Notes on Anarchism

15 Pages·2016·0.07 MB·English

by  Noam Chomsky

Notes on Anarchism
Noam Chomsky
1970
Contents
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2
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
mortalenemyofanarchismcouldnothavedonebetter.”1Therehavebeenmanystylesofthought
andactionthathavebeenreferredtoas“anarchist.”Itwouldbehopelesstotrytoencompassall
of these conflicting tendencies in some general theory or ideology. And even if we proceed to
extractfromthehistoryoflibertarianthoughtaliving,evolvingtradition,asDanielGuérindoes
inAnarchism,itremainsdifficulttoformulateitsdoctrinesasaspecificanddeterminatetheory
ofsocietyandsocialchange.TheanarchisthistorianRudolphRocker,whopresentsasystematic
conception of the development of anarchist thought towards anarchosyndicalism, along lines
that bear comparison to Guérins work, puts the matter well when he writes that anarchism is
not
afixed,self-enclosedsocialsystembutratheradefinitetrendinthehistoricdevelop-
mentofmankind,which,incontrastwiththeintellectualguardianshipofallclerical
andgovernmentalinstitutions,strivesforthefreeunhinderedunfoldingofallthein-
dividualandsocialforcesinlife.Evenfreedomisonlyarelative,notanabsolutecon-
cept,sinceittendsconstantlytobecomebroaderandtoaffectwidercirclesinmore
manifoldways.Fortheanarchist,freedomisnotanabstractphilosophicalconcept,
butthevitalconcretepossibilityforeveryhumanbeingtobringtofulldevelopment
allthepowers,capacities,andtalentswithwhichnaturehasendowedhim,andturn
themtosocialaccount.Thelessthisnaturaldevelopmentofmanisinfluencedbyec-
clesiasticalorpoliticalguardianship,themoreefficientandharmoniouswillhuman
personalitybecome,themorewillitbecomethemeasureoftheintellectualculture
ofthesocietyinwhichithasgrown.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 com-
mentatorsdismissanarchismasutopian,formless,primitive,orotherwiseincompatiblewiththe
realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage
ofhistoryourconcernmustbetodismantlethoseformsofauthorityandoppressionthatsurvive
fromanerawhentheymighthavebeenjustifiedintermsoftheneedforsecurityorsurvivalor
economic development, but that now contribute to — rather than alleviate — material and cul-
turaldeficit.Ifso,therewillbenodoctrineofsocialchangefixedforthepresentandfuture,nor
even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change
shouldtend.Surelyourunderstandingofthenatureofmanoroftherangeofviablesocialforms
is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as
skepticismisinorderwhenwehearthat“humannature”or“thedemandsofefficiency”or“the
complexityofmodernlife”requiresthisorthatformofoppressionandautocraticrule.
Nevertheless,ataparticulartimethereiseveryreasontodevelop,insofarasourunderstand-
ing permits, a specific realization of this definite trend in the historic development of mankind,
appropriatetothetasksofthemoment.ForRocker,“theproblemthatissetforourtimeisthatof
freeingmanfromthecurseofeconomicexploitationandpoliticalandsocialenslavement”;and
the method is not the conquest and exerciseof state power,nor stultifying parliamentarianism,
1OctaveMirbeau,quotedinJamesJoll,TheAnarchists,pp.145–6.
2RudolfRocker,Anarchosyndicalism,p.31.
3
butrather“toreconstructtheeconomiclifeofthepeoplesfromthegroundupandbuilditupin
thespiritofSocialism.”
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
fastenedonit,offreeingsocietyfromalltheinstitutionsandprocedureofpolitical
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,andinthisitswholepurposeisexhausted.[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,butalsothefactsofthefutureitself”intheprerevolutionaryperiod,thattheyembodyin
themselvesthestructureofthefuturesociety—andhelooksforwardtoasocialrevolutionthat
willdismantlethestateapparatusaswellasexpropriatetheexpropriators.“Whatweputinplace
ofthegovernmentisindustrialorganization.”
Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic order cannot be cre-
atedbythedecreesandstatutesofagovernment,butonlybythesolidariccollabo-
rationoftheworkerswithhandandbrainineachspecialbranchofproduction;that
is,throughthetakingoverofthemanagementofallplantsbytheproducersthem-
selvesundersuchformthattheseparategroups,plants,andbranchesofindustryare
independent members of the general economic organism and systematically carry
onproductionandthedistributionoftheproductsintheinterestofthecommunity
onthebasisoffreemutualagreements.[p.94]
Rockerwaswritingatamomentwhensuchideashadbeenputintopracticeinadramaticway
in the Spanish Revolution. Just prior to the outbreak of the revolution, the anarchosyndicalist
economistDiegoAbaddeSantillanhadwritten:
…infacingtheproblemofsocialtransformation,theRevolutioncannotconsiderthe
stateasamedium,butmustdependontheorganizationofproducers.
We have followed this norm and we find no need for the hypothesis of a superior
powertoorganizedlabor,inordertoestablishaneworderofthings.Wewouldthank
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 lan-
guidaffair;itmustbethetaskoftheRevolutiontofinishwiththeState.Eitherthe
3Cited by Rocker, ibid., p. 77. This quotation and that in the next sentence are from Michael Bakunin, “The
ProgramoftheAlliance,”inSamDolgoff,ed.andtrans.,BakuninonAnarchy,p.255.
4
Revolutiongivessocialwealthtotheproducersinwhichcasetheproducersorganize
themselvesforduecollectivedistributionandtheStatehasnothingtodo;ortheRev-
olution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the Revolution
hasbeenalieandtheStatewouldcontinue.
Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and ad-
ministrative regulating power. It receives its orientation from below and operates
in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a
liaisoncorpsandnothingelse.4
Engels,inaletterof1883,expressedhisdisagreementwiththisconceptionasfollows:
Theanarchistsputthethingupsidedown.Theydeclarethattheproletarianrevolu-
tion 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
itscapitalistadversaries,andcarryoutthateconomicrevolutionofsocietywithout
whichthewholevictorymustendinanewdefeatandamassslaughterofthework-
erssimilartothoseafterthePariscommune.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 cre-
ated.”6TheanarchosyndicalistFernandPelloutierasked:“Musteventhetransitorystatetowhich
we have to submit necessarily and fatally be a collectivist jail? Can’t it consist in a free organi-
zationlimitedexclusivelybytheneedsofproductionandconsumption,allpoliticalinstitutions
havingdisappeared?”7
Idonotpretendtoknowtheanswerstothisquestion.Butitseemsclearthatunlessthereis,
insomeform,apositiveanswer,thechancesforatrulydemocraticrevolutionthatwillachieve
thehumanisticidealsoftheleftarenotgreat.MartinBuberputtheproblemsuccinctlywhenhe
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
regardedastheprimaryissuedividinghimfromMarx.9Inoneformoranother,theproblemhas
arisenrepeatedlyinthecenturysince,dividing“libertarian”from“authoritarian”socialists.
4DiegoAbaddeSantillan,AftertheRevolution,p.86.Inthelastchapter,writtenseveralmonthsaftertherev-
olution had begun, he expresses his dissatisfaction with what had so far been achieved along these lines. On the
accomplishmentsofthesocialrevolutioninSpain,seemyAmericanPowerandtheNewMandarins,chap.1,andref-
erencescitedthere;theimportantstudybyBrouéandTémimehassincebeentranslatedintoEnglish.Severalother
importantstudieshaveappearedsince,inparticular:FrankMintz,L’Autogestiondansl’Espagnerévolutionaire(Paris:
EditionsBélibaste,1971);CésarM.Lorenzo,LesAnarchistesespagnolsetlepouvoir,1868–1969(Paris:EditionsduSeuil,
1969);GastonLeval,Espagnelibertaire,1936–1939:L’OeuvreconstructivedelaRévolutionespagnole(Paris:Editionsdu
Cercle,1971).SeealsoVernonRichards,LessonsoftheSpanishRevolution,enlarged1972edition.
