

                          THE RELEVANCE OF ANARCHISM

                              To Modern Society

                               by Sam Dolgoff



This pamphlet is the second printing of an expanded version of an article that

appeared in a 1970 issue of "Libertarian Analysis". It is the first pamphlet 

published by "Soil of Liberty". A second pamphlet, "A Critique of Marxism", 

also by Sam Dolgoff, is also available ($0.55). Bulk rates are available for 

both.

Sam has been active in the anarchist movement since the 1920's and is a re-

tired house painter living in New York City.

"Soil of Liberty" offers a literature service through the magaizne and a 

partial listing is available. Magazine subscriptions are $3 - $4 per year.



Soil of Liberty

POB 7056

Powderhorn Station

Minnepolis, MN 55407



                   First Printing - August 1977

                   Second Printing - September 1979



NOTE: ABOVE LISTED PRICES ARE AT LEAST 9 YEARS OLD, SO ASSUME THAT THEY ARE

NOW HIGHER.





                           Bourgeois Neo-Anarchism



   Meaningful discussion about the relevance of anarchist ideas to modern 

industrialized societies must first, for the sake of clarity, outline the dif-

ference between today's "neo-anarchism" and the classical anarchism of 

Proudhon, Kroptkin, Malatesta and their successors. With rare exceptions one 

is stuck by the mediocre and superficial character of the ideas advanced by

modern writers on anarchism. Instead of presenting fresh insights, there is

the repetition of utopisitic ideas which the anarchist movement had long since

outgrown and rejected as totally irrelevant to the problems of our increas-

ingly complex society.

   Many of the ideas which the noted anarchist writer Luigi Fabbri a half cen-

tury ago labelled "Bourgeois Influence in Anarchism" are again in circulation.

[1] For example, there is Kingsley Widmer's article, "Anarchism Revived -- 

Right, Left and All Around." Like similar bourgeois movements in the past, 

Widmer correctly points out that:



     "...Anarchism's contemporary revival...mostly comes from the dissident

     middle class intellectuals, students and other marginal groups who base

     themselves on individualist, utopian and other non-working class aspects

     of anarchism..." [2]



   Other typical bougeois anarchist characteristics are: ESCAPISM - the hope

that the establishment will be gradually undermined if enough people 'cop-out'

of the system and "live like anarchsts in communes and other life-style ins-

titutions..."

NECHAYEVISM - romantic glorification of conspiracy, ruthlessness, and violence

in the amoral tradition of Nechayev.

BOHEMIANISM - total irresponsibility; exclusive preoccupation with one's pic-

turesque 'life-style'; exhibitionism; rejection of any form of organization or

self-discipline.

ANTI-SOCIAL INDIVIDUALSIM - the urge to "idealize" the most anti-social forms

of individual forms of individual rebellion." (Luigi Fabbri)



     "...intolerance of oppression [writes Malatesta], the desire to be free

     and develop one personality to its full limits, is not enough to make one

     an anarchist. That aspiration towards unlimited freedom, if not tempered

     by a love for mankind and by the desire that all should enjoy equal free-

     dom, may well create rebels who...soon become exploiters and tyrants..."

     [3]



   Still other neo-anarchist are obsessed with "action for the sake of 

action." One of the foremost historians of Italian anarchism, Pier Carlo 

Masini, notes that for them 'spontaneity' is the panacea that will automat-

ically solve all problems. No theiretical or practical preparation is needed.

In the 'revolution' that is 'just around the corner' the fundamental differen-

ces between libertarians and our mortal enemies, authoritarian groups like the

Marxist-Leinists, will miraculously vanish.



     "Paradoxically enough [observes Masini], the really modern anarchists are

     those with white hair, those who guided by the teachings of Bakunin and

     Malatesta, who in Italy and in Spain (as well as in Russia) had learned 

     from bitter personal participation how serious matter a revolution can

     be...[4]



   It is not our intention to belittle the many fine things the scholars do 

say, nor to downgrade the magnificent struggles of our young rebbles against

was, rascism and the false values of that vast crime "The Establishment" --

struggles which sparked the revival of the long dormant radical movement. But

they stress the negative aspects and ignore or misinterpret the constructive

princples of anarchism. Bakunin and the classical anarchists always emphasized

the necessity for constructive thinking and action



     The 1848 revolutionary movement "was rich in instincts and negative theo-

     retical ideas which gave it full justification for its fight against 

     privilege, but it lacked completely any positive and practical ideas 

     which would have been needed to enable it to erect a new system upon the

     ruins of the old bourgeois setup...[5]



   Lacking such solid foundations, such movements must eventually disinteg-

rate.



