Anarchism

Anarchists – M. RAVICH-CHERKASSKIY

WHICH PARTIES WERE IN RUSSIA

UNDER GENERAL EDITION V.   YUDOVSKY

M.   Rawicz – CHERKAS’KYI

Anarchists

SECOND EDITION

PUBLISHING HOUSE ” PROLETARY “

1930

Table of contents

Chapter1: What is anarchism?

Chapter 2: The main anarchist theories.

i.Stirner.

ii.Joseph Proudhon.

iii.Mikhail Bakunin.

iv.Kropotkin.

Chapter 3: Anarchism in Russia.

i.”Khlebovoltsy.”

ii.Beznachaltsy and Chernomnamentsy.

iii.Anarcho-syndicalists.

Chapter 4 Makhayevshchina.

Chapter 5 Anarcho-Makhnovshchina.

Chapter 6 Marxism, anarchism, Leninism.

What is anarchism?

By anarchism, very many mean at one time (at the end of the last century) terrorist acts and assassinations quite often in Western Europe and America. Under the influence of a number of murders – French President Carnot, Italian King Humbert and the other – an anarchist appeared to inflame e nnomu imagination of Western European bourgeois and the Russian everyman mad, bloodthirsty criminal, crook, sowing terror and confusion, all-destroying robber with a bomb in the hands of a murderer, a monster bringing death and chaos.

Undoubtedly, the ruling clique of bankers and entrepreneurs in Western Europe and America was vitally interested in creating such an attitude toward anarchism. In Italy, a special theory was created – the Lombroso theory of anarchists, as inborn criminals and degenerates.

Such an understanding of anarchism was brought from Europe and to us in Russia, and since we did not know anything about anarchism before the beginning of this century, not only from its practical manifestation, but also from the theoretical side, this is his understanding, rooted in Western Europe It took us very easy.

There are two mistakes in the identification of anarchism and terrorism: 1)   not every anarchist is a terrorist and 2)   not every terrorist is an anarchist. We know a number of anarchists, both individuals and entire groups, which, as we will see below, are vigorous opponents of terror. On the other hand, nowhere in Europe they know so much, as we do, that the most important terrorist acts in Russia were produced not by anarchists, but by socialist revolutionaries. DONE e nnye before the Revolution of 1905   The murders of the ministers Bogolepov, Sipyagin and von Plehve, as well as Prince Sergei Alexandrovich, were produced by members of the militant organization of the socialist revolutionaries, but the anarchists had nothing to do with these murders. We also know that in America there is an organization the Ku Klux Klan, with its huge sums and containing at the expense of the big capitalist sharks dozens of assassins are systematically engaged in terror against the strikers and revolutionary workers. The fascist government of Italy sends the murderers to exterminate the leaders and leaders of the revolutionary labor movement.

During the revolution of 1905   d the Polish national democrats systematically used terror against the leaders of the socialist movement in Poland, and now the Polish socialists are no less vigorously using terror against the workers communists. Social Democrats in Germany under the leadership of Gustav Noske and Philip Scheidemann in 1919   Mr. Rosa Luxemburg, the leaders of the German revolution , were brutally murdered on the streets of Berlin Karl Liebknecht. Russian White Guard emigration is organizing terrorist attacks on representatives of the Soviet republics abroad. There are hundreds of such examples of terrorist acts by a wide variety of class organizations and various official and unofficial political groups in all countries. From this it is clearly seen that terror is not at all, a feature inherent only to anarchists.

Anarchy in its literal sense is without beginning, anarchy. Anarchism is a socially – philosophical doctrine, preaching the complete liberation of the individual. Anarchism rejects all forms of coercion, all kinds of duties imposed by anyone on a free person. Anarchy is such a social system in which, according to the anarchists, every person will be the sole master over himself, in which there will be no authority whatsoever; Anarchy is a form of human society in which unlimited freedom reigns.

Anarchism, as a teaching, leads its origin is from ancient times , but we will not dwell on the old theories of anarchist philosophers, whose teachings have never become the property of the masses and have not become a noticeable driving force in the history of mankind. The newest anarchism presented in almost all more or less large countries in Europe and America, is, in the words of Jean Grave, the ” chaos of ideas . ” As anarchists, we are faced with people with the most opposite and each other denying worldviews. “ What, ” writes the famous anarchist BUT.   Borovoy, is reconciliation possible between Kropotkin’s communism and Proudhon’s mutualism, between Thacker and Brav, Most and Bruno Ville? And is it not called the anarchists Stirner and Nietzsche, Hui and Tolstoy? Do we not know the deeply scornful note that always sounds in relation to “ communist ” anarchism and anarchism “ individualistic or ” amorphous . ” Do we not know, on the contrary, that individualists refuse to even call communism anarchism, seeing in it only a peculiar kind of socialism? “

Even over the past quarter century, anarchism has experienced such an evolution, which many doubt about the anarchist essence of its latest trends. Old anarchism of the Bakunin brand, preaching only the element of destruction, which put its motto everywhere and everywhere: “the spirit of destruction is at the same time creative ” , in every movement of the masses, peasant or worker, who suspected the birth pains of the social revolution, disdainfully ignored all organizational work, any preparation for revolution, all discipline – is now replaced by a completely opposite course. This new trend – the syndicalist – sees the salvation of the ideas of anarchism only in the organization of the masses, in revolutionary creativity, in partial conquests, in raising the consciousness, culture and independence of the masses.

Below we briefly set out the teachings of all the most prominent theorists of anarchism of the XIX century. We give a summary of only those teachings that were left after a living trace on people, found expression in the movement of more or less broad masses, almost without affecting those theories that were not widely spread. The theories we set forth very often have little in common with each other. Thus, the teachings of Proudhon, unlike other exercises, do not allow the use of violent acts, considering that the transition from one system to another is possible by gradually changing the legal norms of the previous system. Other theories consider offenses to be inevitable (Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy), and some of them consider expedient to use violent measures (Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin), while others suggest the use of passive resistance (Tolstoy). Some of them can be considered individualistic (Thacker, Proudhon, Stirner), and others communist (Bakunin, Kropotkin).

The main anarchist theories.

Stirner.

The first exponent of anarchism as an extreme individualistic doctrine is the German Caspar Schmidt, who wrote under the pseudonym Max Stirner the book “ The One and His Property ” . This book is, in the opinion of many, a very bold attempt to deny all power, all authority. The highest law for Stirner is only the good of the individual. Stirner was a student of the famous philosopher Feuerbach, who rejected the power of religion over people. However, Stirner goes further; He rejects not only the power of religion, but also the power of any other idols, humanity, humanism, moral law, and so “only” Stirner Prizna e t is only one authority -.. the authority of his own “I”

“As long as you believe in the truth – Stirner says – you do not believe in yourself. You are a slave, you are a religious person. But you are the one – the truth … You are more than the truth, it is nothing in front of you ” . Stirner puts forward, as the highest idea, the idea of ​​personal good. Nothing can limit my ” I ” and subordinate my desires. “Not entirely yo Do I like – asks Stirner’s personality – as I am doing. Whether human, liberal, humane or vice versa. If only it served my purposes, but would it satisfy me, and then call it what you want: I strongly Sun g anyway … I do not do anything for the sake of man, but all e that I do, I do “for his own sake. .. ” I swallow the world to satisfy the hunger of my selfishness. You are for me – nothing more than food, just as I am for you … “

Denying all authority, all power of people, things, ideas and institutions over people, Stirner denies the property, legal norms and the state. But this power of the negatives, when confronted with life, reveals its own powerlessness, since the unlimited egoism of each person faces the egoism of the same unlimitedly free person, and this collision requires regulation. Stirner realized this inherent defect of their highly – individualistic teachings and put forward the idea of ​​social cohabitation, which he calls the “ union of egoists ” , that is.   e. individuals equally thinking and seeking the same goal.

Joseph Proudhon.

Proudhon is considered by many to be the father of modern anarchism. He succeeded in his essay: “ What is property? » Raise anarchism to the stage of scientific thinking. When asked what property is, Proudhon gives a brief answer: “ Property ” is theft . ” But this answer is misleading to all who are not familiar with the teachings of Proudhon. Judging by this answer, Proudhon is mistaken for an adversary of private property. In essence, Proudhon is the most ardent supporter of private property. Being a supporter of the individual freedom of each person, preaching without beginning and even being the inventor of the word ” anarchy ” . Proudhon can not make the property of each individual person dependent on the state or society. It seems to him that only private property that exists under the capitalist system is unfair, and Proudhon creates a utopian teaching that should lead to the transformation of the proprietary capitalist system.

Proudhon believes that the bad side of capitalist private property is the existence of two harmful? institutions – money and interest. He is trying to eliminate these two institutions and replace them with another system, which he called mutualistic . This system is reduced to the transformation of exchange operations and credit on a completely new basis. Leaving in force the existing freedom of exchange and competition, Proudhon designs the creation of a special national bank, through which all operations of handling products take place: each person producing any product has the right to exchange this product in the bank for an exchange ticket. This ticket gives you the opportunity to purchase through the bank any other product necessary for it, corresponding to the value of the product sent to the bank. Each product is evaluated by special commodity experts by the number of hours needed to produce it.

