From rael@ll.mit.edu Fri Sep  4 19:25:24 1992
Return-Path: <rael@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 16:16:44 -0400
From: rael@ll.mit.edu (Bill Lear)
To: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Subject: TeX version of ``Notes on Anarchism''

\documentstyle[endnotes]{article}

\textheight 9in
\textwidth 6in
\topmargin -.5in
\oddsidemargin  .25in
\evensidemargin .25in
\marginparwidth  75pt
\marginparsep    11pt
\lefthyphenmin = 2
\righthyphenmin = 3

\title{``Notes on Anarchism''\\in\\{\em For Reasons of State}}
\author{Noam Chomsky}
\date{1970}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

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.''\endnotemark[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
Gu\'erin  does  in  {\em  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 Gu\'erins work,
puts the matter well when he writes that anarchism is not
\begin{quote}
     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.\endnotemark[2]{}
\end{quote}
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.''
\begin{quote}
     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]
\end{quote}

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.''\endnotemark[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.''
\begin{quote}
     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]
\end{quote}

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:
\begin{quotation}
     \noindent  \ldots 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.\endnotemark[4]{}
\end{quotation}

Engels,  in  a  letter  of  1883,  expressed  his  disagreement  with  this
conception as follows:
\begin{quote}
     The  anarchists  put the thing upside down. They declare that the
     proletarian  revolution must {\em begin\/} by doing away with the
     political  organization  of  the state\ldots 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.\endnotemark[5]{}
\end{quote}

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.''\endnotemark[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?''\endnotemark[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.''\endnotemark[8]{} The question of
conquest  or  destruction  of  state  power is what Bakunin regarded as the
primary  issue  dividing  him  from  Marx.\endnotemark[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.\endnotemark[10]{}
\begin{quote}
     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.\endnotemark[11]{}
\end{quote}

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:
\begin{quote}
     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.\endnotemark[12]{}
\end{quote}

These  ideas  grew  out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau's
{\em  Discourse  on  Inequality},  Humboldt's {\em 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, {\em 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\ldots  not  part  of  his nature\ldots [so that] he does not fulfill
himself  in his work but denies himself\ldots [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  {\em  needs\/}  his fellow men.\ldots [The workers' association
becomes]  the  real  constructive  effort  to  create the social texture of
future  human  relations.''\endnotemark[13]{}  It  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
``{\em 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.''\endnotemark[14]{}  From  this  point of view, anarchism may be
regarded  as  the  libertarian wing of socialism. It is in this spirit that
Daniel  Gu\'erin has approached the study of anarchism in {\em Anarchism\/}
and other works.\endnotemark[15]{} Gu\'erin 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,''\endnotemark[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
than    another,    can   do   away   with   the   misery   of   wage-labor
itself.''\endnotemark[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
\begin{quote}
     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\ldots\endnotemark[18]{}
\end{quote}
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\ldots
reduced to a mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit
for a variety of labours\ldots to whom the different social functions\ldots
are   but   so  many  modes  of  giving  free  scope  to  his  own  natural
powers.''\endnotemark[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.''\endnotemark[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''\endnotemark[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).\endnotemark[22]{} The
imminent  danger  to  ``civilization'' was noted by de Tocqueville, also in
1848:
\begin{quote}
     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?\endnotemark[23]{}
\end{quote}
The workers of Paris, in 1871, broke the silence, and proceeded
\begin{quote}
     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.\endnotemark[24]{}
\end{quote}

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:

\begin{quote}
     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\ldots the
     infernal  deeds of the soldiery reflect the innate spirit of that
     civilization  of  which they are the mercenary vindicators.\ldots
     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. [{\em Ibid}., pp. 74, 77]
\end{quote}

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\ldots  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
\begin{quote}
     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.\ldots 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.
\end{quote}
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'':
\begin{quote}
     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 {\em social revolution.} The political State
     throughout  history  has  meant  the government {\em of men\/} by
     ruling  classes; the Republic of Socialism will be the government
     {\em   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.
\end{quote}
This  programmatic  statement appears in William Paul's {\em The State, its
Origins and Functions}, written in early 1917---shortly before Lenin's {\em
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.\endnotemark[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\'erin 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:
\begin{quote}
     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.\endnotemark[26]{}
\end{quote}
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).\endnotemark[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 ({\em
Informations  Correspondance Ouvri\`ere\/}). 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.''\endnotemark[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\'erin  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\ldots   [and]   contribute   to   enriching
Marxism.''\endnotemark[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\'erin  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\'erin  describes  the anarchism of the nineteenth century as essentially
doctrinal, while the twentieth century, for the anarchists, has been a time
of ``revolutionary practice.''\endnotemark[30]{} {\em 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\ldots [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.\endnotemark[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.''
\begin{quote}
     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  {\em  fr\`eres  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.\endnotemark[32]{}
\end{quote}
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.