5CitedbyRobertC.Tucker,TheMarxianRevolutionaryIdea,inhisdiscussionofMarxismandanarchism.
6Bakunin,inalettertoHerzenandOgareff,1866.CitedbyDanielGuérin,Jeunessedusocialismelibertaire,p.
119.
7FernandPelloutier,citedinJoll,Anarchists.Thesourceis“L’Anarchismeetlessyndicatsouvriers,”LesTemps
nouveaux,1895.ThefulltextappearsinDanielGuérin,ed.,NiDieu,niMaître,anexcellenthistoricalanthologyof
anarchism.
8MartinBuber,PathsinUtopia,p.127.
9“Nostate,howeverdemocratic,”Bakuninwrote,“noteventhereddestrepublic—canevergivethepeople
whattheyreallywant,i.e.,thefreeself-organizationandadministrationoftheirownaffairsfromthebottomupward,
5
Despite Bakunin’s warnings about the red bureaucracy, and their fulfillment under Stalin’s
dictatorship,itwouldobviouslybeagrosserrorininterpretingthedebatesofacenturyagoto
relyontheclaimsofcontemporarysocialmovementsastotheirhistoricalorigins.Inparticular,
it is perverse to regard Bolshevism as “Marxism in practice.” Rather, the left-wing critique of
Bolshevism,takingaccountofthehistoricalcircumstancessurroundingtheRussianRevolution,
isfarmoretothepoint.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.Theybecameprisonersoftheirenvironmentandusedtheinternationalradical
movement to satisfy specifically Russian needs, which soon became synonymous
withtheneedsoftheBolshevikParty-State.The“bourgeois”aspectsoftheRussian
RevolutionwerenowdiscoveredinBolshevismitself:Leninismwasadjudgedapart
ofinternationalsocial-democracy,differingfromthelatteronlyontacticalissues.11
If one were to seek a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition, it should, I believe,
bethatexpressedbyBakuninwhen,inwritingontheParisCommune,heidentifiedhimselfas
follows:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which
intelligence,dignityandhumanhappinesscandevelopandgrow;notthepurelyfor-
mallibertyconceded,measuredoutandregulatedbytheState,aneternalliewhich
inrealityrepresentsnothingmorethantheprivilegeofsomefoundedontheslavery
oftherest;nottheindividualistic,egoistic,shabby,andfictitiouslibertyextolledby
theSchoolofJ.-J.Rousseauandotherschoolsofbourgeoisliberalism,whichconsid-
ersthewould-berightsofallmen,representedbytheStatewhichlimitstherightsof
each—anideathatleadsinevitablytothereductionoftherightsofeachtozero.No,
Imeantheonlykindoflibertythatisworthyofthename,libertythatconsistsinthe
fulldevelopmentofallthematerial,intellectualandmoralpowersthatarelatentin
eachperson;libertythatrecognizesnorestrictionsotherthanthosedeterminedby
thelawsofourownindividualnature,whichcannotproperlyberegardedasrestric-
tionssincetheselawsarenotimposedbyanyoutsidelegislatorbesideoraboveus,
butareimmanentandinherent,formingtheverybasisofourmaterial,intellectual
withoutanyinterferenceorviolencefromabove,becauseeverystate,eventhepseudo-People’sStateconcoctedbyMr.
Marx,isinessenceonlyamachinerulingthemassesfromabove,fromaprivilegedminorityofconceitedintellectuals,
whoimaginethattheyknowwhatthepeopleneedandwantbetterthandothepeoplethemselves…”“Butthepeople
willfeelnobetterifthestickwithwhichtheyarebeingbeatenislabeled‘thepeople’sstick’“(StatismandAnarchy
[1873],inDolgoff,BakuninonAnarchy,p.338)—“thepeople’sstick”beingthedemocraticRepublic.
Marx,ofcourse,sawthematterdifferently.
FordiscussionoftheimpactoftheParisCommuneonthisdispute,seeDanielGuérin’scommentsinNi
Dieu,niMaître;thesealsoappear,slightlyextended,inhisPourunmarxismelibertaire.Seealsonote24.