Proudhon “ was convinced that such a bank would be very quickly becoming popular among the masses of producers who would turn to his help and carry out their exchange operations through him. Money under these conditions will lose force, and the whole system of sale will be conducted through the bank. The profitability of the banked system increases more and because n e m each customer will have a royalty-free, interest-free loan. By this is briefly entirely yo economic doctrine of Proudhon, which he was trying to build his anarchist system.

The existing government system, according to Proudhon, serves only to safeguard the interests of the possessing classes to the detriment of the interests of the poor. Most of the existing laws are aimed at preserving the ” sacred property ” . If you have a bank, there will be no need for laws. Instead of laws, there will be free agreements between individuals as well as individuals. or unions with the bank. Every manufacturer, every worker becomes a complete master of their works without any – any intervention outside force. Only the human idea of ​​a treaty prevails in human relationships.

So the logical way Proudhon comes to an absolute negation of the state of justice and penal authorities: “All actions of the government – says Proudhon, – will then become redundant. The state church will become useless: who feels the need for religion, he himself must pay his priests. The same will happen with justice: let the society protect itself, if it affects its interests, it is its right; let it revenge itself if it is in its interests. But I deny the public, just like every other authority, the right to try and punish. A man only has the right to condemn himself, and when he feels guilty, when he thinks that he deserves a punishment, he can demand punishment for himself. Justice is an act of conscience, an act that is essentially voluntary; conscience itself can only themselves to condemn, punish or justify wholly different e – is the domination of authority, abuse of power … the immediate and complete abolition of all courts and tribunals is one of the first demands of the revolution; in the same way, the police and the administration must disappear, and every house, every workshop, every corporation or commune must have its own police and must manage their own affairs . ”

Although the theory of Proudhon seems very revolutionary, that he is the first theorist of anarchism and is considered a preacher of all destructive and violent acts, in fact Proudhon is a supporter of peaceful social reforms. The guarantee of the fulfillment of all the responsibilities assumed by individuals or associations is Proudhon, who considers justice, which alone rules an intelligent and free being under the anarchist system.

Proudhon proposed to implement this system not by any violent acts against the supporters of capitalism and the existing coercive government system, but by peaceful propaganda of the ideas of free treaties. However, some time later, Proudhon himself realized that the ideas of the anarchy he preached were not feasible, or could be realized in the distant future. Therefore, Proudhon put forward a transitional idea of ​​decentralization, the idea of ​​federalism, t.   e. the union of a number of small economically homogeneous groups and organizations.

Mikhail Bakunin.

Of all the anarchist teachings that existed, the political or, as he was called, Bakunin’s eclectic anarchism, enjoyed the strongest influence on the international labor movement. Eclectic, t.   that is, the anarchist doctrine of Bakunin is called collective, because Bakunin, being mainly a political figure, an anarchist practitioner, did not contribute significantly to the anarchist doctrine. new and collected from different systems entirely anarchist e that contributes to the development of revolutionary action and the movement of the masses.

Bakunin feeds the sharpest hatred of the institution of the state as the most powerful of the existing coercive authorities of our time. This hatred of Bakunin to the state entered as an integral part of the anarchist sermon in all countries of the world. Bakunin and his followers have an aversion to the state to the same extent to all types of state systems, since, in their opinion, despotism and violence are not connected with the form of the state system, but with the essence of the state as such.

“We – wrote Bakunin – with all my heart abhor monarchy, but at the same time, we are convinced that a large republic with the army and the bureaucracy and political decentralization will deal conquests outside and oppression within the country and will not be able to provide happiness and freedom to their subjects, even if they were called citizens . ” Instead of the state, Bakunin preaches the creation of a completely free society. In this society there is neither poor nor rich. In n e m no class, no political relations. In New York , all people, without distinction of color, races and religions, are workers and acquire the right to the full product of their labor. If Proudhon, while creating an anarchic order, places all hopes on a sense of justice peculiar to people, Bakunin believes that order will be established thanks to the feeling of solidarity and interaction inherent in the entire human race. The feeling of solidarity in a person is manifested with particular force, when there is no shortage of food and sources of enjoyment of life, when everyone around you is not covered by the feeling of envy towards each other. Therefore, everyone will be interested in engaging in such activities that satisfy him most of all and in which he does not harm others. With the future structure, individuals or groups of individuals can voluntarily unite in any free union, aimed at finding together their means of livelihood, and also freely diverging. Enforcement laws do not exist, and they cannot be applied to any member of the union.

The fifth section of the program ” Alliance ” (Union) created by Bakunin, states: ” The Union is committed to ensuring that all political government restricted their activities of public services, and would have turned into a universal union of free industrial agricultural holdings ” . Bakunin also advocates recognition of the right to full autonomy for all people, however, the condition is that this people’s desire for complete independence does not contradict and does not threaten the freedom and self-determination of other peoples.

However, Bakunin does not give and does not try to give a complete picture of the future of the communist system. He believes that after the social revolution, the new system will develop by itself, without pre-written plans. The means recommended by Bakunin for overthrowing the capitalist system, as opposed to the Proudhonian ones, are extremely violent. Bakunin rejects political activity and parliamentarism. Bakunin violently attacks social democracy led by Marx and the involvement of the working class in the electoral struggle. For the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system, Bakunin sees only one means – a violent social revolution that discourages bad passions and forcing the masses to rebel and revolt against the existing social order.

Bakunin was not only a preacher of the social revolution, but also personally led a number of uprisings in various states. The slightest attempt to revolt in any corner of Europe attracted the attention of Bakunin, and he unhesitatingly rushed to the scene of events, suspecting in them the beginning of a world social revolution. In 1870 , supporters of Bakunin were made in Lyon by an attempt to revolt. When the Lyon Town Hall was captured by the rebels, Bakunin himself hurried to Lyon to lead the uprising. But soon Bakunin personally became convinced that the attempt was unprepared and untimely. He wrote from Lyons: ” While still no real revolution, but it will be entirely e it is being prepared and will be brought to bear ;  I rush into the struggle for life and death, and I hope for a quick victory . ”

Bakunin created his organizations and groups in almost all European countries and in America. But Bakunin had the greatest success mainly in the industrially backward Roman countries – in France, Italy and Spain. In 186 4, the ” International Workingmen’s Association ” (the Internationale), created by Marx, appeared. The International joined Bakunin and all members of the ” Alliance ” dissolved at the request of the General Council of the International. The struggle between supporters of Bakunin and Marx broke out in the International. The bureaucrats put forward the requirement of greater autonomy for certain sections of the International and refraining from political struggle. The struggle within the International disorganized his activities, and Bakunin and his like-minded people were excluded from it. Then Bakunin created his own Anarchist International and its independent organizations in a number of countries. This rivalry of the two Internationals led to the final disintegration of the centers of the international labor movement. But the socialist and anarchist movements continued to develop independently, each going in its own particular direction.

Bakunin had outstanding students and followers in all countries, of which Paul Brouss and Jean Grave are most famous in France, Johan Most in Germany, Nechaev and Kropotkin in Russia, Malatesta in Italy, Switzerland Elise Reclu, and Thacker in America.

Kropotkin.

In the modern anarchist movement in Russia in the form in which it was revealed during the First Russian Revolution 1903 – 1909   yy , Kropotkin’s doctrine, known as communist anarchism , has the greatest influence . Kropotkin himself considers himself to be a student of Bakunin, but as a scientist and thinker Kropotkin is much higher than his teacher. He enriches the anarchist thought quite a number of new provisions, logshih the basis of all of anarchism in Russia in recent years.

Kropotkin understands anarchism much more widely than all his predecessors, and tries to create an integral philosophical, natural, scientific and social worldview. ” Anarchism, – wrote Kropotkin, – is, understanding of the world is based on a mechanical interpretation of phenomena, understanding of the world, enveloping all of nature, including the life of the community. The method of anarchism – the method of natural sciences. His tendency is building a synthetic philosophy embracing all the facts of nature. As a complete materialistic worldview, anarchism believes that any phenomenon of nature can be reduced to physical or chemical processes and therefore receives a natural-scientific explanation. Anarchism is an irrevocable rejection of any religious or metaphysical worldview . ” Kropotkin considers the law of development from the worst to the best to be the highest law for man. As this law develops, the existing enforcement law will gradually disappear and be replaced by the customary natural law. While coercive law is only a brake on the development of mankind, natural law is quite enough for human society to live in complete harmony.

The most appropriate form of social organization Kropotkin sees in the community, the municipality corresponding to the real interests of th e Member States and the full development of their personalities. This community consists of individuals voluntarily, united in groups, the groups are unions. Each community is a group of like-minded people united common, the same interests for all. There will be no private property in the community that violates justice and, consequently, can cause conflicts and discord. There will be only public property. The distribution of benefits in each community must be organized in such a way that everyone will receive from existing stocks as much as he needs to meet his needs. Kropotkin provides, however, cases where stocks are not enough. In this case, it allows rationing, distribution of products. “ Allotment of all items whose production is limited, ” writes Kropotkin, “ empowerment, taking into account children, the elderly and the weak in general; the consumption of all this not in a public institution for feeding, but at home, with family and friends, according to individual taste, is the ideal of the masses, of which we are the expression . ”

Despite, however, the fact that Kropotkin permits the forced distribution of products in a community or in a community union, which is already something of a manifestation of power, it with great force falls on the institution of the state, which in some cases is only a logical development of that power which he admits in the commune. For Kropotkin, the state is a villain, a usurper who kills every free initiative that imposes on a person of freedom seeking the chain of coercion. In Kropotkin, the state plays the role of the undertaker of a free society.

