Daniel Guerin, Marxism and Anarchism

8/3/2019 Daniel Guerin, Marxism and Anarchism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/daniel-guerin-marxism-and-anarchism 1/10

J

ivlarxismand anarchism

DanielGu6rin

In a discussion f the relationship etweenMarxism and anarchism,

wc are confronted by severaldifficulties.The first one is, what dowe real ly mean by the word 'Marxism'?Which 'Marxism'are wetalk ing about?

Let me explain mmediately hat u 'hat mean by 'Marxism' is a l lof the wri t ingsof Kar l Marx and Friedr ichEngels hemselves.exclude he works of their more or less aithlesssuccessors. hohave usurped he label of 'Marxists ' .

Such, n the f i rs t nstance. s the case f the distortedMarxismofthe German Social Democrats, of rvhich the fol loll ' ing are some

cxamples.During the first years of the Social Democratic Party in

Gerrnany, n Marx 's l i fet ime, the SocialDemocrats aunched hesloganof a so-calledVolkstaat People'sState). Marx and Engelsrvereprobably so happy and proud to have at last. in Germany, amassparty drarving nspi ration from them. that they displayeda

strange ndulgence towards i t . I t took Bakunin 's fur ious andpersistentdenunciation of the Volkstaatand at the same time of

the SocialDemocrats 'col lus ionu' i th the bourgeois adicalpart iesfor Marx and Engels o feel obliged to repudiatesucha sloganandsuch a practice.

Much later, n 1895, he ageingEngelswhi le wri t in_e is famouspreface to Marx's The Class Struggles n France. was to make acomplete evis ionof Marxism n a reformistdi rect ion,putt ing heaccenton the use of the bal lot paper as the ideal way. i f not theonly way, to take power. Engelshimsel f , herefore,wasno longer'Marxist '

n the sense hat I understand t .Next, Kar l Kautskybecame he equivocal uccessoro Marx and



1 10 Theory

as a'lvfarxist', called or more frankncss rom Kautst<y nd openly

renounced lass truggle,which accord ing o h in t was out o f date,

in favour of e lectora l ism, ar l iamentar ian isn.r ,nd social e forms.

Kautsky,on thc otherhand,cons idercdt 'ent i rc ly wrong ' to say

that soc ia l is t onsciousness as the neccssary nd direct resul t o f

pro le tar ian lass truggle. f he rvas o be bel icvec l , oc ia l ism nd

classstruggled id not generate one another. They arose from

dif ferentpremises. oc ia l is t onsciousnessalnc rc lmscience. hc

carr iers f sc icrrce 'oulclno t be the pro lc tar ia t ,but the bourgeois

intel lectuals. y thenr rvould scientif ic ocial ism e 'contmunicated'

to the pro letar ians.To conclude: Soc ia l is tconsciousncsss an

element mported ront outs ide he pro letar ianc lass tr t rgg le, nd

not sorneth ing vhichspr ings rorn t spontaneously . '

The ablc t l reoret ic ian n Gcrman St lc ia l Dctnocracy rvhcr

rcmained fa i th iu l to the genr" r ine r ig ina l Marx isrn rvas RosaLuremburg. Neverthe lcss,she had to make plenty of tact icz t l

compromises i th thc leac lersh ipf hcr party . Sh edi t l not openly

cr i t ic izeBebel anc lKautsky; she di d not enter in to opcn conf l ic t

rv i thKautsk i 'unt i l 1910, vhenher ex-t t t tordroppcd he deaof the

mass ol i t icn ls tr ikc ; anc la l toveall she r ied hard o diss imulatehe

strong inksu ' i th anarch ism f her concept ion f the revolut ionary

s1:roritancitvf thc masscs, csorfing o the pretenccof vituperations

agarrrs thc anarch is ts .r hus shehopecl ot to a larn la party v l t ich

sh e va s ttached o both by conv ic4onand. t rnustbe said, or i t is

nou knorvn.h l rn i r tc l i l i l l t tercs ts . '

But. in sp i te of var iants in prescntat ion, there is no real

d i f fercncc c trvccn he anarcho-syndica l is te t tera l t r ikeand what

thc prudent Rosa Lr:xenrbr-rrgreferred o name he mass tr ike ' '

In the sanre 'av.hcr v io lent c l isagreentents,hc f i rs t v i thLenin in

190.1.he las t n the spr ing of 1918,wi th Bolshev ikpower, werc

no t very far f rom anarchism.The same appl ics o her u l t imate

ideas, in the Spartac is tmovemcnt, a t the cnc l o f 1918, of asoc ia l ism orvered rom the bottom up by workers 'counc i ls .Rosa

Luxemburg s one of the l inks betweenanarc l l isn lanclauthent ic

Marx ism.But authent ic Marx ism was not d is trustedonly by German

SocialDemocracy. t rvasal tered n a greatmeasurcby Lcnin. FI e

cons idcrably ncreased erta in of the .Tacobin t td author i tar ian

tra i ts rvh ich already appear f rom ti rne to t i rnc , a l though no t

ahvays. n the rvrit ings of Marx and Engels.' I- le introduced an

ul tra-centra l ism, narrow sectar ian onccpt of the Party (rv i th a

capi ta lP), and aboveal l the ideaof profess ionalevolut ionar ies s

leaders f the masses.t o t many of thesenot ionscan be found n

Marxism and anarchism

Marx 's wri t ings, rvhere they are no more than embryonic a

u rder ly ing.

Neverthe less, en in violently accused he SocialDemocrat

l rav ing ev i led he anarchis ts . nd. n h is i t t le book I / rc State

Rrl ,o lu t ion, c dcvotcd a rvholesect ion o pav ing hem tr ibute

t i rc i r f idc l i ty to the revolut ion. Thrs qui te important poin

rr : ; r ra l lyurked l ry the b l ind or d ishonest o l lou 'ersof Lenin a

r, l r id c lc tractors f anarch ism.i r lc lu 'adaysMarx isrn ' has bcconte a commonplace*ord

rL:rrc t ionarvo l i t ica l argon, used to des iqnate l l k inds of n

r. i :nrocrat ic . or t -genuine l) ,oc ia l is t . nc la trc-rr , 'el l s ta te-capi

r , ' r . ' . i rncsak ing the patteru of the USSR.

t ' ' rr s rr l . r jec tmnre iate ly presel t ts secttnd l i f f icu l t r ' .N ' Iarx