10OnLenin’s“intellectualdeviation”totheleftduring1917,seeRobertVincentDaniels,“TheStateandRevo-
lution:aCaseStudyintheGenesisandTransformationofCommunistIdeology,”AmericanSlavicandEastEuropean
Review,vol.12,no.1(1953).
11PaulMattick,MarxandKeynes,p.295.
6
andmoralbeing—theydonotlimitusbutaretherealandimmediateconditionsof
ourfreedom.12
TheseideasgrewoutoftheEnlightenment;theirrootsareinRousseau’sDiscourseonInequal-
ity,Humboldt’sLimitsofStateAction,Kant’sinsistence,inhisdefenseoftheFrenchRevolution,
thatfreedomisthepreconditionforacquiringthematurityforfreedom,notagifttobegranted
whensuchmaturityisachieved.Withthedevelopmentofindustrialcapitalism,anewandunan-
ticipatedsystemofinjustice,itislibertariansocialismthathaspreservedandextendedtheradical
humanistmessageoftheEnlightenmentandtheclassicalliberalidealsthatwerepervertedinto
anideologytosustaintheemergingsocialorder.Infact,ontheverysameassumptionsthatled
classicalliberalismtoopposetheinterventionofthestateinsociallife,capitalistsocialrelations
arealsointolerable.Thisisclear,forexample,fromtheclassicworkofHumboldt,TheLimitsof
State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired Mill. This classic of liberal thought, com-
pletedin1792,isinitsessenceprofoundly,thoughprematurely,anticapitalist.Itsideasmustbe
attenuatedbeyondrecognitiontobetransmutedintoanideologyofindustrialcapitalism.
Humboldt’svisionofasocietyinwhichsocialfettersarereplacedbysocialbondsandlaboris
freelyundertakensuggeststheearlyMarx.,withhisdiscussionofthe“alienationoflaborwhen
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 la-
bor 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 “pro-
ductive life.” Similarly, Marx conceives of “a new type of human being who needs his fellow
men…[Theworkers’associationbecomes]therealconstructiveefforttocreatethesocialtexture
offuturehumanrelations.”13 Itistruethatclassicallibertarianthoughtisopposedtostateinter-
ventioninsociallife,asaconsequenceofdeeperassumptionsaboutthehumanneedforliberty,
diversity,andfreeassociation.Onthesameassumptions,capitalistrelationsofproduction,wage
labor,competitiveness,theideologyof“possessiveindividualism”—allmustberegardedasfun-
damentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the
liberalidealsoftheEnlightenment.
RudolfRockerdescribesmodernanarchismas“theconfluenceofthetwogreatcurrentswhich
duringandsincetheFrenchrevolutionhavefoundsuchcharacteristicexpressionintheintellec-
tuallifeofEurope:SocialismandLiberalism.”Theclassicalliberalideals,heargues,werewrecked
ontherealitiesofcapitalisteconomicforms.Anarchismisnecessarilyanticapitalistinthatit“op-
posestheexploitationofmanbyman.”Butanarchismalsoopposes“thedominionofmanover
man.”Itinsiststhat“socialismwillbefreeoritwillnotbeatall.Initsrecognitionofthisliesthe
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
12Michael Bakunin, “La Commune de Paris et la notion de l’état,” reprinted in Guérin, Ni Dieu, ni Maître.
Bakunin’s final remark on the laws of individual nature as the condition of freedom can be compared to the cre-
ativethoughtdevelopedintherationalistandromantictraditions.SeemyCartesianLinguistics andLanguageand
Mind.
13ShlomoAvineri,TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofKarlMarx,p.142,referringtocommentsinTheHolyFamily.
Avineri states that within the socialist movement only the Israeli kibbutzim “have perceived that the modes and
formsofpresentsocialorganizationwilldeterminethestructureoffuturesociety.”This,however,wasacharacteristic
positionofanarchosyndicalism,asnotedearlier.