Kropotkin considers anarchist communism to be the nearest higher level of social development. As we have said, not only means of production, but also consumer goods will be socialized in this society. Everyone will receive according to their needs. As a detail, it is interesting to note that Kropotkin considers it obligatory for each member of the future community to have a five-hour working day, and everyone can choose for himself a job in the industry that he likes best. The remaining time, each member of the community can take to classes in art, science, sports. It goes without saying that the onset of the anarcho-communist system is associated with the complete disappearance of the state and the transformation of the institution of property. The introduction of a new system is possible, according to Kropotkin, only by violent coup, the so-called social revolution. But the masses need to be prepared for it, educated by long-term propaganda and agitation, after which the social revolution will come under favorable circumstances of its own accord.

In addition to these theorists and leaders of the anarchist movement, there are still a number of scholars. and thinkers who, according to one or another separate feature in their scientific or scientific-religious systems, are considered anarchists. So many anarchist historians identify Leo Tolstoy as anarchists on the grounds that Tolstoy denies the legal structure of the modern state among more developed and cultural nations. In his opinion, state power is based on purely physical violence, which is in sharp contradiction with the gospel teaching of Christ on love and forgiveness. Based on the gospel, Tolstoy is also an opponent of property. Property is the cause of mutual hatred and irritation, and gospel laws dictate that property give way to distribution of wealth based on the commandments of love of neighbor.

In the same way, many consider the anarchist German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on the grounds that he, along with Stirner, is the most extreme exponent of the doctrine of personality. However, unlike Stirner, Nietzsche, not every person interested in th e relationship with society. His system contradicts anarchism as the doctrine of unlimited personal freedom. Nietzsche is ready to sacrifice tens of thousands of personalities in the name of one exceptional person, whom he calls the ” superman . “

We will not dwell on these theories, as they are not widespread. We are interested only in those anarchist theories that more or less penetrated into the working masses, caused a more or less widespread mass movement in one country or another. To those belong mainly Bakunina teachings, known under the name collectivist anarchism and teachings Kropotkina names uemoe communist anarchism ohms .

Anarchism in Russia.

Anarchism in Russia appeared for the first time in the seventies, being transferred by Russian emigration from abroad, where he enjoyed great influence. The revolutionary movement of 1870 – ies were three course, and they were all more or less painted anarhists cue color, although, in the words of Bazarov, ” painting, this is not firmly stuck to the movement and quickly washed off the conditions of political and social struggle ” . This explains the fact that the influence of anarchism on the Russian revolutionary movement was relatively weak. 

In 1870 – ies in the revolutionary movement in Russia dominated Bakuninism, doctrine Lavrov during headed Tkachev , publish a magazine ” Nabat ” and represent something in the way of Blanquism. All these trends, one to a greater extent, and another to a lesser extent, considered it necessary to establish a stateless socialist system, according to the theory of anarchism, but differed in tactics. While the Bakuninists considered it possible in the near future to carry out a social revolution through popular uprisings, supporters of Lavrov considered the social revolution to be a matter of a more or less distant future and put forward the need for serious and prolonged propaganda. Tkachev, on the other hand, believed that a social revolution could be accomplished only as a result of a widely conceived terrorist plot.

The last group enjoyed the strongest influence, believing that the masses should establish a socialist stateless system through a revolutionary dictatorship. These ideas, thanks to the failure of the land-based walking to the countryside and government repression, became dominant in the program and tactics of the “ Narodnaya Volya ” that emerged in 1879 . 

” Khlebovoltsy . “

After the defeat of the populist movement 18 70 – ies of anarchism lost permanently their influence on the revolutionary organizations, and only at the beginning of this century, it revived again, when Che m propaganda of the ideas of anarchism conducted the first Russian anarchist organ, published in 1903 g in London with the active participation of Kropotkin , Cherkezov, and others. This body was called “ Bread and Will ” , and all the adherents of the ideas held by it were called “ bread-makers ” . The first time anarchist ideas had no success among the Russian workers, but already in 1904 g , and especially in 1905 g      interest in anarchism has increased significantly. Among the individual layers of the workers, in the south, southwest, and northwest, anarchist groups appeared. The revolution of 1905 g , especially th e loss of Moscow after the December uprising, inspired the anarchists and intensified their activities in different parts of Russia. 

Almost all the anarchist groups operating in 1904 and early 1905 were supporters of Kropotkin. In 1904 , they organized the first meeting, at which they adopted a number of resolutions, which formed the basis for practical actions of the most powerful group of anarchists-communists of the “ bread-makers ” in Russia at that time . We will try to briefly present the theoretical foundations of the teachings of this group.  

one. Every state is not only useless, but also harmful.

2 Anarchists should strive to create an anti-state communist society.

3 It is necessary to transform the society in the spirit of communism.

four. The goals of anarchists can only be achieved with the help of a social revolution that completely destroys capitalism and the state system that supports it.

five. Anarchists reject any minimum program, not recognizing any intermediate stages that delay the deployment of the revolution.

6 Anarchists must be prepared to declare a general strike in cities and villages. This strike should serve as a signal for a revolution not only political but also communist.

7 The unity of the anarchist movement should not be achieved by creating central committees, but only by uniting the like-minded ideological groups that are free to disintegrate in the presence of disagreement.

In his organ ” Bread and Will “, the Kropotkin people give a number of articles, which are comments on the above-listed theses.

In the article ” Why we do not have the minimum program ” , published in the magazine ” Bread and Freedom ” in 1904 g , we read: ” We do not think that the next revolution will lead us to implement our ideal in its entirety; revolution will not be a matter of any one party, nor can it immediately eliminate all the remnants of the old society, but at the same time we know that it will go in the direction of the resultant of all forces used for business, and the more persistent and absolute we act in the direction we take, the more its influence will be revealed . ” 

The entire literature of communist anarchists is full of attacks on the Social Democratic parties and on the minimum program. However, the program – at least served to all the socialist parties of Western Europe, the main reason for recessed or non-revolutionary aims of struggle and to join the path of opportunism. But the latter circumstance cannot serve as the reason for the rejection of the requirements of partial reforms and of partial gains necessary for the organization and gathering of forces. After all, the communist anarchists themselves in the above quotation assume that a social revolution cannot be accomplished immediately. For greater certainty in the victory of the proletarian revolution, even anarchists allow organizations t. E.  allow more or less lengthy preparation for the social revolution. Nowhere have anarchist communists could prove that the preparatory period for the social revolution cannot be used for partial battles and conquests of the proletariat.

Anarchist communists put forward the basic principles of irreconcilable class struggle and violent revolution for the implementation of socialism. But these principles, of course, are in no way characteristic of anarchist tactics, since the principle of class struggle and violent revolution is the main weapon in the arsenal of revolutionary Marxism.

Being opponents of the program – at a minimum, anarchists, however, are not always true to themselves and in some places stipulate that they are not at all against partial reforms. They even think that talking about the anarchist communists being the enemies of partial reforms is a legend.

“ We, ” they write in the article of the magazine “ Bread and Will ” No. 6, dedicated to strikes, “ must tirelessly fight for the realization of our ideas. In this way, we can indirectly influence the implementation of partial reforms. We especially emphasize  the idea that the struggle for reform cannot be the subject of socialist activity, but is only part of the struggle for the full realization of the working ideal … The struggle for partial reforms is important until it turns into a principle, otherwise it reborn into reformism … We are enemies of reformism because we don’t want to renew the fruitless period of dreams of reconciliation of capital with difficulty through mutual concessions . ”

On the question of expropriations that took in 1905 – 1906 g of an epidemic, anarhisty- ” hlebovoltsy ” at their conference adopted the following resolution aimed against groups, who introduced their tactics of terror and expropriation as a compulsory item: ” Taking into account – read we in the resolution – that private small expropriations do not lead to the destruction of the existing capitalist system, and the expropriation of private individuals does not serve as a means of propaganda and promoting anarchism … we, a group of ” Bread and Freedom ” , Prizna e m all existing ana rhist groups called ”  Black Banner ” far deviating from the real understanding of the theory of anarchism, and believe that ” black znamentsy ” can not become members of the ” hlebovolche with FIR groups ” .

The question of the attitude towards trade unions has become the subject of heated debate for all anarchist movements. From a number of articles, we are convinced that the ” bread-makers ” recognize the great importance of trade unions. They recommend anarchists to join the union, but they do not recommend organizing them in Russia, primarily because it would distract the anarchists and put the anarchist work itself in the background.

Issues of political and economic terror are anarchists – “ bread-makers ” are resolved in a positive sense. They consider these methods of struggle in a revolutionary situation as necessary for the disorganization of the capitalist system and, in their articles, attack social revolutionaries for their inconsistency in these matters. The “ Khlebolovtsy ” ridicule the socialist revolutionaries for what they think to achieve the resolution of the agrarian question by parliamentary means , collecting a majority of votes in the Zemsky Sobor or in the State Duma.

Organizational principles of anarchists – “bread and butter ” are resolved by them in the spirit of the federation. The type of centralized or, in the words of anarchists, hierarchical organizations existing in other political parties is rejected because this organizational principle kills all personal initiative, stifles the initiative of members of organizations and puts the entire organization in the hands of a small group of so-called leaders who rule the masses. Anarchists , the “ bread-makers, ” of course, do not note the positive influence that centralism has on the cohesion and fighting efficiency of the ranks of the party.