) ' , ige ls 's vayof th ink ing s nr) tcas) ' t r c trnrPrchenc l .or i t evo l: , r r ln i f icant lyn the courseof a ha l f -ccntt t rv f o l rservat ion s h

t ; icd to make i t re f lcc t he l iv ing rca l i tv of the ir t imes.

iJcs ic leshe y did not ahvays ucccccl rr choos ingLrc tueen

I ' , ' r . rontrad ic tory trends of thc i r thor.rght:author i tar ian a

l i r rc r tar ian.l havcalready ra\ \ ' l t t tcnt ion o a nra jor ncons isir : E,ngc ls 'shought.) We havc hence' lo free oursc lves rom

lr i rc ls of c logmatizat ionof N{arx is l r t ,e i ther bv somc FrcI , l tho l iccommcntatoror bv Sta l in is tperverte s .

l -c t us cor.rs iderevera l nstancr:s .-fhe

young Marx, a ciisciple f the philosopher udu'igFcuerb

and a humanis t , svcry d i f fercnt rom thc Nlarxof r ipervears 'h

hav ingbrokenwit l t Feucrbach. c trcats nto a fa i r lv r ig id sc ien

c leternr insn.r .Thc Marx of the .Ay'errcl l teirt isc' l te eimrtg (18-1S-9). 'hoses

c lcs i res to bc regarc led s a c lc tnocrat . nd * 'hc'r oughtan a l l ia

rv i th he progress ivc crman btturgeois ie . ears i t t le resembla

to t l . re Marx of i850. Communis t and even Blanqr l is t .spokcsman f permanent evolut ion.of independentCommu

pol i t ica lact ion and the so-ca l lec l ic ta torsh ip f the pro letar ia

Th e Marx of the fo l lorving ears ,postponing i l l much ater

in ternat ional evolut ionand shutt inghirnsel f u 'At 'n the ibrar

thc I l r i t ish Museum, dcvot ing h imsel t there to ertens ive a

p ' :acefLr lc ient i f ic esearch.s againcomplete lv l i f ferent rom

iu:;r . r r rcc t ionary arx of IE50. u'ho believed in an immin

g.r :rc ra lupr is ing.' fhe Marx o l 1864-9,p lay in-qhe ro lc at f i rs to f d is in tc-reste

r ' : ,c reet ounsel lor behinc l he scenes) f the assenrl ' lecl'ork, fhe Ir i rs t n ternat ional , uddenlvbecomes. rom 1870 nrva



112 Theory

an u l t ra-author i tar ianMarx who rules frorn London over the

GeneralCouncil of the International.

The Marx who, a t the start of 1871, ssuedseverewarnings

against Par is iannsurrect ions not the samcas hc one who, only

short lyaf ter, n the famous address, ublishedurtder he t i t le o f

The Civil War itt France, praises he Paris Comtnutlc to the skies

(certa inaspects f which, be it said n passiltg, e idealizes)' '

The Marx who. in the same rvork , asserts ha t the Commune

ha d the merit of destroying th e ntachinery of the s tate and

replacing t u ' i th comrnunalpower s not the sameon e rvho. n the

Critique of th e Gotha Progranune, endeavoured o convince he

reader hat the statemust survive t l r c lu i tea long period after he

oro letar ian evolution."Thus, then. there is no question of considering he original

Marxism. that of Marx and Engcls.as a hornogcneous loc.

Let us examine Marx an d Engels in action, f i t t ing in to the

movementof the labouring ntasses,n first the episodeof th e Neue

RheinischeZeitung and later th e inlpulse given by them to th e

International ur ing the years 1864-72.

The early episode reveals, at the same time, the undeniable

value of the trvo precocious oundersof sc ient i f ic ocial ism, nd

their rveakpoints: authoritar ianism. ectarianism,ack of utrder-

stancling f and teel i lS for l ibertar ianperspectives.

I t rvas rvo young men of 30 and 28 rvho set up the Rhincland

newspaper n 1848. Their talent as journal is tsequalled their

courage.Thcy ratn he r isk of a l l k inds of harassn-rentsnd legal

repression.by, both police and judiciary. They were resolute ly

internationalist nc lsupportedal l the revolutionarymovements f

the variouscountr iesseizedby thc fever of 1848.They struggled

alongside he rvorkersof the ir orvn native and, and Engcls va s

just i f ied n maintaining,much later. irt 1884, hat 'n o newspaper\ \ ,as o successfuln rousing he pro letar ianntasscs' . '

Both devoted real ly rvonderful pages o what thcy callcd th e

Parisworkers' nsurrection f June 1848,which rvas o be cruslted

bloodily.N{arxwas not boastingwhen he asserted fterwards:We

aloneunderstood he June revolution.'Th e trvo riendsapprehended

thc dramaticcl ivorce etwccrt,on one sicle, he Paris ianworkcrs,

forced nto the most v io lent o f r io ts , and, on the ot l . rer ide, hc

massof small peasantry,excited against he partageux whosewh o

wanted o shareout the land).

Marx and Engels, in addition, sa w clear ly the European

renercussions f th e workers' defeat n June 1848.From that point

th e revolution was forced to beat a retrcat throughout th c

Marxism and anarchism

continent.The courageous tt i tude of the two young ourn

was o be no lessprejudicial o them; and their stand n favothe Parisian nsurgents ut to f l i -eht he ir lastshareholders.

But bencath this extremism appear the alreadv authorit

traitsof early Marxisrn. Engcls, ecallins he Rhinelandnervs

in 1884,acknowledged hat Marx exercised is dictatorship

the editorials ta f f .A ll h is collaborators. ecognizing is ntel le

superiority. submittecl o the author i ty o f the ir ch ief ed i tor

abused hat power, us t as . ve v i l l see ater. he rvas o abusethe General Council of the First International. He disp

authoritarianism nd alsoexcess f pr ide. Thus. brought befotr ibunal n Cologne,he cried, v i thcompletedisdain.'As ar a

conccrned, assure ou that I prefer ollou' inggreat vor ldev

analysing he march of hi storl ' , o rvrest l ing vith ocal dols.

