RANT ARCHIVE 10:

ANARCHISM: A Viable Apolitical Alternative

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Outside site:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Can voting alone bring about the change necessary to defeat the despotism spoke of in the Declaration of Independence? It doesn't appear to be providing US with very good results. Will more votes help? Will we ever know? "It's not votes that count, but who counts the votes."

American-style Majority Rule and Representative Demockracy is repressive, and false. No one can represent the individual, but the individual (e.g. your district's senator or congress person etc.). Rights belong to individuals, who don't need States, groups, or representatives represent themselves if they are truly free. And individuals should not need a declaration, constitution, or manifesto on paper to assert or protect their freedom. The individual, free individual, must consent to be governed? Governments don't ask for consent-- majorities and representatives could careless about individual freedom--i.e. individual sovereignty and autonomy. They will send in the protectors of the State, the police, to enforce State sovereignty over individual sovereignty. The consent of the majority (or minority) builds governments--government, tyranny, and consent are synonymous. To consent is to bow down and be governed. To be free and a master of your own sovereignty is to assert individual liberty and autonomy, and therefore necessarily demolish the State, Government, and tyranny. Until they are demolished individuals will remain subjects of consent...slaves to a subjective reality of State sovereignty. Individual freedom is subjective under the arm of States and de facto/de jure representatives. In an objective reality, freedom is subject only to Nature, and objects to institutions and individuals that subjugate it. Individuals are free when the self is autonomous...an objective liberty where the self is free from the subjective forces of authority and oppression.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

www.raisethefist.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Anarchist Flag "To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so... To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown it all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 294, P-J Proudhon, Pluto Press, London, 1989.]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.

by Percy Bysshe Shelley

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Libertarian premise is that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and must consent to be ruled by a government. However, if an individual condemns, as illegitimate, all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate. The consent theory of government is "The universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any." (Josiah Tucker) "Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximize individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatsoever. Indeed, the right (and, of course, many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism" is state ownership and control of the means of production, along with centrally planned determination of the national economy (and so social life). This definition has become common because many Social Democrats, Leninists, and other statists call themselves socialists. However, the fact that certain people call themselves socialists does not imply that the system they advocate is really socialism (Hitler, for example, called himself a "National Socialist" while, in practice, ensuring and enhancing the power and profits of capitalists). So what does socialism mean? And is it compatible with libertarian ideals? What do the words "libertarian" and "socialism" actually mean? "Socialism" is often defined as "state ownership of wealth" and "anarchy" as "disorder." “Real” libertarian ideas must be based on workers self-management, i.e. workers must control and manage the work they do, determining where and how they do it and what happens to the fruit of their labour, which in turn means the elimination of wage labour. The elimination of wage labour is the common theme of socialism (in theory at least, anarchist argue that state socialism does not eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises it). Or, to use Proudhon's words, the "abolition of the proletariat." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 179] It implies a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part of a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies self-management in all aspects of life -- including work. It has always struck anarchists as somewhat strange and paradoxical (to say the least) that a system of "natural" liberty (Adam Smith's term, misappropriated by supporters of capitalism) involves the vast majority having to sell that liberty in order to survive. According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism" is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist). Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands the nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that (social) inequalities between individuals must be abolished to ensure liberty for all (natural inequalities cannot be abolished, nor do anarchists desire to do so). Socialism, as Proudhon put it, "is egalitarian above all else." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies to inequalities of power as well, especially to political power. And any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities of power -- those at the top (elected or not) have more power than those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International: "It could be argued. . . that we [anarchists] are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his entire measure of wealth of society, but also his portion of social power, which is to say, the real ability to make his influence felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public affairs." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p.20] The election of someone to administer public affairs for you is not having a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile Pouget (a leading French anarcho-syndicalist) "an act of abdication," the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67] This means that "[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle." [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 249] From this short discussion we see the links between libertarian and socialism. To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what they use to produce goods). Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist. Similarly, a true socialist must also support individual liberty of thought and action, otherwise the producers "possess" the means of production and distribution in name only. If the state owns the means of life, then the producers do not and so are in no position to manage their own activity. As the experience of Russia under Lenin shows, state ownership soon produces state control and the creation of a bureaucratic class which exploits and oppresses the workers even more so than their old bosses. Since it is an essential principle of socialism that inequalities between people must be abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no sense for a genuine socialist to support any institution based on inequalities of power (e.g. the state). To oppose inequality and not extend that opposition to inequalities in power, especially political power, suggests a lack of clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you to be a libertarian, to be for individual liberty and opposed to inequalities of power which restrict that liberty. Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism" indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state. So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers' self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierarchy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce, liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy results in less freedom than political dictatorship."

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to.......want to know more? check out infoshop's FAQ and the linked icons above.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Anarchist FAQ

This web page holds an anarchist FAQ. Its aim is to present what anarchism really stands for and indicate why you should become an anarchist.

This web-site is the creation of many anarchists across the globe and is a classic example of the power of freedom, equality and mutual aid. If you want to contact some of those responsible, then send email to anarchistfaq@lycos.co.uk.

An Anarchist FAQ can now be accessed using these easy to remember urls:

www.anarchistfaq.org
www.anarchismfaq.org www.anarchyfaq.org

The FAQ is available on various mirror sites. It has also been translated into other languages.

It is also available for download in html, pdf, word and text format.

Version 9.8 -- 27-JAN-02

Introduction

Section A - What is anarchism?

Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?

Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?

Section D - How does statism and capitalism affect society?

Section E - What do anarchists think causes ecological problems?

Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?

Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?

Section J - What do anarchists do?

Appendix - Anarchism and "Anarcho"-capitalism

Appendix - The Symbols of Anarchy

Appendix - Anarchism and Marxism

Bibliography

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism: www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

What would an anarchist society look like? www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

"REAL PATRIOTS ASK QUESTIONS" but Patriotism is for Losers

Anarcha-feminism: www.infoshop.org/afem_kiosk.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I may post more than these three articles, but suggest you go to the links above and the FAQ...

___________________________________________________________________________

Anarchism Today By Michael Albert

In lieu of attending the North American Anarchist Conference (NAAC), I was asked: "what do you think of anarchism as an existing and potential ideology and movement?" Well, I think if anarchism were an ecology, it would be a tropical rain forest--broad, wide, and deep, a many faceted organism. A brief reply won't touch most of anarchism's facets, of course, but perhaps I can address a part of the heart of the matter.