In the period 1903 – 1906   yy The anarchists – the communists of the “ Bread and Will ” group enjoyed a very great influence, compared to other groups that dispersed their forces on individual terror and expropriation. Other groups that will be discussed later arose later, and their influence after the defeat of the revolution was insignificant.

” Beznachaltsy ” and ” Chernoznamentsy ” .

1905 is a year of continuous growth and deployment of the revolution and at the same time a year of clear demarcation of social and political groups. Starting from the extreme right-wing political and terrorist organizations and ending with the extreme ” left ” groups – all are going through a period of the deepest differentiation and fragmentation.

Anarchist tendencies did not escape this fate either. Until 1905, as we have seen, “ bread-keeping ” dominated in Russia , but already in the beginning of 1905, groups of anarchists were organized at various points in the country, dissatisfied with the moderation of their food tactics. As a result of this dissatisfaction, in April 1905, a new anarchist group emerged, called “ beznachaltsev ” and created its own organ: “ Leaf of the Bezhnachalie ” group . In the first issue of “ List ” , the main principles of the group are set forth in an editorial. The anarchist groups that still function, in the opinion of the “ beznachaltsev ” , helplessly trampled on one place. The group believes that anarchists should put the following slogans on their black banner:

1. “The class struggle , the recognition and sharp underlining of the deep class antagonism that exists between the privileged and rich classes, on the one hand, and the toiling and not able to work by the proletariat, on the other; antagonism, which can disappear only after the social revolution.

2. ” anarchy , anarchy, the denial of all, and good and evil, the authorities and the government and, in view of strong constitutional fever that has gripped our blue and red representatives of bourgeois society, a relentless struggle against all zigzags and hobbies in this direction, because this hobby real revolutionists also succumb; opposition to the bourgeois cry of Down with the autocracy of the proletarian united cry of Down with the kind whatsoever authority: autocracy, and the Zemsky Sobor, and any form of statehood . In organizational matters, the denial of overt and covert centers and centralist parties solemnly proclaiming or solemnly silent about their the existence of centralism, under whatever plausible mask he tried to hide his real identity.

3. “ Communism , that is , the transfer of land to a group of free communities, and factories and plants to the hands of workers and the unemployed; Communism as the most complete denial of private property , communism in the means of production and consumption, and the organization of production and consumption on the basis of: ” from each according to his powers, each according to his needs . ” 

4. “The social revolution , and nothing but it : the fight against reformism and legalism . Anarchism must have in mind not syndicalism, not anti-militarism, anti-clericalism or anything like that, but only one thing: the complete destruction of the bourgeois system , that is , the social revolution, which is for him and the immediate and final goal; his supporters , unlike all other Russian opposition parties, should directly prepare only for such a transformation of modern society, because only this transformation can destroy the division of people into classes. 

15. ” As a way to th e implementation relentless bloody popular violence , an armed uprising of the people, peasants, workers and all the poor; recognition of terror and all kinds of uprisings and open street struggle in all possible forms of it, and in whatever brutal form, terror and street struggle either poured . Revolution en permanense [1] , i.e. , a whole series of popular uprisings for the final triumph of the poor. Denial of the struggle for reform and partial improvements. 

6. “ Nihilism is a struggle against authorities in any sphere; atheism, the rejection of the family, the struggle against all the fundamentals of bourgeois morality and the prejudices and superstitions rooted in our everyday and party life; recognition of thefts and any open attacks on shops and houses committed by oppressed classes.

7. ” Work not only among peasants and workers, but also among the so-called ” mean mob ” , that is , the unemployed, tramps, vagrants and all kinds of ” scum and renegades of society ” , because they are all our brothers and comrades. 

8. “ Unconditional refusal of joint actions with any political parties, whether they will be liberals, social democrats or socialists-revolutionaries; they are all political sharper, bourgeois and enemies of the people, and the temporary benefits of joint action will never pay off the demoralization that such cooperation between parties brings to the ranks of the comrades . ”

As can be seen from this program, “ without a starter ” cannot be denied decisiveness and courage. In practice, this group and all the adherents in Russia denied any whatsoever organizational work. The tactics of the “ Beznachaltsev ” consisted exclusively in the creation of militant groups whose task was to attack the government and the bourgeoisie, and the class struggle consisted only in expropriating property owned by the bourgeoisie.

But one dominates over all these slogans – expropriation and terror directed against the authorities and the owners of factories and plants, distinguished by their hostility towards the working class and opposing its demands. In the same issue of “ Listok ”, the foreign group addresses the revolutionaries living in Russia with a long letter in which they strongly emphasize the need for expropriation and terror. “ The basis of our program, ” they write, “ we put the struggle of the masses, and the principle of expropriation should be the basis of the struggle of the masses; expropriation not as remote a revolutionary act in which the future final uprising will end, with a forever state yoke, and expropriation as the rules by which the masses and we will be guided now, declaring a civil partisan war to the modern order, oppressing us, not allowing to live and enjoy life freely … Principle expropriation is a great gift of anarchy to the people . ”

In one of the issues of ” anarchy ” is given by the way, and practical advice on ” how to set fire to landlords ‘stacks ‘ . This article was reprinted in Russia in the form of a separate proclamation and was scattered by anarchists from the windows of carriages in villages in various parts of Russia for a long time in the period of 1905.

Striving in that whatever was to cause a civil war, which is to become the prologue of the social revolution, ” beznachaltsy ” believe that in this war of extermination wholly g must perish. In one proclamation, they write: “ Do not regret the landlord’s good, we will not get it in any case . ”

Deeply believing in the immediate triumph of the social revolution, which will establish stateless communism, the “ beznachaltsy ” fall into contradiction with themselves when they say that the good that they propose to destroy is not available to anyone.

Certainly negatively, “ bezachachaltsy ” relate to parliamentarism and syndicalism, to the professional movement, to all half measures, which, in their opinion, are capable of delaying the onset of the social revolution. ” Down with trade unionism , syndicalism and parliamentarism, for all of them are intended to prolong the agony of a dying enemy . ” Other anarchist bodies give such characteristics of a “no- novice ” tactic ; ” Rebel ” believes that the whole program ” beznachaltsev ” comes down to the fact that ” the proletariat can and must present capitalist society only one demand – cease to exist ” , and ” Petrel ” believes ” beznachaltsy ” all his tactics to build belief in the miraculous power of terror and the participation of anarchists in the daily struggle of the proletariat can see to change the principles of anarchism ” . In their report to the anarchist congress in Amsterdam, Russian anarchists report that “ beznachaltsy ” in their preaching of terror and expropriation, they came to the point that they recommended that the proletarians give up work in factories and live exclusively by personal expropriations . ”

However, despite this negative attitude of different anarchist groups to “ beznachalets ” , the tactics of the latter became sometimes in a hidden and sometimes open form of tactics and the only kind of “ direct influence ” of the majority of anarchist groups and individuals in the field.

It is not difficult to be convinced of this if we get acquainted with another group of anarchists, known under the name of “ Black Banners ” . The group released one issue of its magazine ” Rebel ” in 1906, and then resumed it only in 1908 city of already abroad. The group of “ black banners ” pays no less attention to terror than “ beznachaltsy ” , and , mainly, to individual and unorganized terror. “ The frequency and degree of violent actions of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie are the best indicator of the class struggle, ”  wrote ” black banner ” in the number 1 ” Rebel . ” “ Organize and arm. Attack the shops and organized take essentials ” , – such advice given ” chernoznamentsy ” unemployed. 

One of the factions of the Black Banner Current, the so-called ” non – motivators, ” decided to hit the revolutionary working masses with some such ” miraculous word ” that would be heard by its multi-million people mass, so that the bourgeoisie would tremble and shudder in horror. “

This fraction called itself “ non-motivating ” because they believed that terrorist acts and attacks on bourgeois representatives are permissible without any motive, not for this or that particular fault, but for the fact that they are bourgeois, that they are exploiters . In this regard, the “ non-motivators ” imitated the old methods of Western European anarchism, which also practiced this kind of “ groundless assassination ” .

In 1908, when the revolution was replaced by the Stolypin reaction, when not only of anarchism, but also on the whole of the revolution there were only a trace, ” chernoznamentsy ” resumed publication ” Rebel ” . The number 2 – 3 contains the poem “The Avenger ” , dedicated to Joseph Brunstein (Belenky), the participant of the explosion in the coffee shop of Liebman in Odessa on December 17, 1905. Well-fed rich people feast, in the hall music, laughter. Pale youth throws a projectile:  

The terrible thunder, death screams howl,

A pile of bodies remained at the place of the feast.

One obituary tells about the feat of a certain worker Gregory (Frol). Sitting over a bottle of beer in the restaurant where the “ clean ” audience was, Frol grabs the revolver and shouts: “ Are you fun, scoundrels? – Fun, when people die of hunger? Death to you all! – and he begins to finish. Body, mirrors, bottles of expensive wines – Sun e breaks Frol and frantically shouting, ” Beat all the rich, beat everyone who lives warm and sated! Long live the commune! Wretched death! “

Judging by these articles memoirs, it must be said that ” chernoznamentsy ” for the period 1905 – 1908   yy learned nothing The praise of the exploits of such heroes of the revolution as Gregory (Frol) hardly testifies to the fact that non-motivated terror and individual robbery are capable of moving forward the cause of social revolution.