The two cronies ost no opportun i tv o pi tch nto ProudhonBakunin.Th e bravespeech ivenby the ormer at the 31 July

sessionof the National Assembly, to the jeers of h is fur

colleagues, roused he mockery'of he German ournal is ts .

th isspeech he anarchist eputy darec l o shou'solic laritvv i t

Junc nsurgents nd to fl ing a social ist hal lenge o the bourg

order. But for thc nrer ci less ' larxand Engels t coulclbe not

but a clcver ruse. To carrr,' off his pe it-hourgeors Utosuccessfully,hc fathe of anarchisrn 'as. hev contended.obl

to ho lc la denrocratic tt i tude n the face of th is rvholebourg

chamber' .Fo r the Appcal to t l te Slavs ublished n 1 8,18 1'Bakunin. N

an d Engelshacl hc same sarcilsms. or this Russianpatr io t

rvord libcrty ' replaces verything. hi s s not a v, ,ord f realitv

]'ou finrl in rhe Appeal are more or lessmoral categories.'vprove al tso lu tc ly to t l t i t rg ' . Onl t , 'Bakunin's imagination'unawareof geographical nd corrrmercial ecessit ies 'hich

vital qucstions or German; ' . The northernpartsof Germanvtheyno t comple el-vCermanizecl '? re thesegoodGe'rmans

forccd o speakdead Slavonic anguages? hc pol i t ica lcentr

ation imposeclby the Gerrnan conqucr()r. anclu'hich onlv

nrost resolute errorism' can safcguard. s the expression'pressing eecl ' f an econonric haracter. t is oo bad f i t invo'bruta l lv crushing a ferv tenc ler i t t le nat ional flou'ers' .excl

Engels.Let u s now considerMarx and Engels's c t iv i t iesnside he F

International rom 1864 o 1E72.

At thc time of the b i r th of the F irs t Internii t iona

2E Septernber 8(14, ' Iarx erd aci o conten t himself.as he l

re la ted o Engels, with playing a silent role' on the p la t form



II4 Theory

St Martin's Hall. Horvever, he received his compensationa fewweeks later by wr i t ing the Inaugural Address of the newAssociation.None the less,he lvas o remain touchingly unsclfish

and modest for a long t ime. When the chai rmanshipof the

General Counci l was of fered to him, he hurnbly declined,

regarding imsel fas unqual i f ied, she wasan intel lectualworker ,

not a nranualworker' .

On the eve of the LausanneCongressn 18(17, e stated hat he

rvas n no fit state o go , and stood down as a delegate.Moreover,

he was o remain absent rom al l th e annualconferences nt i l th e

fateful one of 7872. He even professeda faith in spontaneism.Wri t ing the four th annual repor t of th e Gcneral Counci l fo r th e

Brussels ongress f 1868,he proclaimed hzr t : Th e lnternat ional

Working Men's Associat ion s the daughterneit l tcr of a sectnor a

theory. It is the spontaneous in German naturw,tichsig, egotten

by naturel product of the proletar ian movement , which i tsel f

springs rom the normal and i rrepressible endenciesof modern

society. 'But qui te soonMarx was o take an author i tar ianurn. This wa s

for several easons.To begin with, in September1867 he had

publ ished he f i rst volume r>fhis Capital, which had brought hirn

speedy an.re nd the congi 'atulat ionsf the Intcntat ional ists,he

Germansbeing the Srst . Second,under the bant terof Wilhelm

Liebknechtand August Bebel , Germany SocialDcmocracyha d

rapidly f lour ished and had succeeded, n spi te of government

rest r ic t ions,n get t ingabout a hundred unions o aff i l iate o th e

Internat ional .Bebel boastedof this aff i l iat ion n th c Reichstagn

1869. lvlarx, who was Secretary of thc Regional Council fo r

German1,, rvelled vith pride. I{ c rvasno longer alone. At last he

had a great pol i t i calpar ty to protect him from the rear .Marx rvas qui te at tached to his t i t le and funct ion. At the

General Counci l sessionof 1 May 1868, he snapped at the

secretary, is countrymanJ. G. Eccar ius, or having omi t ted his

name at the bot tom of an address hat the habi tual spokesman

of the Internat ional had drawn up. He was ntost indignant :'M r Eccar ius must not be al lowed to nrakc use of Counci l

members'namesas he pleases.' ersonally, e wusquite ndifferent,

he said, as o rvhetherhis name rvasmentiotrecl, ut 'the Secretary

for Germany s an ent i ty, not a f ict ion'.

And then, in September1868,Bakunin foundcd an International

SocialDemocrat ic A l l iance and aimed to entcr er t b loc into the

Internat ionalWorking Men's Associat iot t .Scarcd not wi thout

reason, Marx managed o ge t the General CoLrnci l o refuse this

admission.But , in March 1869,a shaky compromisewas made:

Mqrxism and anarchis

ott ly th e nat ional sect ionsof tsakunin's iber tar ianorgawere acccpted nto the Internat ional.With bard race.Ndissected he programme and statutesof the Al l iancemargin of rvhichhe hild scrar.r,leclreference o Bakunin aasi t torunt ' the assof asses' ) . Vcary of this internalst rurvounding o his pride. Marx cal ledon En-eelsor help. [admi t tedas a member of the GeneralCounci l . and enfruwith the ob of underminingBakunin and hi s par t isans.nthe non-anarchist r i t i sh. n al l the cor- rnt r iesoncernedin the sadcl len this rvay.Engelspror .edhimsel fmore agand rnoresectar ian han even Nlarx himself .

Finally, Marx anclE,n-qelstadeus eof the crorvth n pres

power of thc Intcrnat ionalAssociat ion,original lv createworkers themselves,but soon monopol izedbv the twoworkers, o plot th e expuls ionol the inarchists. reatedaspor ts, declared cnemies of thc state. olponents of ecompromisesf the kind pract ised v the GermanSocialDem

The expuls ionwa s organizecln two stages: i rst. at a sconference non-statutory)held in London in Septembthen at the Congressheld at ' fhe Hasue in 1871.Twspokesmcrr or l ihcr tar ian social ism.Bikurr in ant l the FSrviss amesGui l launte, vercexpel ledby a fake major i tv.al l of the Bri t ish made contmoncause vi th th e penal ized

The pcrPct r l r torsoI this hancful tr ick manasecl o sGcncr : r lCoul rc i l rc lcgl ted f ronr 1pn6nn to Neul york. ithei r fr icnd Frieclr ichAlbert Sorge.The Internat ional. ti ts previous orm. u,asdead.

Never theless,t u,asable o sun' ive.up to 1E77. sa, fedor 'ant i -author i tar ian'nternat i t rnalssociat ion.