Anarchist Focus

To me anarchist practice seeks liberation and decries strategy that reproduces the contours of an oppressive past. It rejects government that subordinates most of society to elites in positions of power. This is Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, and Berkman's very impressive heritage. Their anarchism means eliminating unjust authoritarian hierarchy.

But what about anarchism today? Well, it depends. If "anarchism today" is like anarchism of old and is mainly an anti-authoritarian practice, then I think anarchism today is good for siding with those most oppressed by authoritarianism, just as feminism today is good for siding with those most oppressed by sexism. But if a social activist says their whole mindset stems from anti-sexist concepts, though I would support and welcome their work, I would also feel it was narrow vis-a-vis the entire agenda we face. And likewise, if a social activist says their whole minset stems from anti-authoritarian concepts, though I would support and welcome their work too, I would again feel it was narrow vis-a-vis the entire agenda we face.

I am told, however, that instead of being centrally anti-authoritarian, as in the old days, nowadays being an anarchist implies having a gender, cultural, economic, and a politically-rooted orientation, each aspect on a par with and also informing the rest. This is new in my experience of anarchism, and it is useful to recall that many anarchists as little as a decade back, perhaps even more recently, would have said that anarchism addresses everything, yes, but via an anti-authoritarian focus rather than by elevating other concepts in their own right. They thought, whether implicitly or explicitly, that analysis from an overwhelmingly anti-authoritarian angle could explain the nuclear family better than an analysis based in kinship concepts, and could explain race or religion better than an analysis based in cultural concepts, and could explain production, consumption, and allocation better than an analysis based in economic concepts. They were wrong, and it is good to hear that many modern anarchists know this.

Anarchist Vision?

There is much to celebrate in the breadth and depth of anarchism, of course, but we must also overcome lingering faults, and I think a primary fault to overcome is that anarchism lacks vision.

Anarchists rightly teach that oppression rests not only on forceful defense of advantage from above, but also on convincing citizens below that there is no more liberating social order that they can seek. Elites impose hopelessness on the rest of us, that is, as a damper on our activism and resistance. Why, then, I wonder, have anarchists been largely silent about political vision?

I wouldn't expect anarchism to produce from within a compelling vision of future religion, ethnic identification, or cultural community, or of kinship, sexuality, procreation or socialization, or of production, consumption, or allocation. But regarding attaining, implementing, and protecting against the abuse of shared political agendas, it seems to me that anarchism ought to be where the action is, and, indeed, that it even has a responsibility to be where the action is. Nonetheless, has there been any serious anarchist attempt to explain how what we call legal disputes should be resolved? How legal adjudication should occur? How laws and thus political coordination should be attained? How violations and disruptions should be handled? And for that matter how shared programs should be positively implemented? In other words, what is the anarchist institutional alternative to contemporary legislatures, courts, police, and diverse executive agencies? What institutions do anarchists seek that would advance solidarity, equity, participatory self-management, diversity, and whatever other life-affirming and liberatory values we support, while also accomplishing needed political functions? I wonder why after a century of opposing authoritarian political relations and exploring these matters, anarchism still doesn't clearly, widely, and with vigor offer a broad, overarching political vision? How long until we realize that huge numbers of citizens of developed societies are not going to risk what they have, however little it may be in some cases, to pursue a goal about which they have no clarity? How often do they have to ask us what we are for, before we give them some serious answers? Why hasn't anarchism reached the point where its advocates can say that yes, we oppose the existing state and its authoritarian hierarchies and implications -- and so here are the non-authoritarian political values and institutions we favor instead.

Offering a political vision that encompasses legislation, implementation, adjudication, and enforcement and that shows how each of these functions would be accomplished in a non-authoritarian way promoting values we favor, would not only provide our contemporary activism much-needed long-term values and hope, it would also inform our immediate responses to today's electoral, law-making, law enforcement, and court system, and all our strategic choices. So shouldn' t today's anarchist community be generating such political vision? I think so, and so I keep looking for it, eagerly hoping it will be forthcoming.

Some Questionable Anarchist Practice

Finally, regarding anarchism and movements today, I have another broad range of concerns having to do with personal practice. I worry about certain strange formulations and styles that keep percolating into view among self described anarchists, but that I hope have very little support in the broader anarchist community. I have in mind, for example, views that technology is in itself an enemy of justice and liberty. Or that all institutions by their very nature are infringements on human freedom. Or that relating to existing political or social structures in any sense at all is an automatic sign of hypocrisy or fickle intent. Or that reforms are by their very nature system-supportive and therefore utterly to be avoided, those seeking them to be chastised.

These odd views, which call themselves anarchist but certainly aren't, are not getting to the heart of the matter of contemporary social injustice, as their advocates presumably think, but are instead jumping entirely off the tracks of useful assessment and prescription into self destructiveness and sectarianism. They confuse the social relations of injustice with the physical, chemical, and biological insights that become embodied in instruments that are admittedly often used for bad ends -- or they even confuse it with the very idea of instruments at all. They mistake the necessary fact of humans working together in sustained structures with lasting roles, which is to say in institutions, with the admittedly horrific specific types of institutions that we often find ourselves stuck in today -- corporations, political hierarchies, etc. They mistake trying to self-consciously improve life for people suffering in difficult contexts that impose diverse compromises on our choices, with misunderstanding that the pains people now endure owe themselves to the institutions around us. That is, they confuse reforms with reformism, and confuse being a revolutionary with being someone who a priori rejects winning improvements now, even if the improvements not only contribute to bettering people's lives today, but also to winning further gains in the future.

Likewise, I am concerned about signs I sometimes see of a life-style emphasis that exaggerates the importance and efficacy of personal consumption choices, often seeing one's own consumption preferences (in food, music, entertainment, movies, culture, reading) as superior while harshly disparaging other people's different choices as inferior, all the while oblivious to the fact that different people face different limitations and settings contouring the logic of their options. And I am particularly concerned about behaviors that denigrate the ways various constituencies other than one's own try to find positive engagement and entertainment in life, such as those who are religious or those who play or enjoy sports, or those who watch TV, as if by such pursuits one indicates that one is somehow an unworthy person or otherwise deserves contempt. These kinds of sectarian manifestation of what you would think would be quite rare lifestyle preferences and attitudes matter quite a lot when they become homogenous to movement memberships and thus come to characterize a whole ideology or movement, not least because they affect the quality of our behavior, how we come across to others, what it seems we are in favor of and oppose, and even our capacities for positive empathy and enjoyment.