                          Distorting Anarchist Ideas



   Some works on anarchism, like George Woodcock's "Anarchism" and the two

books by Horowitz and Joll both titled "The Anarchists" -- perpetuate the myth

that the anarchist are living antiques, visionaries yearning to return to an

idyllic past. According to Woodcock, "...the historical anarchist movement 

that sprang from Bakunin and his followers is dead..." The cardinal principles

of classical anarchism: economic and political decentralization of power, 

individual and local autonomy, self-mangaement of industry ('workers control')

and federalism are



     obsolete forms of organization (running counter) to the world-wide trend

     toward political and economic centralization....The real social revolu-

     tion of the modern age is in fact the process of centralization toward

     which every development of scientific and technological progress has con-

     tributed... .the anarchist movement failed to present an alternative to

     the state or the capitalist economy. [6]



   It is hard to understand how scholars even slightly acquainted with the 

vast libertarian literature on social reconstruction come to such absurd con-

clusions!! A notable exception is the French sociologist-historian Daniel 

Guerin whose excellent little book "L'anarchisme" has been translated into 

English with an introduction by Noam Chomsky (Monthly Review Press, N.Y.).

Guerin concentrates on the constructive aspects of anarchism. While not with-

out its faults (he underestimates the importance of Kropotkin's ideas and

exagerates Stirner's), it is still the best short introduction to the subject.

Guerin effectively refutes the arguements of recent historians, paricularly 

Jean Maitron, Woodcock and Joll concluding that their



     ...image of anarchism is not true. Constructive acarchism which found its

     most accomplished expression in the writings of Bakunin, relies on organ-

     ization, on self-discipline, onintegration, on a centralization which is

     not coercive, but federalist. It relates to large scale industry, to mod-

     ern technology, to the modern proletariat, to genuine internationalism...

     In themodern world the material, intellectual and moral interests have 

     created between all parts of a nation and even different nations, a real

     and solid unity, and this unity will survive all states...[7]



   To assess the extent to which classical anarchism is applicable to modern

societies it is first necessary to summarize briefly its leading constructive

tenets.



                  Complex Societies Necessitiate Anarchism



   It is a fallacy to assume that anarchists ignore the complexity of social 

life. On the contrary, the classical anarchists have always rejected the kind

of "simplicity" which camouflages regimentation in favor of the natural comp-

lexity which reflects the many faceted richness and diversity of social and 

individual life. The cybernetic mathematician John B. McEwan, writing on the

relevance of anarchism to cybernetics explains:



     Libertarian socialists, synonym for non-indvidualist anarchism, especially

     Kropotkin and Landauer, showed an early grasp of the complex network of 

     changing relationships, involving many structures of correlated activity

     and mutual aid, independent of authoritarian coercion. It was against 

     this background that they developed their theories of social organiza-

     tion....[8]



   One of Proudhon's greatest contributions to anarchist theory and socialism

in general was the idea that the very complexity of social life demanded the 

decentralization and autonomy of communities. Proudhon maintained that "...

through the complexity of interests and the progress of ideas, society is

forced to abjure the state...beneath the apparatus of government, under the 

shadow of its political institutions, society was slowly and silently pro-

ducing its organization, make for itself a new order which expressed its 

vitality and autonomy..." [9]

   Like his predecessors, Proudhon and Bakunin, Kropotkin elaborated the idea

that the very complexity of social life demanded the decentralization and 

self-management of industry by the workers. From his studies of economic life

in England and Scotland he concluded that:



        ...production and exchange represented an undertaking so complicated

     that no government (without establishing a cumbersome, inefficient, bur-

     eaucratic dictatorship) would be able to organize production if the work-

     ers themselves, through their unions, did not do it in each branch of 

     industry; for, in all production there arises daily thousands of diffi-

     culties that...no government can hope to foresee.... Only the efforts of

     thousands of intelligences working on problems can cooperate in the 

     developement of the new social system and find solutions for the thou-

     sands of local needs....[10]



   Decentralization and autonomy does not mean the breakup of society into

small, isolated, economically self-sufficient groups, which is neither poss-

ible nor desirable. The Spanish anarchist, Diego Abad de Santillan, Ministry

of the Economy in Catalonia in the early period of the Spanish Civil War (Dec.