- laccluesre

in his work La Prarrti ire Ittternationole.devotes *o of hvolumes tc. r hc very r ich and thri l l inq cont inuat ionInternat ional . t n,as ntainlv lcd hv French-Su' iss.tal iaSpanish narchists, ut alscl v non-anarchists: eleianandI ntcrna onal ists.

Af ter the f inal di i , 'orce. t the Congress f Verviers Belin 1811,bet rveen narchists nd the non-author i tar ian oct l tc rernainingrr ternat ional ssociat ion ied. his ime. n e

Hencefor th th e l inks q,ere broken betrveenanarchissocial ism,a disast rous vent for ihe rvorking class.s incmovemcntneedcd hc theorct ical nd pract ical ont r ibut ioother .

During the 1880s,an at tempt to create a skeletalanInternat ional ai led.The purpoie was rJeserving.ut i ts iniwere argely solated rom the labour movement .whereas



11 6 Theory

same ime, a stuntedMarx isrnwas clevelopingapidly n Germany

rvith the grorvth of Social Dentocracy an d in lrrance with the

fount l insof the Part i Ouvr ier of Ju lesGucsde.

Latcr c ln , he variousSocialDemocrat icpart iesunited o create

the Second nternat ional .At its successiveongrcsses,herewcre

l ive lv confrontationswith the anarchists vh o had succeededrt

part ic ipat ing n these s i t t ings.us ing trade unionist credent ia ls .

in Zur ich.- in 1893, the Dutch l ibertar ian soc ia l is t Domcla

Nieurvenhuis t tacked he German SocialDer l locrats ehcmently

and wa s grected v i th boos.

In London. in 1896, \4 trrx 's laughtcr. lc --anorve l ing,an d the

French soc ia l is tJcan Jaurds insul ted ancl {1ung out the ferv

anarc l r is tsvho ha d penctrated he lrec i r tc ts f thc congress' o be

sure, he anarc l t is terror ismwhich raged n Francebetween1890ancl189-5tad contr ibuted lo t a l i t t le to thc hysterical epudiat ion

of thern.Anarchistswere regarded rom tl rcn on as'bandits ' ' Bu t

these corvarclly ancl lcgalistic rcformists wcre no t capable. of

understandinghe revolut ionary rrot ives l f he terror is ts ,udging

irre levant the ir recourse o violence as a form of resounding

pr() tcs l rga irrs tut t tbhorret l tsocicly.

Up to 1914G.tn lnn SocialDemocracyancl evcn mclreso ) the

hear;y nachinery f the Gcrman trade unions spewcci narc .h ism

out.-Even

Kautiky, for a t ime, soon orgotten,whcn he declared

hirnself n favour of rhass tr ikeswas suspected y thc bureaucrats

of beingan 'anarc l . r is t ' !

In Fiance, the opposite took place. Jaurds'se lectora l is tan d

par l iar t rentaryeforn l ism made the progressiveworkers so i l l -

disposed hai thel ' took part in the founding of a very mi l r tant

revolut ionaryan,i federa l is torganization' he nremorableCG T

(Genera lConfec lerat ion f Labour) of thc yearspr ior to 1914' ts

pioncers,FernattdPel lout ier ,Emi le Pouget, ) ierrcMonatte' e tc ' 'came ro m th e ernarcl.tist ovenlent.

Th e RussianRevolut ion.and, aterorr , he SpanishRevolut ion,

f in ishcd cleepeninga gul f betrveen degcncratc Marx ism and

anarchism, gulf which rvas o become no t only theoret ica lbu t

alsobloody.

Anarchists nd larx is ts , as ear lyas hcir po l i t ica lb i r th , had come

into idcological onf l ic twi th one anothcr'

The f i rs t ik i rmish wa s startedby Marx atrdEttge lsagainstMax

St i rncr n their nastybook ' fhc Gennon Icleologl ' .nt rcs tcdon.a

reciprocalmisundeistanding. t i rner does no t under l inec lcar ly

enough that beyonclhi s exaltation of th e ligo, of the ind.ividual

cons i t lered s a,Unique one" he advocatesn fact the voluntary

Maruism ond anarchism

association f that 'Unique One' rv i thothers . hat s to sav.type ol soc ic ty oundcclon fedcrat ive ree choiceand the r isecession an idea o be taken up later by Bakunin and finaLenin himself rvhen discussing he national question.Onside, Marx and Engels misinterpr etedSt i rncr 'scl iatribes communisnr, he regirnented crr" rde ' ta te cclmmunismor,r top ianommunis ts f l r is i rne.suchas Weitl ing n GermanCabet n Frauce, or St i rner est imated. ight lv . that that k icommunismendangered ndiviclual iberty .

Next occurrcd Vlarx's urious assault n Proudh on. n pathe same casons.Proudhoncxto l led imi ted per-sonal ropeas far as he saiv n it a measureof personal ndependenceMarx fai led o grasp vas hat for r la jor industrr ' . n o ther w

for the capital ist ector,Proudhoncame dorvn air and squathe side of collectiveorvnership.Did he not remark in his Cthat 'small-scale ndustrv is as stupid a th ing as smalculture'?For large-scale odern ndustryhe is resolutelv ol leWhat he calls he 'rvorkers'companies'rvould lay, n his econsiderable o le, t l ra t o f managing the major employ 'labour, such as the rai lrvays and th e large manufactextract ive,meta l lurg ic ,and mari t i rne ndustries.

On the other hand, Proudhon. a t the end of h is l i fe . in c'apaciti politique de classe.s uvri?res. opted for the separation f the working class ron bourgeois ociety. hat class truggle. h is di d not stop Marx from having he unfato redtrceProudhonisln o petit-bourgeois ocialism.

Returning o the violent and despicable uarre lbetween;rnc lBakunin ins ide the Firs t ln ternat ional . Bakunin at t r i, langerous uthor i tar ian esigns o Man, a thirst o domina

",,orking-class

overnent, ivhosc features he eraggerateds

' r , ' l ta t nd sharedhirnsel f .But b1'doing so. the Russianana:;howedhimself to be a prophet. With u' onderful acumepr"cdictedhat Marx's dictatorial propcnsities l 'ou ld sprea;unonghis successors t some utr-rre nd remote date. ntoilakunin called a red bureatru'oc\,. e foresar.r 'he kind of tvr* ,h ich he leadersof the Third I nte nationalwould exerc isihc rvor ld abour movemcnt.

i lowever, were genuine Marxism and anarchism o remoterach other? f rvc ook a l i t t lc c loser. t is not hard to real izthcy had mutually nfluenccci achother.

