, centralization, and state terror. On the eve of the Bolshevik coup in 1917, the soviets of workers and peasants had taken on a spontaneous and decentralized form of power; immediately after seizing state power, the Bolshevik party stripped away all power from those soviets and concentrated it in the hands of the party's Politburo. The core idea of the "vanguard party" advanced in Leninist theory is that the working class is incapable of finding its path to liberation on its own, so a professional revolutionary party or intellectual class must seize power on behalf of the workers. This very concept gave birth not to the dictatorship of the proletariat, but to the dictatorship of the party and subsequently a new bureaucratic bourgeois class.
Looking back at the pages of history, in 1921, sailors and workers at Kronstadt raised their voices against the bureaucratic and repressive policies of the Bolshevik government, demanding "Free Soviets." Under the direct orders of the Bolshevik leadership of the time, especially Trotsky and Lenin, the Red Army crushed that uprising through bloodshed. Thousands of revolutionary workers and sailors were killed simply for the crime of opposing the party's dictatorship. Similarly, the anarchist peasant and worker movement led by Nestor Makhno in the free territories of Ukraine was ruthlessly destroyed by the Bolsheviks once they consolidated power. These historical truths prove that the Bolsheviks were never in favor of the working class's liberation; rather, they desired an all-encompassing state apparatus where workers would be reduced to predestined slaves.
6. The Path to Liberation from the Quagmire of Bolshevik Confusion and an Alternative Future
Anarchism strikes at the very root of this vanguard theory. Anarchism believes that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. There is no place here for any intermediary political party or bureaucratic leadership. When platforms like Libcom deny this fundamental truth and join hands with Bolshevik-style unions, they are essentially trying to revive those very old bureaucratic chains.
Achieving the genuine liberation of the working class requires an alternative system entirely free from the stranglehold of state and capital. Anarcho-syndicalism provides the blueprint for that alternative. In this system, the means of production and distribution are operated directly under the cooperative and federal structures of the workers, leaving no room for any bureaucratic or party dictatorship. Therefore, it can be stated without hesitation that the essay titled "Our Dogmatism and Theirs," published on the Libcom website, is not a defense of the revolutionary spirit of anarcho-syndicalism, but rather a form of theoretical surrender to the Bolshevik bureaucracy. Those who wish to gloss over this exploitative and centralized structure of Leninist parties in the name of the labor movement are actively blocking the path to the long-term liberation of the working class.
Anarchism is not an appeasing, reformist movement; it is an eternal and uncompromising struggle against the state, capital, and any form of party dictatorship. Achieving true liberation for working people is impossible without defeating the deceit, intolerance, and bureaucratic hegemony of Leninist parties on Bangladeshi soil. True liberation can only be achieved by breaking free from the quagmire of Bolshevik confusion and building independent, federal, and cooperative self-organizations of the working class. We must stand up against this erroneous theoretical position of Libcom and continue an uncompromising struggle with the goal of building a dogmatism-free, liberated society. Today, upholding theoretical clarity and rejecting Bolshevik or any form of opportunistic appeasement is the immediate duty of the revolutionary working class. Any compromise in the theoretical struggle means betrayal of the revolution; and the responsibility of breaking the chains of that betrayal to build a new and independent society rests squarely on the shoulders of today's freedom-seeking people.
Related links :
1. Bolshevik Confusion and the Theoretical Bankruptcy of Anarchists