Thus, finally, to answer the question what do I think of anarchism as an existing and potential ideology of movement, I guess I would say that if anarchism has truly recognized the need for culture-based, economy-based, and gender-based, as well as polity-based concepts and practice, and if anarchism can support vision arising from non-governmental social dimensions while also itself providing serious and compelling political vision, and if the anarchist community can avoid or at least minimize lifestyle sectarianism as well as strange confusions between bad technology and technology per se, authoritarian government and political structures per se, oppressive institutions and institutions per se, and seeking to win reforms versus being reformist - then I think anarchism has a whole lot going for it as a source of movement inspiration and wisdom in the effort to make our world a much better place.

Taken from Znet

Instead of a Primer

by Roger Kropotkin*

There is a great deal of confusion among anarchists in terms of what anarchism is and, more importantly, what anarchism is not. It is all too common for anarchists to mistake tactics for principles. Even worse, some mistake opponents for allies. Many anarchists need to be reminded that we are against the State and government, and that this fundamental stance is the main characteristic that differentiates us from others who promote social change. It is my hope to begin a process of analysis and discussion about this unfortunate condition by providing a sort of reminder of anarchism. My use of the term “we” refers to anarchists.

What Anarchism Is

Anarchism as philosophy

Anarchism derives from the philosophical premise that institutionalized power and enforcement, especially in the form of the State, is a negative method of trying to create and maintain social cohesion. The defining aspect of anarchism is a categorical rejection of the principle and practice of government. Further, anarchism entails a radical critique of the exercise of authority and power. Holding to the conviction that cooperation is a better and more just way of attaining social harmony than competition, anarchists have promoted voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relations, and mutual aid.

Anarchism as politics

In the political realm, anarchism begins from the premise that in order to be truly free, people need to dispense with government and its institutionalization in the State. The politics of representation, being hierarchical, is also considered authoritarian. Instead, anarchists promote direct action, which means any action undertaken in one’s own interest without asking for permission from the State and its agents. The ultimate vision is a classless and stateless society, free from all forms of exploitation.

Anarchism as resistance

Anarchists promote self-organized alternatives to hierarchical institutions. This doesn’t mean opening a collective business or starting a collective living space. It means the creation of individual and collective projects that challenge the legitimacy of government and other institutions of social control, not just projects where people have the opportunity to become accustomed to making and carrying out all the work and play decisions in their lives.

Anarchism as methodology

Critical thinking leads to theory, where life is examined with a mixture of objective and subjective analysis. Ideology, on the other hand, leads to pat answers that have been previously formulated according to particular agendas (while anarchism can easily become ossified into an ideology, the constant use of critical theory can work against that). Anarchist critical thinking provides a challenge to conformity and mediocrity in social and political relations. This challenge enhances the place of the individual in relation to the collective.

Anarchist Principles

Every political philosophy contains a set of principles. These are perspectives and practices that are not negotiable; they are the foundational definitions that make the philosophy distinct from others. Anarchist principles are derived from the premises and theories of anarchism, as well as the methodology of critical thinking, and they reinforce each other. The principles that come out of anarchist theory are the following:

Direct Action

This term has become twisted and misused by various political activists in the past 30 years. In its original anarchist meaning, the term refers to any action undertaken without the permission, and outside the interest of, governmental institutions. It can refer to volunteering with Food Not Bombs, going on strike (especially without the approval of a union), shoplifting, or setting up a micro-powered radio station. It doesn’t mean engaging in civil disobedience in cooperation with the police; it doesn’t mean breaking the law or breaking a window if the intention is merely to register public disapproval of some governmental policy. Breaking things can be examples of direct action—but the intention behind these acts are what is important, not the acts themselves. Direct action has nothing to do with pressuring any part of a government to alter a policy; it is by definition anti-statist. Attempting to alter a government policy is called lobbying; it is aimed at representatives, and so cannot be direct action. Presenting a list of demands or protesting a particular policy, in the hopes of getting noticed by the state (whose rulers will then somehow change something about the way it operates), is never direct action, even if the means used to pressure legislators are illegal. Direct action is when we do things for ourselves, without begging, asking, or demanding that someone in authority help us.

Voluntary Cooperation

Anarchists believe that cooperation is more beneficial than competition. Further, we believe that cooperation, in order to be authentic, must be voluntary. Guidelines and cultural norms are agreed upon and adhered to by the individuals who are interested in creating and maintaining them, and there are no coercive institutions to enforce them. Voluntary cooperation includes voluntary association. Each individual retains the choice to join or not to join any particular association of people; and the people in any association reserve for themselves the ability to ask another individual to join them, or to refuse her/him admittance.

Mutual Aid

There are perhaps as many misunderstandings concerning mutual aid as there are about direct action. Mutual aid doesn’t mean automatic solidarity with whoever asks for it, nor does it mean that anarchists have an obligation to enter into relationships with other oppositional forces. It doesn’t mean a tit-for-tat arrangement; rather it means to be able to give freely and take freely: from each according to her/his ability, to each according to her/his need. Mutual aid is only possible between and among equals (which means among friends and trusted long-term allies). Solidarity, on the other hand (since it is offered to and asked for by ad hoc allies), needs to include the reality of reciprocation; otherwise it is nothing but charity.

Critical Thinking as Anarchist Methodology

It is important to look at how critical thinking operates in terms of developing a course of action in the real world. The crucial components to critical thought are the following:

Critique

We notice that there is injustice and suffering in the world, and so we ask the question, “What’s wrong?” We look at the mechanisms, institutions, and social dynamics that create and perpetuate injustice, and analyze them thoroughly, down to their root causes—hence the term radical. For example, there is violence in the world. We need to examine what we mean when we use the term and what other people mean when they use it; an anarchist definition will probably be different than that of a statist. We need to figure out why that is. Next we need to try to discover the main causes of violence, and who benefits from its continued existence.