Err ico Malatesta, he great ta l ian anarch is t . ' ro te : Almo

theanarchis ti teratureof the nineteenth entury' " 'asmpreerv i thMarx ism. '



11 8 Tlreory

We knorv that Bakunin bowed respectful ly before Marx's

scient i f i c bi l i t ies. o the extentof havingstar tcd o t ranslate nto

Russian th e first volurle of Capital. Fo r hi s part, th e Ital ian

anarchist , is f r iend Car lo Caf iero, publ isheda summary of the

same vork.

Going t l re other rvay, Proudhon's irst book, Whot Is Property?

(1840). anclparticularly hi s great book, T-|rcSystem f Econortt ic

iorrtrtarl ictioits' or , Tlrc Phi losophy of Poverty (18a6), deeply

inf luenceclhe young Marx, even though sltortly afterw:rrds.theungrateful economist wa s to mock l.ris cachcr arld wri te against

hinr the venontousThe I 'overty of Plt i losophy.

In spi teof thei r quarrels,Marx owccla lot t t l the viewsexpresscd

by Bai<unin. he addressMerrx omposed n t l te Par isCotr tmune

i i largely of Bakuninist nspi rat ion,as Art l tur Lehning, hc edi toro f the Archi t ,esBakounine, has pointed out ' I t was thanks to

Bakunin,as has been al reacly aid, hat lVlarx arvhimsel fobl iged

to condemn the s logan of his Social Del r tocrat associates '

Volkstaat.

We are thereforc conlronted with a new difficrrltyconcerning he

def ini t ion of a system of pol i t i cal thought . For even less than

Marxism does ai larchisr. form a coherent trody of doctr ine. Th e

clenial of author i ty. th c emphasis placecl on th e pr ior i ty of

indiv idual r - rc lgement ,ar t icular ly nci tcsanarchists, s Proudhon

rvrote n a' let ter o Meux, to 'professant i -dogrnat ism' . hus thei r

viervsar e nrore diverse, more fluid, more difficult to apprehend

thzrn hose of the social is tswh o are rcgardcd as authcr i tar ian.

Count less re the var iouscurrentsof anarchisnr .t would be vain

to enumerate hem here.

My conclusions that th e kind of anarchisr r reastdistancedro m

authent icMarxism s col lect iv ist narchisrnanclwhat I shal l ater

be cal l ing iber tar iancomrnunism). t is notat al l by chancc hat it

is this vai iety of anerrchism,nd i t a lonc, rvhic l r have at tcmpted

to del ineate n my Anarchisnt: Fronr Tltcrtr')to Pract ice So what

rvehave o at tempthere s he compar ison f col lcct iv ist narchism

(o r l ibcr tar iancommunism)and authent icMarxism.

Marxismand anarchistn re not only in{ lucnccd ry one another '

They have t contmonor igin. They belong o the same ami ly ' As

mater ial is ts ve do not bel ieve that ideas are born purely ancl

simply in the brains of hurnan beings. Thel ' mcrely ref lect th e

""p'".i.n."gained by th e massmovements hrough class truggle'

Th e first social ist vr i ters,as much anarchists sMarxists, ogether

drew hei r nspi rat ion rst of al l f rom th e grcat FrenchRevolut ion

ll'larcisnt attd anarclism

of th e end of the eighteenth century. then from theunder takenby the French rvorkers.star t ing n 1840. o othemselves nd st ruggleagainst api tal is t xploi tat ion.

Very few peopleknow that there 'as a seneral t r ikeof t rades n Par is n i840. (And dur ing he fol lorv ins ears heflourislringof rvorkers'newspapers, uch as L'Atel ier.) Nothe sarnc year 1840 - the coincidence s remarkableProuclhon ubl ishedhi s \lthot s Propertv?.an d four vears1844, thc young lr ' larx recorclecl . n his for long uhlar tuscr ipts,hc tale of his v is i t o the Par is vorkers ndimpressior . rhat these manual labor- r rersad made on hiyear beforc, in 1843.an cxcept ional 'oman. F lora Tr istpreacheclhe Workcrs ' Union to the lahourersancj - rndtot r r c leFrat tce o make contactg' i th the' rvorkers n the c

Thus anarchisnr nd N' larx isnr . r t he star t . drank at thproletar ianspr ing. An d uncler he pressureof the neurvorkin.glass l rcy assigneclo themselveshe same inal ato over throrv he capi tal is t tatcand o entrust ociet r "s ea

mcans of product ion. to th e workers themselves.Susubsequcnt ly hc basis of the col lect iv istaqreementcobct rveenN4arxists ncl Bakuninistsat the 1c!69 ongresFi rst Intcrnat ional . before t l . re Franco-PrussianWar ol r4oreover ,his agreement$'asdi rectcd against he last dturned eact ionar ics. f Proudhon rvhohacldied n 186-sthesc rvas Flenr i Tolain. rvho clung to the concept of orvnership f the meansof product ion.

I t seenrs to nte noter.r 'orthy hat the N,lartl 'rs of Csentenccdo death n 1887. laimet l hemsel ' " 'eso be. at tht ime, anarchistsand social is ts.Parsons. F ischer . andasscr tcd ogether hat anarchisrnnd social isnrre as much

orleegg s o anothcr ' ' . l i f fer ine'onlvn their act ics ' . ncl hwrong to c laim that these rvo c loct r ines ave nothing n crvi th eachother' . The Chicago vlartvrs al led hemser,es po

anarchists, ncleconomical lv ommunistsor social is ts ' . sr.rrclyhci r or ig inal i tyani l , inc t, f thei r mr- r i ts .

I have mcnt ionecl hat thc f i rst spokespeople f the rvorkcrs 'movement vere nspi recl 1 ' he grcatFrenchRevoLct us corneback to this point in a i i t t le nrore detai l .

At the hear l of the Frcnch Revolut ion here u'ere n favcry di f ferentsor ts of rcvolut ion. or. i f vou prefer . tu ' (rclictory varieties of pou,cr, one formed by the left ri ' ingbourgeois ie, he othcr by a pre-proletar iat smal l ar t isau,agedworkers).



