			======================
			``Notes on Anarchism''
				  in
			_For Reasons of State_
			====================== 
			  Noam Chomsky, 1970
			====================== 

Transcribed by rael@ll.mit.edu (Bill Lear)

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 Gu\'erin 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 Gu\'erins 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]  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  ``_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\'erin  has  approached the study of anarchism in _Anarchism_ and
other  works.[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,''[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\'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:

     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\`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.''[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...[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\'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.''[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\`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.[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.


**********************************NOTES************************************


This   essay   is   a   revised  version  of  the  introduction  to  Daniel
      Gu\'erin's  _Anarchism:  From  Theory  to  Practice_.  In  a slightly
      different version, it appeared in the _New York Review of Books_, May
      21, 1970.

[1] Octave   Mirbeau,   quoted   in   James  Joll,  _The  Anarchists_,  pp.
      145--6.

[2] Rudolf Rocker, _Anarchosyndicalism_, 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 Brou\'e and T\'emime
      has  since  been  translated  into  English.  Several other important
      studies   have   appeared   since,   in   particular:   Frank  Mintz,
      _L'Autogestion  dans  l'Espagne  r\'evolutionaire_  (Paris:  Editions
      B\'elibaste, 1971); C\'esar 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\'evolution  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\'erin, _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\'erin, ed., _Ni Dieu, ni
      Ma\^itre_, 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\'erin's comments in _Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^itre_;
      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'\'etat,''  reprinted in Gu\'erin, _Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^itre_. 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, _Anarchosyndicalism_, p. 28.

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

[16] Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme_.

[17] Karl   Marx,  _Grundrisse  der  Kritik  der  Politischen  \"Okonomie_,
      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\'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,
      _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\'evolution
      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_, chap. 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\'erin, _Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^itre_, 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\'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.'' _American
      Slavic and East European Review_, vol. 12, no. 1 (1953).

Gu\'erin,    Daniel.    _Jeunesse   du   socialisme   libertaire_.   Paris:
      Librairie Marcel Rivi\`ere, 1959.

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

------. _Pour un marxisme libertaire_. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1969.

------, ed. _Ni Dieu, ni Ma\^itre_. Lausanne: La Cit\'e 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\^itre_, edited by
      Daniel Gu\'erin. Lausanne: La Cit\'e Editeur, n.d.

Richards,   Vernon.  _Lessons  of  the  Spanish  Revolution_  (1936--1939).
      Enlarged ed. London: Freedom Press, 1972.

Rocker, Rudolf. _Anarchosyndicalism_. 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.