Analysis

We try to understand how a particular injustice is created and perpetuated, and why it’s wrong. We study, discuss, and interpret the relevant facts and history of the problem, and begin to formulate a reasonable solution based on those facts. Using the example of violence, we develop our analysis by tracing its widespread practice by the various institutions that exist in the US, and what they have in common with other formal and informal institutions around the world. We will probably discover that, as the world has become more dominated by industrial capitalism, it has become increasingly more violent. A possible solution to the continued existence of violence, therefore, might begin with the idea of abolishing industrial capitalism.

Strategy

We devise a set of goals for how we want to change the situation into one that fits our principles and analyses. This is where our overall vision is based. We try to figure out how to implement our ideas practically. A major goal of an anarchist strategy is to undermine people’s belief in the legitimacy of the State, to make it possible for all people to gain confidence in retaking control of all aspects of our lives. Is one of the goals of anarchism to create a world where violence is minimized, or to create a world completely without violence? This will depend on how we define violence with our critique and analysis.

Tactics

We come up with actions that are compatible with our strategy. The main question to ask is “What methods/tools can be used to achieve the goal?” The answer is whatever helps to make the goal(s) a reality; whatever is expedient at the moment depending on who’s involved and what exactly we are trying to accomplish. Of course our tactics must be in keeping with our principles. But it is important to remember that tactics are not the same thing as principles. Non-violence is not an anarchist principle; it is a tactic. Depending on the situation, we decide when it’s convenient—or not—to adhere to non-violent guidelines. At times we may decide that it makes more sense to fight back with force. Morality plays no part in deciding upon which tactics to use in a given situation—it only matters what is compatible with our strategy and principles.

What Anarchism Is Not

Anarchism is not extreme Liberalism

Liberalism is based on the theory of the Social Contract, where citizens give up full liberty in exchange for political and economic security. This security is supposed to be provided by the State, which regulates, mediates, and enforces the Social Contract. More generically, Liberalism can be equated with Republicanism, which stands for the rule of law. The liberal wing pays lip service to rule of the people, while the conservative wing is more honest in wanting rule of some people. The principles of Liberalism include majority rule, various civil liberties like free speech, tolerance, and equality before the law, as well as free enterprise and private property. These principles are legislated and guaranteed by the State, which is seen as the same thing as the People. Liberals who are unsatisfied with certain policies and wish to remedy them use tactics that are compatible with liberalism: petition and demonstration. Liberals believe that whatever injustices exist within the Social Contract can be fixed by electing better or wiser legislative representatives who will enact better laws to be enforced by better cops.

Anarchism is not extreme Social Democracy

The realm of Social Democracy is not really that much different than that of Liberalism; the main aspect that has differentiated the two used to be a commitment to socialism (meaning “social” ownership of property, but really meaning state ownership) instead of capitalism (private ownership). Since the mid-‘60s, however, almost all social democrats have abandoned this commitment in favor of what they call a mixed economy. Social Democrats also consider that they are carrying out the will of the people through the State, only the Social Democratic State has even more regulatory power than the classical Liberal State. Social Democrats are committed to the tactics of peaceful and legal changes within a parliamentary State; like Liberals, they see the solutions to injustice coming from the election of better and wiser representatives.

Anarchism is not extreme Leninism

In the economic sphere, Leninism is the most extreme form of Social Democracy, while in the political sphere, it more closely resembles conservative Republicanism. Leninists don’t waste time with any sort of private ownership; the State owns and controls all production (and most other realms of social activity). The principle of Democratic Centralism limits the number of people who have decision-making power to a small group. The various derivatives of Leninism (from the infinite varieties of trotskyism through stalinism and maoism) all have as a goal a strong centralized and bureaucratic State. The goals of Leninism are the expropriation of private property, the seizing of State power, and the eventual global triumph of their ideology. Tactically, Leninists don’t care if their methods are compassionate or nasty. Leninists want to win, and that’s all that counts; anyone who stands in their way is an enemy and deserves no mercy. All Leninist parties and governments have a record of brutality and repression against perceived enemies—especially anarchists.

Anarchism is not any form of Statism

What all these different forms of Republicanism have in common is a belief that the State can and must control its citizens. The Leftist trajectory from Liberalism, through Social Democracy, and up to Leninism is a continuum of increasingly intrusive government. The principles of these forms of Statism vary only slightly, and all of them have much more in common with each other than anarchism has with any one of them. Leftists rely upon legislation and representation; anarchists, adhering to the principle of direct action, are the objective opponents of Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Leninism—and the Leftists know it. If anarchists forget (or worse, don’t even know) what their principles are, it’s all too easy for us to get sucked into manipulative alliances in which these principles play absolutely no part. Without knowing and using anarchist principles, we can’t recognize authentically anarchist tactics or methods, so that when non-anarchists adopt anarchistic methods (like affinity groups and spokescouncils), many anarchists become confused. They think that the liberals or socialists have transformed themselves into quasi-anarchists because of the use of familiar tools. But Leftists use these tactics because they function well, not because the Leftists have suddenly become promoters of anti-statism. Anarchists, being history’s most consistent losers, need to approach non-anarchist oppositionists with suspicion, not solidarity; we need to look beyond form, refusing to be hoodwinked by familiar-looking tactics. Anarchists need to know, remember, and maintain anarchist principles. From that position of strength, we can then decide when—or whether—to enter into short-term alliances with those who’d rather see us disappear.

* Roger Kropotkin is a pseudonym for an anarchist author who wishes to remain anonymous.

Discuss this article

___________________________________________________________________________

NOTES ON ANARCHISM

By Noam Chomsky

Taken from "For Reasons of State", 1970

A French writer, sympathetic to anarchism, wrote in the 1890s that ``anarchism has a broad back, like paper it endures anything''---including, he noted those whose acts are such that ``a mortal enemy of anarchism could not have done better.''[1] There have been many styles of thought and action that have been referred to as ``anarchist.'' It would be hopeless to try to encompass all of these conflicting tendencies in some general theory or ideology. And even if we proceed to extract from the history of libertarian thought a living, evolving tradition, as Daniel Guerin does in Anarchism, it remains difficult to formulate its doctrines as a specific and determinate theory of society and social change. The anarchist historian Rudolph Rocker, who presents a systematic conception of the development of anarchist thought towards anarchosyndicalism, along lines that bear comparison to Guerins work, puts the matter well when he writes that anarchism is not "a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways.