120 Theory

Th e first wa s authoritarian, na y dictatorial, oppressive o th e

unprivilegecl. he secondwa sdemocratic, ederalist,composed.of

rvtr 'at od-aywe would call workcrs' coutrci ls, ha t is to say' th e

forty-eighi districts of th e city of Paris.associatedwithin th e

framew6rk of th e Paris Commune an d th e people's societies n

th e provincial cit ies.e dare to say that this second poYer-w1s

essential ly ibertarian,as it rvere th e precursor of th e 1871Paris

Comnrunl ancl he Russiansovietsof tgtZ, rvhereas he first kind

was chr is tened al thoughonly after the event n the courseof the

nineteenth entury)Jacobin.what is rnore, he rvorc l Jacobin' s

incorrect , mbiguous, nd art i f ic ia l I t was aken rorn he nameof

a popular Par is" lub, the Societyof Jacobins, vh ich tse l fcame

frcim'theabbeyof a monasticorder in whose bLri lc l inghe club rvas

se t up . In fact, th e clemarcatoryin e of tl .re lass trugglebetweenbourgeois evolut ionar ieson on e side an d unpriv i lcgedon the

other passeclnside an d right through tlre society of Jacobins..Put

*o.. pluinly, at it s meeti lngshose of it s tner-nbersvho extolled

on " oi othe i of the two revolut ions am e nto conf l ic t '

Horvever, n the later polit ical i terature, Jacobin'wa scommonly

used o clescribe revolutionarybourgeois radition, directing he

countryand the revolut ion rom the top by author i tar ianmeans '

an d th e rvordwa sused n this sense smuch by th e anarchists s by

the Marx is ts .For example,char lcs Delesc luze,he leaderof the

major i ty r ightwing.of th"Par isComnruneCourrc i lo f lSTl 'regarde<1imself as a Jacobin' a Robespie.rrist '

?roudhon an d Bakunin, in the ir wr i t ings, c lenounced he

' fa .oUin spir i t ' , r ight ly cons idered y them as a pol i t icaI egacyof

the bourgeois re io lu t ionar ies. On the other hand, Marx and

Engelshi d some rouble in f ree ing hemselvesrom th is Jacobin

,ny,ih,macleglorious by th e 'heroes' of the bourgeois evolution'

n.iron'g hembanton (ivho in actual fact wa s a corrupt polit ic ianand a- double agent) and Robespierre (wl to ended up as an

aoprent ice ic ta tor) .Th e l ibertar ians, hanks o thc keenness f

t tJ i r ant i -author i tar ian is ion, were not dupcd by Jacobin ism.

They understooc l u i te c lear ly ha t the FrenchRevolut ionwa sno t

only a c iv i l war between absolutemonarchy an d the bourgeois

revolut ionar ies,bu t a lso, a l i t t le la ter, a c iv i l rvar between,Jacobin ism'anc l what rve wi l l ca l l , for co l lvenience 's ake,

contnurnalisrn.This wa s a civi l wa r whose outcome, in March

17g4, vas he clefeatof th e Pariscommunc an d th e beheadingof

it s tw o municipal rnagistrates,Chaun-rette nd H6bert' that is to

say. he overthrorvoi the people 'spo.Yer.- ust as-th .eOctober

Revolut ion in Russia ended in the l iqu idat ion of the factory

councils.

Marxisrn and anarchism

Marx and Engels swung perpetual lybetu 'eenJacobin

communal ism. ight a t the beginn ing hey pra ised he exa

r igorouscentra l izat ionn France n 1793' .But much later

too la te , n 1885,E,ngels ea l ized hat thev had been mis

that the sa ic l centra l izat ion had la id the r l 'av open

c l ic ta torsh ipf Napoleon he Firs t . Marx r.r ' ro tehat the En

the supporters f the le f t - rv ing x-pr ies t lacques oux. spo

of the work ing-c lass opulat ion of the suburt 's . hac l he

'pr inc ipa lrepresentat ivesf the rcvo lut ionarv movemen

converse ly ,E,ngels la inredelscu ' l terehat to the 'pro le ta

1793'coulcl t the vcry least -re rought assistancerom ah

Lenin. la ter on, sho* 'edhinrse l f o be much more of a -than ' l - r iseachcrs ,Marx and Engels .Accord in-so h im. . lac

wurson e c l f he culrrr inat ingoints hat the oppressedlass

in the s trLrgglcor i ts entanc ipat ion' . nd he l iked to ca l l h i

Jacobin,addingalrvays:a Jacobin inkeclu ' i th the lr 'ork in

My conc lus ionon th is po int is that the anarch is ts usp

Marx is ts rv i th good reason for not hav ing purged them

conrp lc te ly [ any . lacobin nc l inat ion.

Norv le t us s tate thc pr inc ipa l po ints of c l ivergcnce

anarchisrn nclMarx ism.

Firs to f at l . a l though hey agrecon the u l t in la teabol i t io

s tate, the Marx is ts , an d even ntore the Lenin is ts . be

necessary, f ter a v ic tor iouspro letar ianrevolut ion. to c

new state, rvh ich they call a 'u 'orkers ' s ta te. for an inc

pcr iod - af ter rvh ich hey promisc that suc l t a s tate.som

label lec lsern i-s ta te ' . 'ou ld f i l ra l lv v i thera* 'av. On the co

the anarch is ts b ject that the new state u 'or-r lc lre much

ornnipotentand oppress ive ha n the bourgeoiss la te. du e

r. , ,ho leconomybeing he propert l 'o f the s tate.anc l hat i tgrorvingbureaucracvu'ould refuse tl 'u' ither a\\'a\".

F lowcver, thcrc is an important d i f fercnce bctueen c

anarchis ts nd rvhat are ca l led n France ibertar iancomm

We. the la t ter. c lo not be l ieve ha t in a tr ice ue could umthe prescntcapi ta l is t ta tc o a tot i t l non-s tate oc ie tr ' .We

thatwc are ob l igcd o ac lnt i t hat a trans i t ional pace f t ime

probably emporari l irexist ' Br-rt. nl ike the authoritarian o

rvcwant to act n sucha ntanncr hat the featurcs f the l ibc

soc iety o come - rvorkers ' counc i ls . edera l is ts tructur

rr ,nn[" , t l .n t . and so on - u,oulc l l reac l l ' e present lnc ldcv

cluring he transit ional eriocl, nsteadof reinforcing he cen

ancldictatorialstate. rs cio the Nllarxist-Leninists.