14Rocker,Anarchosyndicalism,p.28.
7
Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.15 Guérin quotes
AdolphFischer,whosaidthat“everyanarchistisasocialistbutnoteverysocialistisnecessarily
an anarchist.” Similarly Bakunin, in his “anarchist manifesto” of 1865, the program of his pro-
jectedinternationalrevolutionaryfraternity,laiddowntheprinciplethateachmembermustbe,
tobeginwith,asocialist.
A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the
wageslaverywhichisacomponentofthissystem,asincompatiblewiththeprinciplethatlabor
mustbefreelyundertakenandunderthecontroloftheproducer.AsMarxputit,socialistslook
forward to a society in which labor will “become not only a means of life, but also the highest
wantinlife,”16 animpossibilitywhentheworkerisdrivenbyexternalauthorityorneedrather
thaninnerimpulse:“noformofwage-labor,eventhoughonemaybelessobnoxiousthatanother,
candoawaywiththemiseryofwage-laboritself.”17Aconsistentanarchistmustopposenotonly
alienated labor but also the stupefying specialization of labor that takes place when the means
fordevelopingproduction
mutilate the worker into a fragment of a human being, degrade him to become a
mereappurtenanceofthemachine,makehisworksuchatormentthatitsessential
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
anindependentpower…18
Marxsawthisnotasaninevitableconcomitantofindustrialization,butratherasafeatureof
capitalist relations of production. The society of the future must be concerned to “replace the
detail-workeroftoday…reducedtoamerefragmentofaman,bythefullydevelopedindividual,
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 appurte-
nance of the machine, a specialized tool of production, might in principle be overcome, rather
thanenhanced,withtheproperdevelopmentanduseoftechnology,butnotundertheconditions
of autocratic control of production by those who make man an instrument to serve their ends,
overlookinghisindividualpurposes,inHumboldt’sphrase.
Anarchosyndicalistssought,evenundercapitalism,tocreate“freeassociationsoffreeproduc-
ers”thatwouldengageinmilitantstruggleandpreparetotakeovertheorganizationofproduc-
tiononademocraticbasis.Theseassociationswouldserveas“apracticalschoolofanarchism.”20
Ifprivateownershipofthemeansofproductionis,inProudhon’softenquotedphrase,merelya
15SeeGuérin’sworkscitedearlier.
16KarlMarx,CritiqueoftheGothaProgramme.
17KarlMarx,GrundrissederKritikderPolitischenÖkonomie,citedbyMattick,MarxandKeynes,p.306.Inthis
connection,seealsoMattick’sessay“Workers’Control,”inPriscillaLong,ed.,TheNewLeft;andAvineri,Socialand
PoliticalThoughtofMarx.
18KarlMarx,Capital,quotedbyRobertTucker,whorightlyemphasizesthatMarxseestherevolutionarymore
asa“frustratedproducer”thana“dissatisfiedconsumer”(TheMarxianRevolutionaryIdea).Thismoreradicalcritique
ofcapitalistrelationsofproductionisadirectoutgrowthofthelibertarianthoughtoftheEnlightenment.
19Marx,Capital,citedbyAvineri,SocialandPoliticalThoughtofMarx,p.83.
20Pelloutier,“L’Anarchisme.”
8
formof“theft”—“theexploitationoftheweakbythestrong”21—controlofproductionbyastate
bureaucracy,nomatterhowbenevolentitsintentions,alsodoesnotcreatetheconditionsunder
which labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life. Both, then, must be
overcome.