\addtoendnotes{\leftskip\parindent  \advance  \leftskip by 0.1em \parindent
-\parindent}

\addtoendnotes{This  essay  is  a  revised  version  of the introduction to
Daniel  Gu\'erin's  {\em Anarchism: From Theory to Practice}. In a slightly
different  version,  it appeared in the {\em New York Review of Books}, May
21, 1970.}

\addtoendnotes{\protect\vspace{.15in}\parindent-\parindent}

\setcounter{endnote}{0}

\endnotetext[1]{Octave Mirbeau, quoted in James Joll, {\em The Anarchists},
pp. 145--6.}

\endnotetext[2]{Rudolf Rocker, {\em Anarchosyndicalism}, p. 31.}

\endnotetext[3]{Cited  by  Rocker,  {\em  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., {\em Bakunin on Anarchy}, p.
255.}

\endnotetext[4]{Diego Abad de Santillan, {\em 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  {\em  American  Power  and  the New Mandarins}, chap. 1, and references
cited  there;  the  important  study by Brou\'e and T\'emime has since been
translated  into  English.  Several  other  important studies have appeared
since,  in  particular:  Frank  Mintz,  {\em  L'Autogestion  dans l'Espagne
r\'evolutionaire\/}   (Paris:   Editions  B\'elibaste,  1971);  C\'esar  M.
Lorenzo,  {\em  Les  Anarchistes  espagnols  et  le  pouvoir, 1868--1969\/}
(Paris:  Editions  du  Seuil, 1969); Gaston Leval, {\em Espagne libertaire,
1936--1939:  L'Oeuvre  constructive de la R\'evolution espagnole\/} (Paris:
Editions  du  Cercle,  1971). See also Vernon Richards, {\em Lessons of the
Spanish Revolution}, enlarged 1972 edition.}

\endnotetext[5]{Cited  by  Robert C. Tucker, {\em The Marxian Revolutionary
Idea}, in his discussion of Marxism and anarchism.}

\endnotetext[6]{Bakunin,  in a letter to Herzen and Ogareff, 1866. Cited by
Daniel Gu\'erin, {\em Jeunesse du socialisme libertaire}, p. 119.}

\endnotetext[7]{Fernand  Pelloutier,  cited  in Joll, {\em Anarchists}. The
source  is  ``L'Anarchisme  et  les  syndicats  ouvriers,''  {\em Les Temps
nouveaux},  1895.  The  full  text appears in Daniel Gu\'erin, ed., {\em Ni
Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}, an excellent historical anthology of anarchism.}

\endnotetext[8]{Martin Buber, {\em Paths in Utopia}, p. 127.}

\endnotetext[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.\ldots''
``But the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being
beaten  is  labeled  `the  people's stick'\,'' ({\em Statism and Anarchy\/}
[1873],  in  Dolgoff,  {\em  Bakunin  on Anarchy}, p. 338)---``the people's
stick'' being the democratic Republic.

\parindent -\parindent Marx, of course, saw the matter differently.

For  discussion  of  the  impact  of the Paris Commune on this dispute, see
Daniel  Gu\'erin's  comments  in  {\em Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}; these also
appear,  slightly  extended,  in his {\em Pour un marxisme libertaire}. See
also note 24.}

\endnotetext[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,'' {\em American
Slavic and East European Review}, vol. 12, no. 1 (1953).}

\endnotetext[11]{Paul Mattick, {\em Marx and Keynes}, p. 295.}

\endnotetext[12]{Michael  Bakunin,  ``La  Commune  de Paris et la notion de
l'\'etat,'' reprinted in Gu\'erin, {\em Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}. 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 {\em Cartesian Linguistics\/} and {\em Language
and Mind}.}

\endnotetext[13]{Shlomo  Avineri,  {\em The Social and Political Thought of
Karl Marx}, p. 142, referring to comments in {\em The Holy Family}. Avineri
states  that within the socialist movement only the Israeli {\em 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.}

\endnotetext[14]{Rocker, {\em Anarchosyndicalism}, p. 28.}

\endnotetext[15]{See Gu\'erin's works cited earlier.}

\endnotetext[16]{Karl Marx, {\em Critique of the Gotha Programme}.}

\endnotetext[17]{Karl  Marx,  {\em  Grundrisse  der  Kritik der Politischen
\"Okonomie},  cited  by  Mattick,  {\em  Marx  and Keynes}, p. 306. In this
connection,  see  also  Mattick's  essay ``Workers' Control,'' in Priscilla
Long,  ed.,  {\em  The  New  Left};  and Avineri, {\em Social and Political
Thought of Marx}.}