We are suspicious s regards he miss ionass igned v Ma



I22 Theory

Engels o the Communistminority of the population. f we were o

consult heir Holy Scriptures,we would have oo good reason oharbor.rrdoubts on th e subject. Certainlv, in the CommwtistManifesto, yo u can read that ' the Communists do not have

separate nterests rom the rest of the pro letar ia t 'ancl hat ' they

consistentlyepresent he interestof the whole movement' .Their'theoreticalconccpts', srvear he authors of rhe lt lruifesto,

are no t in the leastbasedon the ideasor pr inc ip lesnventedor

discovered y some rvorld reformer or other. The1,ar e only th e

general expressionof the effective conditions of an existing

classstruggle, of a historic movement opcrat i i tg before our

eyes.

Yes, herewe are n agreement.But the sentcl lcc shal lnow quoteis somervhatambiguous and alarming: 'T'hcorctically hc y [theCornrnunists] ave the advantage ver the rest o f t l tc pro le tar ian

mass f understanding learly he conditions, lte progress nd the

ul t imategenera l esu l tsof the pro letar ianmovelnent. '

This renchant ff irmationcouldwell mean hat, bccause f such

an advantage' , he Communists eckon o have a lt istoric ight to

appropr ia tehe eader ship f thc prole ariat. I such s heir claim,

imbued rv i th the spiri t of Jacobinism, ve l i l lc r tar ianswould no

longer approve. We disagrec that therc catr be a vanguard

outsideof the rvorkers he nselves.ancl ve believe hat rv eshould

l inr i t ourselves o playing the ro le, a t the s ide of or among the

pro letar ia t .or disinterested dvisers, o i ls to a id the workers n

their own efforts u,ith a vierv to their reachinga higher degreeof

conSciousness.Thus u' e are brought to the question of the rcvolutionary

spontaneity f the masses, specif ically ibertar ian otion. n fact,

we very often f ind the rvords 'spontaneous'ancl 'spontaneity 'florving rom the pensof Proudhon and Bakunin. Bu t rv enever do,

rvhich s ratherstrange, n wri t ingsof Marx and E,ngels, t Ieast ot

in the or ig ina l Gernran. In translations, hc rvorrls n qucstion

appear rom time to t ime, but they are inexact rpproxintations.

In rea l i ty , Marx and E,ngcls refer only to thc'sclf-activ ity '(Selbstttitigkeit) f the rnasscs,a more restrainccl notion than

sponlancity.Indecd, a revoluti onary arty , n addition o its morc important

undertakings,may take credi t o i tse l f or achnitt ing ce tain dose

of mass sel f -act iv i ty ' ,but spontaneity voulcl isk darraging ts

pretensionso a leading olc.Rosa Luxemburg rvas he first Marxist to use, n German, the

worcl sytotttan ('spontancous') in hcr i,vritings, after having

Marxism atrd anarchism

borrorved t from the anarchists,and to accent he predoro le of spontanei ty n the massmovement.She did i t aloone could suspect hat the other N{arxists arboura secretof a socialphenomenon rvhich does not leave sufficient othe in tervent ionof their u'oulcl-beeaders.

Then the anarchists bserve everelv hat the Marxistsarrv i l l ing (() usc to thc i r udvantagc ire means and art i fbourgeoisdemocracy. No t onli,,do thel - readilv make usevote which thev regard as one of the best rva1,'sf taking but t happens hat they delight n concluding ordide lectorwi th bourgeois iberalor radicalparties. vhen hev hink thno t succeedn u,inningpar l iamentary eats ' i thoutsuchallCerta in ly anarchistsdo not have, as people are too re

imagine,a metarphysicalorror o f the ballot box. Proudhonce elected to the 1848 National Assembly: another t isupported hc candidature f Raspai l .a progressive octor,presidency f the Republic.Horvever. ater on. under he SEmpire, he dissuaded he workers rom presenting andidthe elections. ut for h im i t rvas simplecluestion f opportand his disapprovalof an y oath of al legiance o th e imregimc.On one occasion, hc Spanish narchists voided ar ig id positionagainst artic ipation n the FrcntePopularelin February 1936. But apart f rom these rare exceptioanarchists ecommend quite d i f ferent \ \ 'avs to vanquicapital istadversary:direct act ion, t rade-unionaction, r.vautonomy, he generalstrike.

No w we comc to t i re d i lemma: nat ional izat ion f the meproduction or self-managernent? lere again lvlarx and evade he issue. n Ihe Conutturtist vlanifesto f 1E-{E.'"vhdirect ly nspired by the French state social ist ouis Blanc

announced t l . re i r in tent ion of 'central iz ine al l the meaproduction nto the hancls f the state' . Bu1 bv the rvordthey mcant the 'pmletariat organizcclnto a Icacling lassrvhyon carthcall hat kind of pro lc tar ian rganizat ion .s/nwhy, too, do they rcpent mr-rchater on and acld. n June 1prcface o a Gerrnan cdition of the ll(anifesto n u,hich hevtheir summary statisnr of 1848. referring to Tlte Citil lYFratrce vhere he phrase s henceforward self-qovernmen

producers'?Doubtless he1.'elt the need o make this concto the anarchistwing of the lnternational.

Bu t i t must be pointedout that N,{arx ever examined nthe rvays in rvhich self-manageurent ould function. q'

Proudhondevotedpagesanclpages o it. The latter. u,holifc asa rvorker,knew what he wa s alkingabout:he had obs



124 Theory

attentively th e.workers' associations' or n during th e course. f

the 1848 evolution. The reason or Marx's att i tude s probably

that t rvas nspiredby disdainor that he considered he question o

be 'utopian' . 'Today anarchistshave been th e f i rs t to put sel f -

rnunug"*"nt back on the agenda, l ( 'whencet has become so in

vogue"thatt hasbeen confiscated, ecuperated, l teredby anyone

an d everyone.

And, f inal ly ,what of the Present?Without a doubt a renewal of l ibcr tar ian socia l ism s taking

place oday. I t is hardly necessar) 'o,rcm-indourselves ow th e

ienaissance ccurred in France in Ma y 1968' It wa s th e most

spontaneous,he most unexpected, he leastpreparedof uprisings'

A strong rvind of freedom ble* acrossmy country_, o clcvastating

and at tf,e same im e so creative ha t nothing coulcl emain exactly

the sameas t ha d cxistedbefore. Life changed'or, if you l ike, we

chaneecl i fc. Bu t a similar renaissance ls o took place in th e

seneialcontext of a renaissance f th e rvhole of th e rcvolutionary

i rovement , notably among th e studentpopulat ion 'Due to th is ,

there ar e harclly an y wateitight barriers an y longer between th e

l ibertarian movements and those rvho claim to be 'Marx ist -

Lenin is ts ' .There even is a cer ta in non-sectarian errnei rb i l i ty

betrveen hese di f ferent movements' Young comradcs n Francc

pass rom,author i tar ian '{ r4arx is t roups.to ibertariangroupsancl

u i . " r ' " . r " . Ent i re groups of Maoists have spl i t up under.the

libertarian nfluence,br b^een ttractecl y the libertarian ontagion.