For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown. [2]

One might ask what value there is in studying a ``definite trend in the historic development of mankind'' that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to- rather than alleviate- material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that ``human nature'' or ``the demands of efficiency'' or ``the complexity of modern life'' requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule. Nevertheless, at a particular time there is every reason to develop, insofar as our understanding permits, a specific realization of this definite trend in the historic development of mankind, appropriate to the tasks of the moment. For Rocker, ``the problem that is set for our time is that of freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement''; and the method is not the conquest and exercise of state power, nor stultifying parliamentarianism, but rather ``to reconstruct the economic life of the peoples from the ground up and build it up in the spirit of Socialism.'' But only the producers themselves are fitted for this task, since they are the only value-creating element in society out of which a new future can arise. Theirs must be the task of freeing labor from all the fetters which economic exploitation has fastened on it, of freeing society from all the institutions and procedure of political power, and of opening the way to an alliance of free groups of men and women based on co-operative labor and a planned administration of things in the interest of the community.

To prepare the toiling masses in the city and country for this great goal and to bind them together as a militant force is the objective of modern Anarcho-syndicalism, and in this its whole purpose is exhausted. [p 108] As a socialist, Rocker would take for granted ``that the serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labor, including land, by the whole body of the workers.'' [3] As an anarchosyndicalist, he insists, further, that the workers' organizations create ``not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself'' in the prerevolutionary period, that they embody in themselves the structure of the future society- and he looks forward to a social revolution that will dismantle the state apparatus as well as expropriate the expropriators. ``What we put in place of the government is industrial organization.'' Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements. [p 94]

Rocker was writing at a moment when such ideas had been put into practice in a dramatic way in the Spanish Revolution. Just prior to the outbreak of the revolution, the anarchosyndicalist economist Diego Abad de Santillan had written: ...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the organization of producers. We have followed this norm and we find no need for the hypothesis of a superior power to organized labor, in order to establish a new order of things.

We would thank anyone to point out to us what function, if any, the State can have in an economic organization, where private property has been abolished and in which parasitism and special privilege have no place. The suppression of the State cannot be a languid affair; it must be the task of the Revolution to finish with the State. Either the Revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the producers organize themselves for due collective distribution and the State has nothing to do; or the Revolution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution has been a lie and the State would continue.

Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and nothing else. [4] Engels, in a letter of 1883, expressed his disagreement with this conception as follows: The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state....But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune. [5] In contrast, the anarchists---most eloquently Bakunin---warned of the dangers of the ``red bureaucracy,'' which would prove to be ``the most vile and terrible lie that our century has created.'' [6] The anarchosyndicalist Fernand Pelloutier asked: ``Must even the transitory state to which we have to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail? Can't it consist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption, all political institutions having disappeared?'' [7] I do not pretend to know the answers to this question. But it seems clear that unless there is, in some form, a positive answer, the chances for a truly democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left are not great. Martin Buber put the problem succinctly when he wrote: ``One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.'' [8]

The question of conquest or destruction of state power is what Bakunin regarded as the primary issue dividing him from Marx. [9] In one form or another, the problem has arisen repeatedly in the century since, dividing ``libertarian'' from ``authoritarian'' socialists. Despite Bakunin's warnings about the red bureaucracy, and their fulfillment under Stalin's dictatorship, it would obviously be a gross error in interpreting the debates of a century ago to rely on the claims of contemporary social movements as to their historical origins. In particular, it is perverse to regard Bolshevism as ``Marxism in practice.'' Rather, the left-wing critique of Bolshevism, taking account of the historical circumstances surrounding the Russian Revolution, is far more to the point. [10] The anti-Bolshevik, left-wing labor movement opposed the Leninists because they did not go far enough in exploiting the Russian upheavals for strictly proletarian ends. They became prisoners of their environment and used the international radical movement to satisfy specifically Russian needs, which soon became synonymous with the needs of the Bolshevik Party-State. The ``bourgeois'' aspects of the Russian Revolution were now discovered in Bolshevism itself: Leninism was adjudged a part of international social-democracy, differing from the latter only on tactical issues. [11]

If one were to seek a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition, it should, I believe, be that expressed by Bakunin when, in writing on the Paris Commune, he identified himself as follows: I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each- an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being- they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom. [12]

These ideas grew out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, Humboldt's Limits of State Action, Kant's insistence, in his defense of the French Revolution, that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved. With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, for example, from the classic work of Humboldt, The Limits of State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired Mill. This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must be attenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of industrial capitalism. Humboldt's vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx., with his discussion of the ``alienation of labor when work is external to the worker...not part of his nature... [so that] he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself... [and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased,'' alienated labor that ``casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines,'' thus depriving man of his ``species character'' of ``free conscious activity'' and ``productive life.'' Similarly, Marx conceives of ``a new type of human being who needs his fellow men... [The workers' association becomes] the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations.'' [13]

t is true that classical libertarian thought is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of ``possessive individualism''- all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment. Rudolf Rocker describes modern anarchism as ``the confluence of the two great currents which during and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism.'' The classical liberal ideals, he argues, were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms. Anarchism is necessarily anticapitalist in that it ``opposes the exploitation of man by man.'' But anarchism also opposes ``the dominion of man over man.'' It insists that ``socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism.''[14] From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism. It is in this spirit that Daniel Gu&eacuterin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.[15] Gu&eacuterin quotes Adolph Fischer, who said that ``every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.'' Similarly Bakunin, in his ``anarchist manifesto'' of 1865, the program of his projected international revolutionary fraternity, laid down the principle that each member must be, to begin with, a socialist.

A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. As Marx put it, socialists look forward to a society in which labor will ``become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life,'' [16] an impossibility when the worker is driven by external authority or need rather than inner impulse: ``no form of wage-labor, even though one may be less obnoxious that another, can do away with the misery of wage-labor itself.'' [17] A consistent anarchist must oppose not only alienated labor but also the stupefying specialization of labor that takes place when the means for developing production mutilate the worker into a fragment of a human being, degrade him to become a mere appurtenance of the machine, make his work such a torment that its essential meaning is destroyed; estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process in very proportion to the extent to which science is incorporated into it as an independent power... [18] Marx saw this not as an inevitable concomitant of industrialization, but rather as a feature of capitalist relations of production.