” Chernoznamentsy ” somewhat aware of this report . They understand that ideological terror has essentially degenerated into a series of petty thefts and robberies. Therefore, the number 2 – 3 ” Rebel ” in the article ” On the terror ” raises the question of disorganization and terror states that terror directed only dominates anarchist circles ” against the nearest oppressor ” . 

“ We do not want to destroy terror against the nearest enemy, ” writes “ Rebel ” , “ but to place terror near the terror, organized into the heart, into the very soul of the bourgeoisie and the authorities, is one of our tasks . ” Thus, we see that before the “ Black Banners ” there was a question of an organizational nature, albeit with a great delay. There was a need for a single anarchist organization, not scattered and not fragmented into dozens of small groups and trends, not responsible to anyone and not connected to anyone.

That is why both in the article “ On Terror ” and in the article “The Question of Organization ” the serious question of anarchist factions and their unification is put forward for the day .

As before, the ” Black Banners ” remained hostile to every moment that could delay the growth of the revolutionary mood of the working masses. In the article “ A few words about syndicalism, ” the success of syndicalism in Russia is explained by the fact that among anarchists there are many immigrants who mechanically transferred the conditions of Western Europe to Russia. These emigrants ” began to teach the beauty of syndicalism … the syndicate is taken for the cell of the future order. Anarchists began to call the oppressed not to the social revolution, but to the creation of syndicates, the anarchists began to call not to attack the bourgeois system and not to destroy it, but to organize them in professions for “ future conquests ” … The anarchists, who were the first to speak out and always set an example of direct struggle and the organization of combat forces in the struggle , are now in favor of an organization that will only once act. Position: acting, organize , they want to replace position – organize for action in the future . “

The “ Black Banners ” see syndicalism as the same opponent of the social revolution as in social democracy, which, organizing millions of workers around parliamentarism, prepares them for battles in the distant future, putting forward a minimum program to put the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat to sleep. In addition, the unemployed, the lumpen-proletarian , who, according to the ” Black Banners ” , is the most consistent fighter for the social revolution , cannot find a place in the syndicates .

Anarcho-syndicalists.

Anarcho-syndicalism, this newest form of anarchism, is certainly a step forward from abstract anarchism to Marxism. Anarchism, syndicalism called because, like other anarchist currents he Prizna e t any political struggle, including parliamentarism, it is unnecessary and harmful. Anarcho-syndicalism or, as it is called in France, revolutionary syndicalism places at the forefront the unification of all workers, without distinction between political and other convictions, into syndicates, that is , into revolutionary workers’ unions. Anarcho-syndicalism Prizna e t class struggle and believes the only acceptable for the organization of the proletariat  not political parties or parliament, but an exclusively professional union. Anarcho-syndicalism differs from anarchism in that the former does not allow any intermediate stages between the daily struggle of the proletariat and its ultimate goal; anarcho-syndicalism insists on the need for a long preparation of the proletariat for a future social revolution.

But, in contrast to the social – democratic, anarcho – syndicalism considers that any political organization, political struggle, participation in bourgeois parliaments corrupt and degrade the working class. ” The most vulnerable point of orthodox Marxism, – writes A. Borovoy, – a glaring contradiction between the ” revolutionary spirit ” of his ” ultimate goal ” and the peaceful character of its reformist ” movement ” , between the harsh requirement irreconcilable ” class struggle ” and practical subjection e e  parliamentary policy of the party ” .

This is the contradiction between the social democratic movement and its ultimate goal, between reality and the ideal, trying to fill revolutionary syndicalism, considering each step of its movement as a step forward to the final goal. If the goal of the proletarian struggle is to destroy the modern class society with its system of wage labor, then the everyday revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat, imbued with the spirit of hatred of all forms of the capitalist state, is a slow but sure approach to the ultimate victory. Every single moment in the development of the syndicalist movement is accompanied by actions that gradually destroy the capitalist system. ” Clean ” Anarchists, as we have already seen, reproach the syndicalists for the fact that their theories are a compromise with the bourgeois order, that the syndicates are just as inhibiting the approach of the social revolution as the minimum program of the Social Democrats, that they allow positive creative work on the ground capitalist system. Syndicalists see in the syndicates not only organizations to prepare for the struggle for the social revolution, but also the cells of the future order.

Syndicates, according to the syndicalists, aim to seize production and consumption. Means of struggle against the capitalist system – it strikes, boycotts, sabotage. Anarchist syndicalists put forward the principle of ” direct influence ” , that is , the direct pressure of the proletariat on capitalists under the leadership of the syndicates through the above-mentioned forms of struggle. Terror in the sense of direct violence against individual representatives of capitalism is completely excluded from the means of combating Syndicalism. ”   The terror in the practice of syndicalists is only possible mass, expressed in open class actions of the proletariat at each moment threatening the capitalist system as a whole. Syndicalism, as opposed to all other types of anarchism, is not alien and does not fear partial concessions and reforms. But at the same time he rejects any agreement with the owners . “

Anarcho-syndicalism in Europe arose and began to develop only at the beginning of this century; its influence on the working masses increased after the Russian revolution of 1905. The influence of revolutionary syndicalism in France is especially strong, where, on the one hand, the working class became disillusioned with the parliamentary struggle, and on the other , the socialist parties put forward a whole series of leaders — traitors to the proletariat, sold to the bourgeoisie, who took part not only in the creation of laws against the working class, but also the strikers who shot the workers.

In France the syndicalist movement has put forward a number of major theorists as Pouget, Lyagardel, Sorel and others. Anarcho-syndicalism also has its own organization ” Industrial Workers of the World ” in America, where the sun e labor movement corrupted under the influence of the American Federation of Labor, headed by leaders, bribed capitalists, like Gompers, Green and others. In a somewhat weaker degree, revolutionary syndicalism is developed in Italy and in England.

In Russia, anarcho-syndicalists created a secret ” Revolutionary Union of Labor . ” Acting as a more or less organized groups in late 1905 city of , Russian anarcho-syndicalists from the first moment found dissatisfaction with the activities of their Western counterparts. The revolutionary moment prompted them to abandon the too moderate tactics of the French and American revolutionary syndicalists. They considered it necessary to lead an energetic struggle against the government and the state also with the help of terror and expropriation. In addition, they put forward as a means of combating the propaganda of refusal to pay taxes, from the fulfillment of military service, etc.   

In November 1906 , a group of anarcho-syndicalists, led by Novomirsky, issued a leaflet in Odessa outlining the program and tactics of Russian syndicalism. Among other things, this leaflet says that “the bourgeois domination of the working class can be destroyed only by the violent destruction of state power and the revolutionary seizure of property through a general strike and an armed uprising, which must be prepared by a series of partial and mass strikes, by the general refusal of workers to do military service and other state obligations, mass expropriations of products in favor of the strikers and the unemployed, the destruction of the exploiters and enemies of the working class ” . 

In the principles of tactics set out in the leaflet we read: “ 1) The group seeks by all means to divert the working masses from participating in the elections. Full peen from all elected institutions.  2)   Denial to the government of taxes and recruits, destruction of state property, damage to weapons, etc. 3) Terrorist attacks on government officials and capitalists.    four)   The creation in the depths of modern society of the cells of the future free hostel is the organization of secret anarchist trade unions. five)   The group is against non-motivated terror and negatively relates to such terrorist acts as throwing bombs in a restaurant, as they harden the workers. Revolutionary energy should be directed only against the large and active enemies of the working class . ”

The group ” New World ” is also considered possible anarchists entry – syndicalists alone and in groups ( ” secret syndicates ” ) to open the legal non-party trade unions, on the one hand, to preach the ideas of anarchism, on the other – to fight against the political parties seeking to subjugate trade unions for their own purposes.

Even more consistent in terms of European-style anarcho-syndicalism is the Petrel group , which was organized in Geneva in mid-1906 . From the very first moment this group expressed a sharply negative condemnation of all expropriations and terrorist acts, especially those that are committed for personal purposes. In a series of articles ” Petrel ” condemns attempts to improve his position by the legislature. Protection of such attempts gradually leads to recognition of the positive role of the bourgeois parliament and the state. The peaceful strikes that adapt to the laws existing in the state are no less harmful. Such ways ”  “ struggle ” quenched the revolutionary ardor of the workers and taught them to adapt to the state and government.

Rejecting, like other anarchist groups, parliamentarism and reformism, the Petrel group calls on the working masses to wage a revolutionary, illegal struggle directly. The only weapon in the struggle of labor against capital group ” Petrel ” Prizna e t only revolutionary syndicalism.

In contrast to the group anarchist – syndicalists, united around the body of the ” New World ” , the anarchists of the ” Petrel ” consider it possible to advance the social revolution in the near future. On this basis, ” Petrel ” although Prizna e t backwardness of the Russian working class in comparison with Western European nonetheless confident that the high degree of revolutionary spirit of the Russian workers gives them a great chance of winning.

Group ” Petrel ” in 1907 – 1908   yy trying to become the center of the organization of all anarchist forces in Russia. However, ” Petrel ” does not find it possible to create a centralized organization such as the Social-Democratic parties. Anarchist organization, according to the ” Petrel ” , can only exist as a federation of anarchist groups operating in the country.