1936), reminded some of his comrads:



     ....Once and for all we must realize that we are no longer...in a little

     utopian world..., we cannot realize our economic revolution in a local 

     sense; for economy on a localist basis can only cause collective priva-

     tion..., economy is today a vast organism and all isolation must prove

     detrimental...We must work with a social critierion, considering the 

     interests of the whole country and if possible the whole world..."[11]



   A balance must be achieved between the suffocating tyranny of unbridled 

authority and the kind of "autonomy" that leads to petty local patriotism, 

separation of little grouplets, and the fragmentation of society. Libertarian

organization must reflect the complexity of societal relationships and promote

solidarity on the widest possible scale. It can be defined as federalism: co-

ordination through free agreement -- locally, regionally, nationally and

internationally. A vast coordinated network of voluntary alliances embracing

the totality of social life, in which all the groups and associations reap the

benefits of unity while still exercising autonomy within their own spheres and

expanding the range of their freedom. Anarchist organizational principles are

not separate entities. Autonomy is impossible without decentralization, and

decentralization is impossible without federalism.

   The increasing complexity of society is making anarchism MORE and NOT LESS

relevant to modern life. It is precisely this complexity and diversity, above

all their overriding concern for freedom and human values that led the anar-

chist thinkers to base their ideas on the principles of diffusion of power, 

self-management and federalism. The greatest attribute of the free society is

that it is self-regulating and "bears within itself the seeds of its own re-

generation" (Buber) The self-governing associations will be flexible enough to

adjust their differences, correct and learn from their mistakes, experiment 

with new, creative forms of social living and thereby achieve genuine harmony 

on a higher humanistic plane. Errors and conflicts confined to the limited 

jurisdiction of special purpose groups, may do limited damage. But miscalcula-

tions and criminal decisions made by the state and other autocratically 

centralized organizations affecting whole nations, and even the whole world, 

can have the most disasterous consequences.

   Society without order (as the word "society" implies) is inconceivable. But

the organization of order is not the exclusive monopoly of the State. For, if

the State authority is the sole guarantee of order, who will watch the watch-

men? Federalism is also a form of order, which preceeded the establishment of 

the State. But it is order which gurantees the freedom and independence of the 

individuals and associations who freely and spontaneously constitute the fed-

erations. Federalism is not like the State, born of the will to power, but is

recognition of the ineluctable interdependence of mankind. Federalism springs

from the will to harmony and solidarity.



              Modern Industry Better Organized Anarchistically



   Bourgeois economists, sociologists and administrators like Peter Druker, 

Gunnar Myrdal, John Kenneth Galbraith, Daniel Bell, etc., now favor a large

measure of decentralization not because they suddenly became anarchists, but 

primarily because technology has rendered anarchistic forms of organization

"operational necessities". But the bourgeois reformers have yet to learn that

as long as these organizational forms are tied to state or capitalism, which

connotes the monopoly of political and economic power, decentralization will

remain a fraud -- a more efficient device to enlist the cooperation of the

masses in their own enslavement. To illustrate how their ideas inadvertently

demonstrate the practicality of anarchist organization and how they contradict

themselves, we cite the "free enterpriser" Drucker and the "welfare statist"

Myrdal. In the chapter titled "The Sickness of Government", Drucker writes:



     ...Disenchantment with government cuts across national boundaries and 

     ideological lines...government itself has become one of the vested int-

     erests...the moment government undertakes anything it becomes entreched

     and permanent...the unproductive becomes built into the political process

     itself...social theory to be meaningful at all, must start with the real-

     ity of pluralism of institutions, a galaxy of suns rather than one big 

     center surrounded by moons that shine only by reflected light...a society

     of institutional diversity and diffusion of power...in a pluralist 

     society of organizations (each unit would be) limited to the specific

     service it renders to the member of society which it meant to perform --

     yet, since every institution has power in its own sphere, it would be as

     such, affected with the public interest...such a view of organizations

     as being autonomous and limited are necessary both to make the organiza-

     tion perform and to safeguard the individual's freedom....[12]



   After demonstrating the 'monstrosity of government, its lack of performance

and its impotence,' Drucker flatly contradicts himself and comes to the surpris-

ing conclusion that "never has strong, effective government been needed more 

than in this dangerous would...never more than in this pluralist society of 

organizations."

   Mydal convincingly demonstrates that both the Soviet and the "free world

states" need decentralization for administrative efficiency in order that 

(political and economic life) shall not succumb to the rigidity of the central

apparatus. But then he expects the paternalistic welfare state to loosen "its

controls over everyday life" and gradually transfer most of its powers to "all

sorts of organizations and communities controlled by the people themselves..."

No anarchist could refute Myrdal's arguement better than he does himself:



     ...to give up autocratic patterns, to give up administrative controls and

     ...withdraw willingly from intervening when it is no longer necessary, 

     are steps which do not correspond to the inner workings of a functioning

     bureaucracy...[13]



   If these advocates of decentralization and autonomy were consistent, they

would realize that the diffusion of power leads to anarchism.



            "Forming the New Society Within the Shell of the Old"

                           (preamble of the I.W.W.)



   The anarchist have always opposed the Jacobins, Blanquists, Bolsheviks and

other would-be dictators, who would in Proudhon's words "...reconstruct 

society upon an imaginary plan, much like the astronomers who for respect for

their calculations would make over the system of the universe..."[14]

   The anarchist theoreticians limited themselves to suggest the utilization

of all the useful organisms in the old society in order to reconstruct the 

new. They envisioned the generalization of practices and tendencies which are 

already in effect. The very fact that autonomy, decentralization and federal-

ism are more practical alternatives to centralism and statism already presup-

poses that these vast organizational networks now performing the functions of 

society are prepared to replace the old bankrupt hyper-centralized administra-

tions. That the "elements of the new society are already developing in the 

collaspsing bourgeois society" (Marx) is a fundamental principle shared by all

tendencies in the socialist movement.

   Society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labor and all the

 deeply rooted institutions now functioning, will in some form continue to 

function for the simple reason that the very existence of manking depends upon

this inner cohesion. This has never been questioned by anyone. What is needed

is emancipation from authoritarian institutions OVER society and authoritari-

anism WITHIN the organization themselves. Above all, they must be infused with

revolutionary spirit and confidence in the creative capacities of the people.

Kropotkin in working out the sociology of anarchism, has opened an avenue of

fruitful research which has been largely neglected by social scientists busily

engaged in mapping out new area for state control.

   Kropotkin based himself on the essential principle of Anarchist-Communism

---abolition of the wage system and distribution of goods and services on the

principle, "From each according to hos ability and to each according to his

needs." He envisaged the structure of an Anarchist-Communist society as 

follows:



     The Anarchist writers consider that their conceptions (of Anarchist-Com-

     munism) is not a utopia. It is derived, they maintain, from an ANALYSIS

     OF TENDENCIES that are at work already, even though State Socialism may 

     find temporary favor with the reformers...the anarchists build their 

     previsions of the future upon those data which are supplied by the obser-

     vations of life at the present time...the idea of independent communes 

     for the territorial organization, and of federations of trade unions for

     the organizations of [people] in accordance with their different func-

     tions, gave a CONCRETE conception of a society regenerated by a social

     revolution. There remained only to add to these two modes of organiza-

     tion a third, which we saw rapidly developing during the last fifty 

     years.....the thousands upon thousands of free combines and societies

     growing up everywhere for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable

     needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection, for 

     the propaganda of ideas, for art, for amusement, and so on...an inter-

     woven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations

     of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international...

     (which) substitute themselves for the State and in all its functions...