The society of the future must be concerned to ``replace the detail-worker of today...reduced to a mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours...to whom the different social functions...are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural powers.'' [19] The prerequisite is the abolition of capital and wage labor as social categories (not to speak of the industrial armies of the ``labor state'' or the various modern forms of totalitarianism since capitalism).

The reduction of man to an appurtenance of the machine, a specialized tool of production, might in principle be overcome, rather than enhanced, with the proper development and use of technology, but not under the conditions of autocratic control of production by those who make man an instrument to serve their ends, overlooking his individual purposes, in Humboldt's phrase.

Anarchosyndicalists sought, even under capitalism, to create ``free associations of free producers'' that would engage in militant struggle and prepare to take over the organization of production on a democratic basis. These associations would serve as ``a practical school of anarchism.'' [20] If private ownership of the means of production is, in Proudhon's often quoted phrase, merely a form of ``theft''- ``the exploitation of the weak by the strong'' [21]- control of production by a state bureaucracy, no matter how benevolent its intentions, also does not create the conditions under which labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life. Both, then, must be overcome. In his attack on the right of private or bureaucratic control over the means of production,, the anarchist takes his stand with those who struggle to bring about ``the third and last emancipatory phase of history,'' the first having made serfs out of slaves, the second having made wage earners out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers (Fourier, 1848.) [22] The imminent danger to ``civilization'' was noted by de Tocqueville, also in 1848: As long as the right of property was the origin and groundwork of many other rights, it was easily defended---or rather it was not attacked; it was then the citadel of society while all the other rights were its outworks; it did not bear the brunt of attack and, indeed, there was no serious attempt to assail it. but today, when the right of property is regarded as the last undestroyed remnant of the aristocratic world, when it alone is left standing, the sole privilege in an equalized society, it is a different matter.

Consider what is happening in the hearts of the working-classes, although I admit they are quiet as yet. It is true that they are less inflamed than formerly by political passions properly speaking; but do you not see that their passions, far from being political, have become social? Do you not see that, little by little, ideas and opinions are spreading amongst them which aim not merely at removing such and such laws, such a ministry or such a government, but at breaking up the very foundations of society itself?[23] The workers of Paris, in 1871, broke the silence, and proceeded to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. [24] The Commune, of course, was drowned in blood. The nature of the ``civilization'' that the workers of Paris sought to overcome in their attack on ``the very foundations of society itself'' was revealed, once again, when the troops of the Versailles government reconquered Paris from its population.

As Marx wrote, bitterly but accurately: The civilization and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilization and justice stand forth as undisguised savagery and lawless revenge... the infernal deeds of the soldiery reflect the innate spirit of that civilization of which they are the mercenary vindicators... The bourgeoisie of the whole world, which looks complacently upon the wholesale massacre after the battle, is convulsed by horror at the destruction of brick and mortar. [Ibid., pp 74, 77] Despite the violent destruction of the Commune, Bakunin wrote that Paris opens a new era, ``that of the definitive and complete emancipation of the popular masses and their future true solidarity, across and despite state boundaries...the next revolution of man, international in solidarity, will be the resurrection of Paris''- a revolution that the world still awaits.

The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat. He will, in short, oppose the organization of production by the Government. It means State-socialism, the command of the State officials over production and the command of managers, scientists, shop-officials in the shop... The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production. These remarks are taken from ``Five Theses on the Class Struggle'' by the left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek, one of the outstanding left theorists of the council communist movement. And in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents. As a further illustration, consider the following characterization of ``revolutionary Socialism'': The revolutionary Socialist denies that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism.

We have seen why the State cannot democratically control industry. Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly from their own ranks industrial administrative committees. Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system; its constituencies will be of an industrial character. Thus those carrying on the social activities and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration. In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community. When the central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of social activity. Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of Socialism.

The transition from the one social system to the other will be the social revolution. The political State throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes; the Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community. The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many; the latter will mean the economic freedom of all- it will be, therefore, a true democracy. This programmatic statement appears in William Paul's The State, its Origins and Functions, written in early 1917- shortly before Lenin's State and Revolution, perhaps his most libertarian work (see note 9). Paul was a member of the Marxist-De Leonist Socialist Labor Party and later one of the founders of the British Communist Party. [25] His critique of state socialism resembles the libertarian doctrine of the anarchists in its principle that since state ownership and management will lead to bureaucratic despotism, the social revolution must replace it by the industrial organization of society with direct workers' control. Many similar statements can be cited. What is far more important is that these ideas have been realized in spontaneous revolutionary action, for example in Germany and Italy after World War I and in Spain (not only in the agricultural countryside, but also in industrial Barcelona) in 1936.

One might argue that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers and technocrats, a ``vanguard'' party, or a state bureaucracy. Under these conditions of authoritarian domination the classical libertarian ideals developed further by Marx and Bakunin and all true revolutionaries cannot be realized; man will not be free to develop his own potentialities to their fullest, and the producer will remain ``a fragment of a human being,'' degraded, a tool in the productive process directed from above.

The phrase ``spontaneous revolutionary action'' can be misleading. The anarchosyndicalists, at least, took very seriously Bakunin's remark that the workers' organizations must create ``not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself'' in the prerevolutionary period. The accomplishments of the popular revolution in Spain, in particular, were based on the patient work of many years of organization and education, one component of a long tradition of commitment and militancy. The resolutions of the Madrid Congress of June 1931 and the Saragossa Congress in May 1936 foreshadowed in many ways the acts of the revolution, as did the somewhat different ideas sketched by Santillan (see note 4) in his fairly specific account of the social and economic organization to be instituted by the revolution. Gu&eacuterin writes ``The Spanish revolution was relatively mature in the minds of libertarian thinkers, as in the popular consciousness.'' And workers' organizations existed with the structure, the experience, and the understanding to undertake the task of social reconstruction when, with the Franco coup, the turmoil of early 1936 exploded into social revolution. In his introduction to a collection of documents on collectivization in Spain, the anarchist Augustin Souchy writes: For many years, the anarchists and the syndicalists of Spain considered their supreme task to be the social transformation of the society. In their assemblies of Syndicates and groups, in their journals, their brochures and books, the problem of the social revolution was discussed incessantly and in a systematic fashion.[26] All of this lies behind the spontaneous achievements, the constructive work of the Spanish Revolution.