Thus, on the territory of Russia, there were three groups of anarchists, with the exception of random associations, which did not play any role and were very often limited to two or three raids , expropriations (exams) and aimless murders. These groups differed from each other mainly because of their attitude to the so-called syndical movement. The group of communist anarchists recognized the syndicates only to the extent that they are the place of concentration of the working masses. Therefore, anarchists can join trade unions in order to propagate anarchism, but at the same time they should not under any circumstances take the initiative in creating trade unions. Group ” beznachaltsev ” completely rejected any participation of anarchists in the syndicate movement, and, finally, a group of anarcho-syndicalists considered syndicates the basis of all anarchist activities.

Makhayevshchina.

A peculiar combination of anarchism and poorly understood Marxism is the current, called the “ Makhayevism ” . The founder of this theory – Jan Václav Makhaisky rd, who wrote under the pseudonym A. Volsky, was at the end of 1890 – ies in Siberian exile. Being exiled as a socialist, Mahai, under the influence of anarchist ideas, became the creator of his own doctrine, which gained some distribution, after the 1905 revolution. 

From Marxism, Makhaysky borrowed the theory of the class structure of society and the doctrine of class struggle. Makhaysky believes that, in addition to the well-known social classes that are fighting among themselves, there is another class – the intelligentsia. Among the Marxists, Karl Kautsky, who for a long time enjoyed undeniable prestige as an honored conductor of the ideas of Marx and Engels, is a supporter of this view. The question of the class nature of intellectuals Kautsky devoted a special article published in Russian under the title ” Intellectuals and Social-Democracy ” . To this question, Kautsky returns in his book, The Social Revolution . . The point of view developed by Kautsky is that the capitalist system creates very favorable conditions for the growth of the intelligentsia. ” A new, quantitatively very strong and continuously increasing class is being formed , the increase of which is sometimes able to cover the decline in the middle class, the decline caused by the decline of small-scale production . ” Elsewhere, Kautsky writes: “ In the face of the intelligentsia, a new middle class emerges , created partly by the needs of capitalist production, and partly by small-scale production; this middle class is constantly growing in size and number compared with the petty bourgeoisie. But in this class, as a result of excess supply of labor-power, sun e develops more and more discontent. The growth of the intelligentsia and the growth of e g dissatisfaction – these are two important points to encourage social democracy to pay for this class of its e note ” [2] .

Kautsky returns to this question in other places, deepening and developing the same point of view. Among the Marxists, Kautsky has quite a few followers in this matter. These include the well-known A. Izgoyev, who later deserted Marxism and revolution’s worst enemies to the camp. “ Modern society, ” wrote the Outcasts, “ in contrast to what Marx believed, is divided not into three, but into four great classes: landowners, capitalists, physical workers and mental workers. ”  [3] .

Other Marxists consider the intelligentsia not to be an independent class, but a special inter-class social group.

Based on these views of the Marxists on the intelligentsia, the Makhaysky, and after him another theorist of this doctrine, E. Lozinsky, develop the theory of class independence of the intelligentsia to its logical end. “ In all countries, in all states, ” writes Makhaysky, “ there is a huge class of people who have no industrial or commercial capital at all and at the same time live like real gentlemen. This is a class of educated people, a class of intellectuals . They own neither land nor  factory, no workshop, and enjoy no less predatory income than the average and big capitalists. They do not have their own businesses, but they are the same CIT as medium capitalists, as well as those for life free from manual labor, and if you are involved in the production, it is only as managers, directors, engineers, and so on. E. On attitude towards the workers, to the slaves of manual labor are the same commanders and gentlemen, as well as entrepreneurs – capitalists ”  [4] .

E . Lozinsky develops the same point of view: “ The intelligentsia , the class of mental workers, occupies a big place among the modern social classes . The basis of his material existence is huge and all e growing social force – mental work, accumulated over the centuries and in his hands the concentrated knowledge: Arts and Science. This knowledge, which is in the monopolistic hereditary possession of the intelligentsia, is the main clip that makes it a completely special independent class and precisely the class of mental workers. Intellectuals have a class for the simple reason that the members of th e linked  common one of the indigenous, inherent in this society, sources of income , ie , knowledge, mental work, which results in a special type of income – fee, salary, maintenance. 

” But there is a class intelligentsia more and because the members of th e inherent as ” common ” , namely the common economic interests of the major, naturally arising from the first indigenous community. Equally, the intelligentsia responds entirely to the third part of our formula established above, since it is inherent in a community of greater or lesser opposition to all the world’s main economically antagonistic groups, that is , classes. 

” So, the intellectuals have a class that owns a special kind of property resulting from operation (namely, knowledge and diplomas) and giving the owners e g the possibility of a privileged existence and continued operation .

” … The intelligentsia is a class, by its very nature, privileged and exploitative . “

The fact that the intelligentsia is not engaged in the direct robbery of workers, gives it the opportunity to hide and hide its exploitative face. But the fact is, e complicity in the absorption of the surplus value remains the fact. This understanding of the exploitative physiognomy of the intelligentsia is due to the fact that it has a preferential, almost monopolistic right to own all the spiritual benefits that are inherited by this class.

Thus, the Makha residents firmly establish the characteristic signs of the intelligentsia as a class of exploiters , consisting, firstly, of complicity in predatory unearned incomes at the expense of the working class, and secondly, of preserving the hereditary right to education, to the accumulation of intellectual capital.

However, intellectuals, in turn, is also subject to a greater or lesser degree of exploitation by the capitalist class, which is why, while fighting against the working class, it fights both against the bourgeoisie, but all e the interests of intellectuals in relation to the working class coincide with the interests of the capitalists .

“ No matter how antagonistic, ” writes E. Lozinsky, “the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie, owners of means and instruments of production, on the one hand, and the class of mental workers , on the other, but antagonism is not as great, not as irreconcilable as the one that exists between this last class, on the one hand, and the proletariat , on the other. 

” Whatever the quarrel between a privileged and exploiting sections of society because of the greater or lesser right to participate in the robbery, they are bound by blood connection of parasitic origin, in the veins of their tech e t entirely e same ” noble master’s blood ” consumers of unpaid labor, amatorov [i] surplus value. This affinity of souls, it is the mutual attraction of two relative to each other social elements irresistibly manifested in the revolutionary activities of the socialist intelligentsia, even in the most heroic e e era ” [5] .

According to the Makhaev, the bilateral class struggle of the intelligentsia is directed mainly against the proletariat, which the cynical seeks to deceive the intelligentsia, the more it exploits and robs it. Being in a number of other relatively young social classes, the intelligentsia quickly learned all the animal traits inherent in the exploiters .

Representing the intelligentsia as an independent social class with all the ensuing consequences, the Makhays inevitably had to come to the conclusion about an independent, class of intellectuals peculiar to the class ideology. This class ideology of the intelligentsia is socialism .

Socialism, according to the Makhaists, is a conscious deception invented by the intelligentsia to conquer the working masses. Socialism alien interests of working class and future Socialist state, which promises intelligentsia working class is neither more nor less than kingdom, which will completely dominate educated strata If under capitalism class intellectual is klassom- exploiter second category, class subordination to the capitalist class, after the revolution, with the establishment of the socialist system, the capitalists will be overthrown, and only the intelligentsia will rule the whole society.

Hence all the attacks of the Makhaevs on the Social-Democratic movement, appearances against its leaders and against Marxism, as the theoretical basis of this movement. According to the Makhaists, the intelligentsia creates socialist organizations in which workers are involved in order to create leadership positions for themselves. But intellectuals do this not as representatives of the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie, but as representatives of an independent social class, striving to assert their domination and expand their influence, aimed at capturing the broad masses of proletarians and peasants. Hence, socialism is nothing more than a product of the intelligentsia, distracting the workers from the struggle for their immediate, vital economic interests and pushing the workers to the path of a political game, needed only by the capitalist class and the intelligentsia class.

Mahaevtsev attacks on the theory and practice of the Social-Democrats for the most part borrowed from anarchist sources, and although they have a very big sharpness, but all e do not have sufficient validity in comparison with literature combat anarchists.

Socialism, according to the Makha residents, is beneficial only for the intelligentsia. For the workers, the socialist system will be the same world of bondage and slave labor as the capitalist system. “The socialization of means and instruments of production, ” says Lozinsky, “ contrary to the usual notion, does not destroy the roots of labor captivity, does not eliminate the root causes of slavery and exploitation . “ Socialization ” is the formula for the emancipation of only one of the ruling classes, namely , the class of mental workers. Socialization does not free the slaves of manual labor, but the intelligentsia from submission to the capitalists and the capitalist state; it leads to the strengthening of class slavery, to the consolidation of labor captivity ” [6] .

As an argument for the fact that the intelligentsia does not intend to end the exploitation at all , the Makhaists quote from the works of the most prominent Marxists, which state that the expropriation of capitalists cannot happen without redemption. Makha residents consider this circumstance to be proof that the intelligentsia does not want to embark on the path of the revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie, trying to seduce it with the prospect of a rich redemption.