\endnotetext[18]{Karl  Marx,  {\em  Capital},  quoted by Robert Tucker, who
rightly  emphasizes that Marx sees the revolutionary more as a ``frustrated
producer'' than a ``dissatisfied consumer'' ({\em The Marxian Revolutionary
Idea}). This more radical critique of capitalist relations of production is
a direct outgrowth of the libertarian thought of the Enlightenment.}

\endnotetext[19]{Marx,  {\em  Capital},  cited  by Avineri, {\em Social and
Political Thought of Marx}, p. 83.}

\endnotetext[20]{Pelloutier, ``L'Anarchisme.''}

\endnotetext[21]{``Qu'est-ce  que la propri\'et\'e?'' The phrase ``property
is  theft''  displeased  Marx,  who saw in its use a logical problem, theft
presupposing the legitimate existence of property. See Avineri, {\em Social
and Political Thought of Marx}.}

\endnotetext[22]{Cited in Buber's {\em Paths in Utopia}, p. 19.}

\endnotetext[23]{Cited  in  J.  Hampden  Jackson,  {\em  Marx, Proudhon and
European Socialism}, p. 60.}

\endnotetext[24]{Karl  Marx,  {\em 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.}

\endnotetext[25]{For   some   background,  see  Walter  Kendall,  {\em  The
Revolutionary Movement in Britain}.}

\endnotetext[26]{{\em   Collectivisations:   L'Oeuvre  constructive  de  la
R\'evolution espagnole}, p. 8.}

\endnotetext[27]{For  discussion,  see  Mattick, {\em Marx and Keynes}, and
Michael Kidron, {\em Western Capitalism Since the War}. See also discussion
and references cited in my {\em At War With Asia}, chap. 1, pp. 23--6.}

\endnotetext[28]{See  Hugh  Scanlon,  {\em  The  Way  Forward  for Workers'
Control}.  Scanlon  is  the  president of the AEF, one of Britain's largest
trade unions.

\parindent  -\parindent  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.}

\endnotetext[29]{Gu\'erin, {\em Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}, introduction.}

\endnotetext[30]{{\em Ibid}.}

\endnotetext[31]{Arthur Rosenberg, {\em A History of Bolshevism}, p. 88.}

\endnotetext[32]{Marx, {\em Civil War in France}, pp. 62--3.}

\theendnotes
\newpage
\section*{Bibliography}\vspace{.125in}

\leftskip\parindent\parindent-\parindent

{~~~}

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

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

Buber, Martin. {\em Paths in Utopia}. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.

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

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}. {\em American Power and the New Mandarins}. New
York: Pantheon Books, 1969.

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}.  {\em  At  War  with  Asia}. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1970.

{\em   Collectivisations:   L'Oeuvre   constructive   de   la  R\'evolution
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.'' {\em American Slavic
and East European Review}, vol. 12, no. 1 (1953).

Gu\'erin, Daniel. {\em Jeunesse du socialisme libertaire}. Paris: Librairie
Marcel Rivi\`ere, 1959.

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}.  {\em  Anarchism:  From  Theory  to  Practice},
translated by Mary Klopper. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}.  {\em  Pour  un  marxisme  libertaire}.  Paris:
Robert Laffont, 1969.

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}, ed. {\em Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}. Lausanne: La
Cit\'e Editeur, n.d.

Jackson, J. Hampden. {\em Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism}. New York:
Collier Books, 1962.

Joll, James. {\em The Anarchists}. Boston: Little, Brown \& Co., 1964.

Kendall,  Walter. {\em The Revolutionary Movement in Britain\/} 1900--1921.
London: Weidenfeld \& Nicolson, 1969.

Kidron,  Michael {\em Western Capitalism Since the War}. London: Weidenfeld
\& Nicolson, 1968.

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

\rule[.6ex]{.45in}{.004in}.  ``Workers'  Control.'' In {\em The New Left: A
Collection  of  Essays},  edited by Priscilla Long. Boston: Porter Sargent,
1969.

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

Pelloutier,  Fernand.  ``L'Anarchisme et les syndicats ouvriers.'' {\em Les
Temps  nouveaux},  1895. Reprinted in {\em Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^{\i}tre}, edited
by Daniel Gu\'erin. Lausanne: La Cit\'e Editeur, n.d.

Richards,  Vernon.  {\em Lessons of the Spanish Revolution\/} (1936--1939).
Enlarged ed. London: Freedom Press, 1972.

Rocker, Rudolf. {\em Anarchosyndicalism}. London: Secker \& Warburg, 1938.

Rosenberg, Arthur. {\em 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. {\em After the Revolution}. New York: Greenberg
Publishers, 1937.

Scanlon,  Hugh.  {\em  The Way Forward for Workers' Control}. Institute for
Workers' Control Pamphlet Series, no. 1, Nottingham, England, 1968.

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

\end{document}