The ideas of libertarian socialism, in the sense described, have been submerged in the industrial societies of the past half-century. The dominant ideologies have been those of state socialism or state capitalism (of increasingly militarized character in the United States, for reasons that are not obscure.) [27] But there has been a rekindling of interest in the past few years. The theses I quoted by Anton Pannekoek were taken from a recent pamphlet of a radical French workers' group (Informations Correspondance Ouvri&egravere). The remarks by William Paul on revolutionary socialism are cited in a paper by Walter Kendall given at the National Conference on Workers' Control in Sheffield, England, in March 1969.

The workers' control movement has become a significant force in England in the past few years. It has organized several conferences and has produced a substantial pamphlet literature, and counts among its active adherents representatives of some of the most important trade unions. The Amalgamated Engineering and Foundryworkers' Union, for example, has adopted, as official policy, the program of nationalization of basic industries under ``workers' control at all levels.''[28] On the Continent, there are similar developments. May 1968 of course accelerated the growing interest in council communism and related ideas in France and Germany, as it did in England.

Given the highly conservative cast of our highly ideological society, it is not too surprising that the United States has been relatively untouched by these developments. But that too may change. The erosion of cold-war mythology at least makes it possible to raise these questions in fairly broad circles. If the present wave of repression can be beaten back, if the left can overcome its more suicidal tendencies and build upon what has been accomplished in the past decade, then the problem of how to organize industrial society on truly democratic lines, with democratic control in the workplace and in the community, should become a dominant intellectual issue for those who are alive to the problems of contemporary society, and, as a mass movement for libertarian socialism develops, speculation should proceed to action. In his manifesto of 1865, Bakunin predicted that one element in the social revolution will be ``that intelligent and truly noble part of youth which, though belonging by birth to the privileged classes, in its generous convictions and ardent aspirations, adopts the cause of the people.'' Perhaps in the rise of the student movement of the 1960s one sees steps towards a fulfillment of this prophecy. Daniel Gu&eacuterin has undertaken what he has described as a ``process of rehabilitation'' of anarchism. He argues, convincingly I believe, that ``the constructive ideas of anarchism retain their vitality, that they may, when re-examined and sifted, assist contemporary socialist thought to undertake a new departure...[and] contribute to enriching Marxism.''[29] >From the ``broad back'' of anarchism he has selected for more intensive scrutiny those ideas and actions that can be described as libertarian socialist. This is natural and proper. This framework accommodates the major anarchist spokesmen as well as the mass actions that have been animated by anarchist sentiments and ideals. Gu&eacuterin is concerned not only with anarchist thought but also with the spontaneous actions of popular revolutionary struggle. He is concerned with social as well as intellectual creativity. Furthermore, he attempts to draw from the constructive achievements of the past lessons that will enrich the theory of social liberation.

For those who wish not only to understand the world, but also to change it, this is the proper way to study the history of anarchism. Gu&eacuterin describes the anarchism of the nineteenth century as essentially doctrinal, while the twentieth century, for the anarchists, has been a time of ``revolutionary practice.''[30] Anarchism reflects that judgment. His interpretation of anarchism consciously points toward the future. Arthur Rosenberg once pointed out that popular revolutions characteristically seek to replace ``a feudal or centralized authority ruling by force'' with some form of communal system which ``implies the destruction and disappearance of the old form of State.'' Such a system will be either socialist or an ``extreme form of democracy...[which is] the preliminary condition for Socialism inasmuch as Socialism can only be realized in a world enjoying the highest possible measure of individual freedom.'' This ideal, he notes, was common to Marx and the anarchists.[31] This natural struggle for liberation runs counter to the prevailing tendency towards centralization in economic and political life. A century ago Marx wrote that the workers of Paris ``felt there was but one alternative---the Commune, or the empire---under whatever name it might reappear.'' The empire had ruined them economically by the havoc it made of public wealth, by the wholesale financial swindling it fostered, by the props it lent to the artificially accelerated centralization of capital, and the concomitant expropriation of their own ranks. It had suppressed them politically, it had shocked them morally by its orgies, it had insulted their Voltairianism by handing over the education of their children to the fr&egraveres Ignorantins, it had revolted their national feeling as Frenchmen by precipitating them headlong into a war which left only one equivalent for the ruins it made- the disappearance of the empire.[32] The miserable Second Empire ``was the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation.'' It is not very difficult to rephrase these remarks so that they become appropriate to the imperial systems of 1970.

The problem of ``freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement'' remains the problem of our time. As long as this is so, the doctrines and the revolutionary practice of libertarian socialism will serve as an inspiration and guide. Footnotes [1] Octave Mirbeau, quoted in James Joll, The Anarchists, pp 145-6. [2] Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho syndicalism, p 31. [3] Cited by Rocker, ibid., p 77. This quotation and that in the next sentence are from Michael Bakunin, ``The Program of the Alliance,'' in Sam Dolgoff, ed. and trans., Bakunin on Anarchy, p 255. [4] Diego Abad de Santillan, After the Revolution, p 86. In the last chapter, written several months after the revolution had begun, he expresses his dissatisfaction with what had so far been achieved along these lines. On the accomplishments of the social revolution in Spain, see my American Power and the New Mandarins, chap. 1, and references cited there; the important study by Broué and T&eacutemime has since been translated into English. Several other important studies have appeared since, in particular: Frank Mintz, L'Autogestion dans l'Espagne r&eacutevolutionaire (Paris: Editions B&eacutelibaste, 1971); C&eacutesar M. Lorenzo, Les Anarchistes espagnols et le pouvoir, 1868-1969 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969); Gaston Leval, Espagne libertaire, 1936-1939: L'Oeuvre constructive de la R&eacutevolution espagnole (Paris: Editions du Cercle, 1971). See also Vernon Richards, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, enlarged 1972 edition. [5] Cited by Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, in his discussion of Marxism and anarchism. [6] Bakunin, in a letter to Herzen and Ogareff, 1866. Cited by Daniel Gu&eacuterin, Jeunesse du socialisme libertaire, p 119. [7] Fernand Pelloutier, cited in Joll, Anarchists. The source is ``L'Anarchisme et les syndicats ouvriers,'' Les Temps nouveaux, 1895. The full text appears in Daniel Gu&eacuterin, ed., Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre, an excellent historical anthology of anarchism. [8]

Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p 127. [9] ``No state, however democratic,'' Bakunin wrote, ``not even the reddest republic---can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, from a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves....'' ``But the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled `the people's stick' '' (Statism and Anarchy [1873], in Dolgoff, Bakunin on Anarchy, p 338) -``the people's stick'' being the democratic Republic. Marx, of course, saw the matter differently. For discussion of the impact of the Paris Commune on this dispute, see Daniel Gu&eacuterin's comments in Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre; these also appear, slightly extended, in his Pour un marxisme libertaire. See also note 24. [10] On Lenin's ``intellectual deviation'' to the left during 1917, see Robert Vincent Daniels, ``The State and Revolution: a Case Study in the Genesis and Transformation of Communist Ideology,'' American Slavic and East European Review, vol 12, no 1 (1953). [11] Paul Mattick, Marx and Keynes, p 295. [12] Michael Bakunin, ``La Commune de Paris et la notion de l'&eacutetat,'' reprinted in Gu&eacuterin, Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre. Bakunin's final remark on the laws of individual nature as the condition of freedom can be compared to the creative thought developed in the rationalist and romantic traditions. See my Cartesian Linguistics and Language and Mind. [13] Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, p 142, referring to comments in The Holy Family. Avineri states that within the socialist movement only the Israeli kibbutzim ``have perceived that the modes and forms of present social organization will determine the structure of future society.'' This, however, was a characteristic position of anarchosyndicalism, as noted earlier. [14] Rocker, Anarcho syndicalism, p 28. [15] See Gu&eacuterin's works cited earlier. [16] Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme. [17] Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen &Oumlkonomie, cited by Mattick, Marx and Keynes, p 306. In this connection, see also Mattick's essay ``Workers' Control,'' in Priscilla Long, ed., The New Left; and Avineri, Social and Political Thought of Marx. [18] Karl Marx, Capital, quoted by Robert Tucker, who rightly emphasizes that Marx sees the revolutionary more as a ``frustrated producer'' than a ``dissatisfied consumer'' (The Marxian Revolutionary Idea). This more radical critique of capitalist relations of production is a direct outgrowth of the libertarian thought of the Enlightenment. [19] Marx, Capital, cited by Avineri, Social and Political Thought of Marx, p 83. [20] Pelloutier, ``L'Anarchisme.'' [21] ``Qu'est-ce que la propri&eacuteté?''

The phrase ``property is theft'' displeased Marx, who saw in its use a logical problem, theft presupposing the legitimate existence of property. See Avineri, Social and Political Thought of Marx. [22] Cited in Buber's Paths in Utopia, p 19. [23] Cited in J. Hampden Jackson, Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism, p 60. [24] Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, p 24. Avineri observes that this and other comments of Marx about the Commune refer pointedly to intentions and plans. As Marx made plain elsewhere, his considered assessment was more critical than in this address. [25] For some background, see Walter Kendall, The Revolutionary Movement in Britain. [26] Collectivisations: L'Oeuvre constructive de la R&eacutevolution espagnole, p 8. [27] For discussion, see Mattick, Marx and Keynes, and Michael Kidron, Western Capitalism Since the War. See also discussion and references cited in my At War With Asia, chapter 1, pp 23-6. [28] See Hugh Scanlon, The Way Forward for Workers' Control. Scanlon is the president of the AEF, one of Britain's largest trade unions. The institute was established as a result of the sixth Conference on Workers' Control, March 1968, and serves as a center for disseminating information and encouraging research. [29] Gu&eacuterin, Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre, introduction. [30] Ibid. [31] Arthur Rosenberg, A History of Bolshevism, p 88. [32] Marx, Civil War in France, pp 62-3.

__________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avineri, Shlomo. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Bakunin, Michael. Bakunin on Anarchy. Edited and translated by Sam Dolgoff. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.

Buber, Martin. Paths in Utopia. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.

Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

------. American Power and the New Mandarins. New York: Pantheon Books, 1969.

------. At War with Asia. New York: Pantheon Books, 1970. Collectivisations: L'Oeuvre constructive de la R&eacutevolution espagnole. 2nd ed. Toulouse: Editions C.N.T., 1965. First edition, Barcelona, 1937. Daniels, Robert Vincent. ``The State and Revolution: a Case Study in the Genesis and Transformation of Communist Ideology.'' American Slavic and East European Review, vol. 12, no. 1 (1953). Gu&eacuterin, Daniel. Jeunesse du socialisme libertaire. Paris: Librairie Marcel Rivi&egravere, 1959.

------. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, translated by Mary Klopper. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.

------. Pour un marxisme libertaire. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1969.

Edited by Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre, Lausanne: La Cité Editeur, n.d. -Jackson, J. Hampden, Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism, New York: Collier Books, 1962.

Joll, James, The Anarchists, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1964.

Kendall, Walter. The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900-1921, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969.

Kidron, Michael, Western Capitalism Since the War, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968.

Mattick, Paul, Marx and Keynes: The Limits of Mixed Economy, Extending Horizons Series. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969.

''Workers' Control'' In The New Left: A Collection of Essays, edited by Priscilla Long, Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969.

Marx, Karl, The Civil War in France, 1871, New York: International Publishers, 1941.

Pelloutier, Fernand, ``L'Anarchisme et les syndicats ouvriers'' Les Temps nouveaux, 1895, Reprinted in Ni Dieu, ni Ma&icirctre, edited by Daniel Guerin, Lausanne: La Cité Editeur, n.d.

Richards, Vernon, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution (1936--1939), London: Freedom Press, 1972.

Rocker, Rudolf, Anarcho syndicalism. London: Secker & Warburg, 1938.

Rosenberg, Arthur, A History of Bolshevism from Marx to the First Five Years' Plan, Translated by Ian F. Morrow, New York: Russell & Russell, 1965.

Santillan, Diego Abad De, After the Revolution, New York: Greenberg Publishers, 1937. -Scanlon, Hugh, The Way Forward for Workers' Control. Institute for Workers' Control Pamphlet Series, no. 1, Nottingham, England, 1968.

Tucker, Robert C, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1969.