Inhisattackontherightofprivateorbureaucraticcontroloverthemeansofproduction„the
anarchisttakeshisstandwiththosewhostruggletobringabout“thethirdandlastemancipatory
phaseofhistory,”thefirsthavingmadeserfsoutofslaves,thesecondhavingmadewageearners
out of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places
controlovertheeconomyinthehandsoffreeandvoluntaryassociationsofproducers(Fourier,
1848).22 Theimminentdangerto“civilization”wasnotedbydeTocqueville,alsoin1848:
Aslongastherightofpropertywastheoriginandgroundworkofmanyotherrights,
it was easily defended — or rather it was not attacked; it was then the citadel of
societywhilealltheotherrightswereitsoutworks;itdidnotbearthebruntofattack
and, indeed, there was no serious attempt to assail it. but today, when the right of
propertyisregardedasthelastundestroyedremnantofthearistocraticworld,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
andopinionsarespreadingamongstthemwhichaimnotmerelyatremovingsuch
and such laws, such a ministry or such a government, but at breaking up the very
foundationsofsocietyitself?23
TheworkersofParis,in1871,brokethesilence,andproceeded
to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune in-
tendedtoabolishthatclasspropertywhichmakesthelaborofthemanythewealth
ofthefew.Itaimedattheexpropriationoftheexpropriators.Itwantedtomakein-
dividualpropertyatruthbytransformingthemeansofproduction,landandcapital,
now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of
freeandassociatedlabor.24
TheCommune,ofcourse,wasdrownedinblood.Thenatureofthe“civilization”thatthework-
ers 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.AsMarxwrote,bitterlybutaccurately:
21“Qu’est-ce que la propriété?” The phrase “property is theft” displeased Marx, who saw in its use a logical
problem,theftpresupposingthelegitimateexistenceofproperty.SeeAvineri,SocialandPoliticalThoughtofMarx.
22CitedinBuber’sPathsinUtopia,p.19.
23CitedinJ.HampdenJackson,Marx,ProudhonandEuropeanSocialism,p.60.
24KarlMarx,TheCivilWarinFrance,p.24.AvineriobservesthatthisandothercommentsofMarxaboutthe
Communereferpointedlytointentionsandplans.AsMarxmadeplainelsewhere,hisconsideredassessmentwas
morecriticalthaninthisaddress.
9
Thecivilizationandjusticeofbourgeoisordercomesoutinitsluridlightwhenever
theslavesanddrudgesofthatorderriseagainsttheirmasters.Thenthiscivilization
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 com-
placentlyuponthewholesalemassacreafterthebattle,isconvulsedbyhorroratthe
destructionofbrickandmortar.[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,acrossanddespitestateboundaries…thenextrevolutionofman,internationalinsoli-
darity,willbetheresurrectionofParis”—arevolutionthattheworldstillawaits.
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
capitalbythewholebodyofworkers,buthewillalsoinsistthatthisappropriationbedirect,not
exercisedbysomeeliteforceactinginthenameoftheproletariat.Hewill,inshort,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, sci-
entists, shop-officials in the shop…The goal of the working class is liberation from
exploitation.Thisgoalisnotreachedandcannotbereachedbyanewdirectingand
governingclasssubstitutingitselfforthebourgeoisie.Itisonlyrealizedbythework-
ersthemselvesbeingmasteroverproduction.
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.
Andinfact,radicalMarxismmergeswithanarchistcurrents.
Asafurtherillustration,considerthefollowingcharacterizationof“revolutionarySocialism”:
The revolutionary Socialist denies that State ownership can end in anything other
than a bureaucratic despotism. We have seen why the State cannot democratically
controlindustry.Industrycan onlybedemocratically ownedandcontrolled bythe
workerselectingdirectlyfromtheirownranksindustrialadministrativecommittees.
Socialismwillbefundamentallyanindustrialsystem;itsconstituencieswillbeofan
industrial character. Thus those carrying on the social activities and industries of
societywillbedirectlyrepresentedinthelocalandcentralcouncilsofsocialadmin-
istration. 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
bytheindustrialadministrativecommitteeofSocialism.Thetransitionfromtheone
socialsystemtotheotherwillbethesocialrevolution.ThepoliticalStatethroughout
historyhasmeantthegovernmentofmenbyrulingclasses;theRepublicofSocialism
willbethegovernmentofindustryadministeredonbehalfofthewholecommunity.
Theformermeanttheeconomicandpoliticalsubjectionofthemany;thelatterwill
meantheeconomicfreedomofall—itwillbe,therefore,atruedemocracy.
10