Representing socialism as an ideology of the intelligentsia, the Makhaists believe that they themselves are the only irreconcilable fighters for the interests of the working class. But the Makhaites, however, are not limited to attacks on the intelligentsia. They move on. Coy-where they express the idea that the working class is also a privileged and reactionary class. Therefore, the Makha residents do not impose great hopes on the workers in the sense of implementing the lofty ideas of the theorists of the Makhayev region. The unsuitability of the working class as a fighter for the ideals of the Makhayev region is explained by the fact that it is, according to the Makhaevists, corrupted and economically and politically. The working class is adversely affected by the aristocratic elite of the class, the stratum of skilled workers who are well paid and therefore hostile to the truly revolutionary movement. This labor aristocracy makes the working class susceptible to socialist agitation and deaf to the calls of the Makha population.

Having rejected the working class as a carrier of revolutionary ideas, the Makhaists are trying to find a foothold in some other social group. They find support for themselves in the unemployed, tramps, and bullies. From the declassed lumpen-proletarians, the Makhaites are waiting for a revolutionary impact on the proletariat, put to sleep by socialism. The Makhaists pin their revolutionary hopes on these elements in the struggle against the commanding classes. In praise of hooligan elements, the Makha’s people go so far as to admire even the pogroms of the Black-Hundred gangs.

” The political revolution, – writes Makhaisky, – was bound to prepare themselves against h e molecular hundreds of starving Russian masses. The bourgeois revolution can not give anything to these people in h e molecular hundreds of them at least sometimes offer rich mixed ethnic shops ” [7] .

It is characteristic of the Makha residents, who are rebelling against the intelligentsia’s monopolization of education, that they set the most backward, most unconscious elements as models for the working class. “ For a working revolutionary, ” the Makhayevists write, “ no re-education of the all-Russian “ hooliganism ” is required … It is necessary that all workers be just as impossible to seduce with political freedom, like hooligans. It is necessary for the workers to demand from the educated bourgeoisie, as hooligans do, not political rights, not beautiful ideas and education, not eloquence, but the most real money. ” [8] .

Thus, we see that the Makhaists do not associate the realization of their ideas with the growing consciousness of the working class. On the contrary, they extol the element of spontaneity, discarding us two decades ago, returning to the primitive methods of struggle, to the beating of the owners, to the destruction of machines, etc. 

” Free, one already desperate position, from all sorts of professional, cooperative, etc. hobbies, not fooled by the influence of our liberal and socialist intelligentsia, indifferent to any ” policy ” and correct instinct, in the face of all modern reddling politicians of their worst and the most dangerous enemies of focusing around one only points, but the Fundamental, Sun e else which determines the – point pocket, economic, militant ” bully ” is able bring a sobering living environment to the rest of the work environment  a stream of common proletarian sense, finally deciphering where the crayfish spend the winter and what to do and what not to do in the interests of the proletarian liberation ” [9] .

The Makhayevites hoped that the spontaneous revolutionism of this medium would bring a fighting stream to the lower strata of the working class, who, together with the unemployed, would lead the fight against the skilled workers who had entrenched themselves in production.

According to the Makhaevists, the qualification of the labor force, as well as education among the intelligentsia, is obtained by “ investing part of the surplus value ” . True, this surplus value is given to skilled workers in the form of high wages, but this circumstance puts highly qualified workers in a privileged position, which enables their offspring to get out of the hard labor position of the exploited into the intelligentsia , if not themselves, , on the way of operation.

Orientation towards the unemployed, the lumpen proletariat is one of the many traits that are related to the Makhaists with all the other nuances of anarchism in Russia. Together with other anarchist groups, the Makhaists think of a social upheaval only with the help of public scum, contrary to the desire of the intelligentsia and the leaders of the working class. At the same time, the Makhaists differ from other anarchist groups in that they firmly and consistently stand on the point of view of the class division of society.

The Makhaists themselves, in the person of their theoreticians, do not consider themselves anarchists and even often attack anarchists no less fiercely than social democrats. Makha residents blame the anarchists for not being sufficiently decisive in the fight against the exploiters . They reproach the leader of the anarchists Kropotkin with the fact that he attaches importance to the overthrow of the autocracy as a stage that approaches the goals of anarchism. Another sin of Western European anarchism, the Makhaists consider that it seeks to legalize and to openly exist their organizations within the framework of the capitalist system. Anarchists, according mahaevtsev, off with the words, instead of by organization of working conspiratorial plot to prepare an attack on the bourgeoisie and th e government.

Makha’s attitude to the state suffers from ambiguity. On the one hand, they, together with other anarchists, deny the state, regarding it under all conditions as harmful and exploitative . On the other hand, the Makhai residents offer the masses of the unemployed to impose their demands on the state.

Makha residents also have a negative attitude towards trade unions and do not recognize any minimum program. Their own program – the maximum is extremely pale and not developed. Workers must, according to the Makhaevists, fight ” for achieving the highest pay for manual labor, ” for the destruction of ” unemployment. To do this, a world wide conspiracy is needed, a world working strike is an uprising.

Anarho – Makhnovshchina.

Among the Russian anarchists, as we have already seen, the anarcho-communist current prevailed. Only it alone captured the few layers of semi-intelligentsia and backward workers. Anarcho-syndicalists in the period of the revolution of 1905 only began to gather strength and draw up their program and tactical views. In 1917, from February to October, the Communist anarchists acted as a disorganizing factor towards the Kerensky government. As for the syndicalists, it must be said that a group of aristocrats from anarchism, intellectuals weakly associated with the working masses, gathered around them.

Anarchist communists had quite significant groups in almost all centers of the labor movement. But the declassed elements prevailed in them, and of the workers, as during the revolution of 1905 , the most backward strata, such as bakers, were drawn to them. If before October 1917, communist anarchists played a positive role in some way, then after October their role became absolutely negative. The tasks set by the Bolsheviks before October did not cause a negative attitude among anarchists. After the victory of the proletarian revolution, the anarchists during the outbreak of civil war gradually began to draw ideologically and organizationally, theoretically and practically his negative attitude toward the dictatorship of the proletariat and e g a practical purpose. 

As is known, the civil war with the greatest force unfolded in the south. In Russia, the Soviet government quickly coped with the counter-revolutionary revolts of St. Petersburg and Moscow junkers. In Ukraine, the class war was confused with the sharpened national question, and the civil war was delayed here for a long time. In this situation, the anarchists sharpened their theoretical and practical weapons against the Bolshevik Leninists , against the proletarian dictatorship. During this period, anarchists put forward the idea of ​​the second October.

In 1918, at a meeting of anarchists of all shades, the idea of ” united anarchism ” was put forward , that is , such a union, which would include anarchists of all trends. At this meeting, the first experience of a single platform and sets the general for all the organization was developed, which adopted the name of ” Nabat ” . 

History has anarchists before a heavy test: at the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the overthrow of the autocracy and not only landlords but also capitalism, say your special word, to put forward their own, different from the Bolshevik, tasks .

It is characteristic that this attempt was made in the south, in Ukraine, where the working class is relatively weak and where the peasantry dominates. 1918 and part of 1919 are held in a continuous organization of forces. At the same time, the anarchists, in search of a social base, unite with Makhno’s “ father, ” who had operated since 1918 with his rebel groups that had previously acted against the Germans, and then against Denikin in the areas of Yekaterinoslav and Tauride provinces.

The orientation towards the Makhnovist movement quite clearly revealed the social essence of anarchism in general and its Bakunin-Kropotkin variety in particular. This connection of the leaders and theorists of anarchism with the Makhnovshchina made a sharp distinction along the class line between anarchists, on the one hand, and Marxist-Leninists , on the other. While the Communist-Bolshevik party created a powerful organization of the working class, led the best part of the working class and peasantry to fight against the bourgeoisie and landowners , the Narchat anarchists never succeeded in creating any significant forces in the working class.

Makhnovshchina did not find and could not find support among the proletariat who realized its class interests. The development of the struggle for strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, after overcoming Kerenism, Denikin and Petliurism, proceeded at a rapid pace. In Ukraine, the organized movement of the kulak peasantry slowed down the organic creative work and forced the working class of Ukraine to lead a stubborn struggle for the victory of October.

Makhno and his minions were destined to become the leaders of the organized kulaks in his struggle against the power of the workers and the poorest peasantry. And if anarchists — communists, who did not find themselves, their social faces, their class, managed to unite in the process of civil war for the first attempts at anarchist construction only with Makhno, then the class physiognomy of anarchism is thereby determined.

In his papers ( ” Nabat ” , ” Path to Freedom ” ) and leaflets anarchists oppose the Red Army, the rebel army, the Soviets of Workers ‘and Peasants’ Deputies – independents and powerless councils bring together local s e organization of enterprises and villages. Anarchists claim that only the rebel army can be a true defender of the social revolution, and only powerless councils are able to organize the new system.

Some areas of Ekaterinoslavschina remained in the hands of Makhno for several months. In these areas, with the headquarters of the rebel army of Makhno, as the ideologues of the Makhnovshchina, sat a group of anarchists with Volin at the head. From time to time, these anarchists organized meetings, edited and wrote newspapers and leaflets, trying to imbue Makhnovshchina with the spirit of free anarchism. But among the Makhnovist army, anarchists hardly managed to create at least some significant layer of conscious anarchists — fighters. Therefore – it and create a situation in which all attempts ended with the ideological character of dissatisfaction on both sides, and the historical experiences of anarchism – ” experiments anarchic construction ” – ended with mutual irritation of Makhno and his employees, on the one hand, Volin and his employees – on the other.

Mergers and Collaboration anarchist Makhno and have shown that the anarchists in short time become a plaything in the hands of Makhno, and hence the political servants of the kulak strata of the peasantry, who became the masters and lords of the Makhnovist movement.