Even th e smal lTrotskyistgroupsare developing ertain of thei r

v iews and abandoning sevcrai of their prejudices under th e

influenceof l ibertarian writ ings an d theor ies.Peoplc ik e Jean-

paul Sartre and his f r iends in thei r monthly reviervexpounded

anarchist iews.and on e of thei r art icleswa senti t led Goodbye o

Lenin ' . of course here are st i l lsomeauthoritarianMarxistgroupsrvho are particularly anti-anarchist, ust. as yo.u ca n still find

anarchist toups rvho remain violently anti-Marxist '

In Franie th c Libertarian Comrnunist Orgarrization OCL) to

$,hich belong inds tselfposi t ionedon thc borclcrs f anarchism

and NIarx isnt . " l t as n conimon vithclassical narchism ffi l iat ion

with thc anti-authclritarian urrent rvhich clatesback to th e First

International.Bu t i t alsohas n common wi th the Marx ists he fact

that hey both take heir stand esolutely n the f ie ldof proletar ian

classstiuggle ancl of th e fight to overthrow bourgeois capitalist

Dower. On on. hancl , he l iber tar iancommunistsendeavour o

ievive al l that has been constructive n th e anarchistcontribution

to the past.rrOn the other , they do not reject hose hings n th e

Marxism and anarchism 1

heritage of Marx and Engels which seem to them sti l l valid a

fruit ful and, n par t icular , e levant o the needofthe present

An example s the notion of al ienat ioncontained n the you

Marx's 1844Mertttscripts, vhich fits in rvel l with the anarch

conceptof indiv ic lual iber ty . Simi lar lyrv i th the aff irmation

the emancipationof th e proletariat ou-eht o be the rvork of

proletariat tself and no t that of substitutes, n ideawhich is fou

is much in the ComrnunistManifesto as n its later commenta

ancl n the resolut ions f the congressesf the Fi rst nternatio

The same appl ies o the revelatory heory of capital ism'wh

remainsevcn today one of th e keys o understanding he workin

of the capi ta l is tmachinery.So it is, too, rv i th he famousmeth

of the material istan d histor icaldialectic vhich s st i l l one of t

threads onnect ing he understanding f past and presenteve

There is one necessary ondit ion, however: do not apply tmethod r ig ic l ly ,mechanical ly, r as zl nexcusenot to f ight un

the falsepretext that the materi.il bases or a rel'olution might

abscnt,a i the Stal in is ts retended hree t imes n France n 19

1945,anct i968. Besides,historical mater ia l ismshould not

reduceclo a simpledeterminism; he door must s tay videopen

incl ividual re e rvi l l and th e revolutionarl" spontanei tvof

lll it-sscs.r\ s the l ibertarian histor ian H. E. Kaminski u ' rote in

exccl lent ook on Bakunin, a synthesis f anarchism nd Marxi

is not only necessaryut inevitable. Fl is torv ' .he adds. 'makes

compromises erself. '

i should ike to add, as my own conclusion. hat a l iber tar

conrmunism, hc fruit of sucha synthesis. 'ouldrv i thouta do

cxpress he deepest vishes even i f somet imesnot y 'et who

coirscious) f progressive 'orkers. of u'hat s nou'adavs alled t

labour ef t ' , much bet ter than degenerate uthori tarian v{arx

or thc dated and fossi l izecl ld-styleanarchism. n spite of sonegative rnd l iscouraging ppearances.he remote uture see

to me, beyond the double bankruptcv of pr ivate and st

capital ism, o belong to l iber tar ian and self-management o

ntunlsm.

Notesan d references

1 Cf. rny Rosa uxcntburg t o spontan(itl ivoltttiontroit'cParis. 9

2 Cf. Elzbieta ,ttingered.),Cornrodent lLovcr: Rosa'u-tonburg

Le te s o LeoJogicltcsCambridge. {ass.. 979).3 Cf., n rn yPourutr ntarxisrneibertoireParis. 969).heessay'La

Rivolution d acobinis6e'.



126 Theory

'1 Ib id. , the essayLenine ou le socia l isme ar en haut ' '

,5 Cf., in my La Rdvolurion rangaiseet nous Paris' 1976)' he essay

'Gare aux nouveauxVersai l la is! '

6 It is true that the pieceon the Commune rvas eallyan address o the

First nternat ional .Marx, holc l ing he pcn, had to take nto accour i t

the variouscurrentsof that rvorki irg-cl iss rganizat ionwherestat ist

authoritarians ubbecl houlderswith t ibertariatrs ncl vasobliged o

make them concessions,iscla imedater on'

TEneels. .MarxunddieNeueRheinisc|rcZci tung. ,Soziu ldet t tocrat(Zur ich). 13March 1884.

8 in fact t i t isvituperat iveattack renrained n manuscripl ornr and-was

not put,t itnedunti l 1932 in French \9J7-41),bringing nto.confl ict

* i th St i rne.a number of Marxistsof this century 'suchasPierre

Navi l le .

9Ci . ;t La I'utte de classes ous a Premi?re llpubliqttc (1793-.1797)'

ivols' (Paris. 1968,2nd ecln);and the digestC/as'r lrrrgg/en t lteFirst

ir i , rr t , Reptr.ol icLonclon. i9z7l this s t ire English,translat ion f

Bourgeoiiet brasnus Paris, 1973) ; alsoLn R(volt t t ion rangai 'se t

rrotts, P. cit .

l0Theessent ial f rameworkofmyAnarcl t ism:FrontT' l tcorvtoPract ice

fe^. is. 1965;English rans' New York, 1970) s self-tnanagement'he

iynamics of rvhi ih were accentuated y the May l96ii upsurge-

l l lnr t rstment ionthat t l ratwasmyaiminpubl is l r i r lgAnarcl isnt :Frot ttTheory o Pracl iceand the anarchistanthologyNi Dictr rt innitre

(Par is,1965).

Documents

Daniel Guerin, Marxism and Anarchism