The path traversed by anarchism from Proudhon and Bakunin to the kulak gangs of Makhno is a death sentence for anarchism. The path from the idea of free-style anarchy to tyranny Makhnovshchina and kulaks – this is entirely e that could make anarchism. This is his last word.

Marxism, anarchism, Leninism.

We have already said that in the first Internationale, who became a forerunner of the social revolution, fell down in awe of the capitalist world, almost entirely e During its existence was torn by internal strife. The anarchists, headed by Bakunin, accused Marx and his supporters of not leading a consistent, open, direct struggle against the capitalist world for a social revolution, that they distract the working class from its direct struggle according to the principle “the liberation of workers should be ” On the path of political struggle. 

Anarchists called Marx’s supporters socialist statesmen , calling themselves, as opposed to them, stateless socialists . Subsequently, for many years, anarchists have always used the contemptuous nickname of socialist statesmen in relation to the Social Democrats. From this one it can already be seen that the basis of the many years of dispute between anarchists and Marxists is precisely the question of the state. This question till the beginning of the dispute between Marx and Bakunin gained great importance, and further, to the extent that, as the fight between anarchism and socialism became aggravated, the question of the nature of the state entirely darkened g more and more.

We know that in the Length Research Institute for many years of the II Social – Democratic International in n e m Sun e number of developing opportunistic, reformist and all kinds of revisionist elements. The revisionists are gradually slipping from Marxist positions on the path of bourgeois – democratic degeneration, Sun e decisively rejecting revolutionary methods of struggle in favor of peaceful reforms and peaceful co-operation with the bourgeoisie. 

Having gone headlong into a peaceful parliamentary struggle, the socialists finally abandoned the revolutionary methods of action. On these peaceful paths, the Social Democrats have lost not only their revolutionary sentiments, but also Marxist principles decisively on all questions of program and tactics, including on the class nature of the state.

Marxism teaches us that all the phenomena of socio-economic nature h e TCRs recognize their class nature. The question of the attitude to the state was not the main reason for the longstanding disputes between anarchists and Marxists. This question, more than any other, is confused, first of all, by bourgeois science, and then by the many years of efforts of the servants of the bourgeoisie from among the social patriots and reformists. Engels, in its e m classic work ” On the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ” very thoroughly examines the history of the emergence and development of the state and concludes that ” the state as a special apparatus of coercion of people arose only there and then, where the division of society into classes appeared ” .

The bourgeoisie, ie g scientist , e g minions – the Social Democrats is the definition of the historical role of the state was clearly unprofitable. They tried to substitute this definition for others, which boil down to the fact that the state is an institution for establishing order, that the state is not a class concept, but a superclass concept, that all classes of the population are interested in the existence of the state. Hence the historic fall of social democracy, hence the social-patriotic frenzy during the imperialist war 1914 – 1918 years.

It goes without saying that such an ardently established arbourgeois line of conduct opportunistically in those who mastered all the parties of the Second International could not but cause joy and jubilation, on the one hand, in the ranks of capitalists and their ideologues, and on the other hand, in the anarchists. Both were interested in alien stratum, formed over the years on the revolutionary teachings of Marx and Engels, to pass off as being Marxism. Only Lenin, in his many years of struggle against the theoretical and practical distortions of Marxism, restored not only his effective revolutionary practice, but also his revolutionary theoretical essence. 

” Anarchism, – wrote Lenin [10] , – often was a kind of punishment for the opportunist sins of the labor movement. Both ugliness complemented each other. And if in Russia, despite the more petty-bourgeois composition th e population compared with European countries, anarchism enjoyed during both revolutions (1905 and 1917   yy ) and while preparing for them a comparatively insignificant influence, this undoubtedly should be partially credited with Bolshevism, which has always led the most merciless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism . ”

On the question of the state, its historical role, the definition of its essence in the teachings of Marx and Engels, and finally its role in the proletarian revolution, Lenin also had to energetically fight against the established opportunistic prejudices.

Lenin restores those places from the works of Engels, where the latter clearly establishes the class character of the state, considering the state a machine that exists to maintain the domination of one class over another. The capitalist state exists as an apparatus directed with all its might against the proletariat. When the question of power arises before the working class , the question of the bourgeois state machine is inseparably connected with this question. The victorious proletarian revolution establishes a dictatorship to suppress the resistance of the defeated exploiting classes, and only when society in its work reaches socialism and the class struggle ceases, does the state as an institution lose its value and die off. Here is how Engels wrote about it in his ” Anti-Duhring ” :

” The proletariat ber e t state power and turns the means of production into state property. But by doing so, he destroys himself as a proletariat, thereby he destroys all class differences and class opposites, and at the same time the state … The state was the official representative of the whole society … but it was such only because it was a state class, which for his age one represented wholly g society … When the state finally becomes the real representative of the whole of society, then it makes itself superfluous … the first act in which the state really comes forward as the pr The representative of the whole society is to take possession of the means of production on behalf of the society, – is at the same time the last independent act of him as a state. The intervention of state power in public relations then becomes superfluous in one area after another and naturally falls asleep. The place of the government over the persons is taken over by the disposition of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not ” abolished ” , it dies .

Lenin in his work “The State and the Revolution ” notes that from all the above quotations from Engels all the social reformists and international Mensheviks made only that advantageous for the bourgeoisie that according to Marx, the state “ dies off ” in contrast to the anarchist requirement of “ abolishing ” the state. Lenin points out that, in the same quotation, Engels emphasizes that by taking state power, the proletariat ” thereby destroys the state as a state . ” Lenin proves that in this Engels speaks of the destruction of the bourgeois state by the proletarian revolution , while the words about dying off refer to the remnants of proletarian statehood after the socialist revolution. The bourgeois state ” does not die ” according to Engels, but is ” destroyed ” by the proletariat in the revolution. After this revolution, the proletarian state or the semi-state dies away.

Lenin with amazing consistency and mercilessness exposes Kautsky and other false Marxists , who deliberately ignore Engels’ words about the need to destroy the bourgeois state. “The change of the bourgeois state by the proletarian, ” says Lenin, “is impossible without a violent revolution. The destruction of the proletarian state, that is , the destruction of every state, is impossible except by the “ withering away ” . 

Thus, the anarchists’ reproaches against the Marxists that they are statesmen are correct and fair insofar as Marxism was represented for many years in the form of Kautskyan and social-chauvinistic perversions. Such a false term as the socialist ” state of the future ” has even taken root in pseudo-Marxist literature . It is clear that there can be no future socialist state, since a socialist society is a classless society, and therefore people who deliberately distort Marx’s teachings can speak of a socialist state.

Anarchists could never understand how, in the theory and practice of Marxism, the requirement of participation in the political life of the state, on the one hand, and the statement about the disappearance of the state , on the other , agree .

The anarchist Cherkezov sees in this contradiction a concession to anarchism on the part of Engels. And at first glance, Cherkezov is right. In one place, Cherkezov quotes with indignation the words of Engels: “The social classes will disappear and the state will collapse together with them. When society creates on the basis of a free association of equal producers, then the entire state machine will be handed over to the museum of antiquity, along with a spinning wheel and a bronze ax . ” These thoughts of Engels seem illogical and inconsistent to Cherkezov, if we take into account the participation of social democrats in parliamentary struggle, in the work of the state machine, the participation of socialists in bourgeois governments and similar feats of social opportunists in all countries of the world.

The greatest merit of Leninism lies in the fact that from the first moment of its inception he led the struggle to purify Marxism from falsifications, from distortions and to purify the party of the proletariat from all sorts of petty-bourgeois and compromising elements. The further, the more this struggle sharpened, going beyond the framework of Russian Social-Democracy alone, and turned into a struggle on an international scale. The imperialist war and the October Revolution finally led to the collapse of the Second International, weathered all the military content of its program and tactics. The Communist International, organized by Lenin, becoming the militant headquarters of the world proletariat, immediately recruited the revolutionary elements of all of Europe and  America. The revolutionary line of Leninism knocked out of the hands of anarchism military weapons aimed against the opportunist sins of the Second International. And we are currently witnessing of how under the guise of social democrats in Western Europe and America act the mat e rye lackeys of the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, we see how to eke out a miserable existence remains of anarchists. 

In the union of Soviet Socialist Republics, anarchism disappeared as the proletariat strengthened its positions, individual anarchists and whole groups either joined the Communist Party or, having renounced anarchism, work in the ranks of supporters and sympathizers of the Communist Party and Soviet power.


[one] Uninterrupted.

[2] “Intellectuals and the Proletariat,” pp. 17-18.

[3] “Intellectuals, as a social group.” F Urn “Education” 1904 city of, number    one.

[four] “The Bourgeois Revolution and the Workers’ Case,” p. 86.

[5] E. Lozinsky. “What, finally, is the intelligentsia,” p. 101. 

[6] E. Lozinsky. “What, finally, is the intelligentsia,” p. 282. 

[7] “Burj uaznaya revolution and the workers’ cause” , p. 50.

[eight] “Worker Conspiracy,” pp. 25–20 .

[9] E. Lozinsky. “And Toges and Prospects,” pp. 351–352 . 

[ten] “Children’s left-foot sickness”. Collected cit., t. XVII, p. 125. 


[i] Amater (fr. amateur) (colloquially outdated.) – amateur, hunter before anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code