     ALL of them covering each other, and all of them always ready to meet the

     needs by new organizaions and adjustments. [15]



   Kropotkin's federalism aspires to the "...complete independence of the 

Communes, the Federation of Free Communes and the Social Revoltion IN THE

COMMUNES, that is, THE FORMATION OF ASSOCIATED PRODUCTIVE GROUPS IN THE PLACE

OF THE STATE ORGANIZATION...."(Martin Buber, "Pathways in Utopia") The miniature municipal states,

fashioned after the national States in which elected officials of political

parties -- lawyers, professionals, and politicians but NOT THE WORKERS, con-

trol social life will also be eliminated. For a Social Revolution that does

not reach local and even neighborhood levels leads inevitably to the triumph

of the counter-revolution.

    For Krpotkin, the " `Commune' is no linger a territorial agglomeration;

but...a synonum for the grouping of equals, knowing no borders, no walls. The

social Commune...will cease to be clearly defined. Each group of the Commune 

will necessarily be attracted to similar groups of other Communes; they will

group together, federate with each other, by bonds at least as solid as those

tying them to their fellow townsmen; (they will) constitute a Commune of int-

erests, of which members will be diseminated through a thousand cities and 

villages. Each individual will find satisfaction of his needs only in group-

ing together with other individuals have the same tastes and living in a 

hundred other Communes." [16]

   The following excerpt from "El Communism Libertario" gives some of Dr.Issac

Puente's ideas on the political and economic organization of society. Puente,

a medical doctor, was an important anarchist thinker and activist who was im-

prisoned and then murdered by the fascists while fighting on the Saragossa 

front in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939.



     Libertarian Communism is the organization of society without the State

and without capitalist property relations. To establish Libertarian Communism

it will not be necessary to invent artificial forms of organization. The new

society will emerge from the "shell of the old". The elements of the future

society are already planted in the existing order. They are the syndicate 

(union) and the Free Commune (sometimes called the 'free municipality') which

are old, deeply rooted, non-Statist popular institutions spontaneously organ-

ized and embracing all towns and villages in urban and in rural areas. The 

Free Commune is ideally suited to cope successfully with the problems of 

social and economic life in libertarian communities. Within the Free Commune

there is also room for cooperative groups and other associations, as well as

individuals to meet their own needs. (providing, of course, that they do not

employ hired labor for wages."...The terms 'Libertarian' and 'Communism' de-

note the fusion of two inseperable concepts, the indispensable pre-requisites

for the Free Society: COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.



                               Workers Control



   The anarchist's insistance on workers' control -- the idea of self-manage-

ment of industry by workers' associations "in accordance with their differenct

functions", rest on very solid foundations. This tendency traces back to 

Robert Owen, the first International Workingmens' Association, the Guild Soc-

ialist movement in England and the pre-World War I syndicalist movements. With

the Russian Revolution, the trend towards workers' control in the form of free

soviets (councils) which arose spontaneously, was finally snuffed out with the

Kronstadt massacre of 1921. The same tragic fate awaited the workers' councils

in the Hungarian, Polish and East German rising around 1956. {Typist's Note:

This was written before Solidarity also brough this forth in 1980.} Among the

many other attempts that were made, there is of course the clasiic example of

the Spanish Revolution of 1936, with the monumental constructive achievements 

in the libertarian rural collectives and workers' control of unrban industry. 

The prediction of "News Bulletin" of the reformist International Union of Food

and Allied Workers Association (July 1964) that "...the demand of workers' 

control may well become the common gound for advanced sectors in the labor 

movement both "east" and "west"..." is now a fact.

   Although the purged Bolshevik "left oppositionist", Victor Serge, refers to

the economic crisis that gripped Russia during the early years of the revolu-

tion, his remarks are, in general, still pertinent and incidentally illustrate

Kropotkin's theme:



     ...certain industries could have been revived [and] an enormous degree of

     recovery achieved by appealing to the initiative of groups of producers

     and consumers, freeing the state strangled cooperatives and inviting the

     various associations to take over management of different branches of 

     economic activity...I was arguing for a Communism of Associations -- in

     contrast to Communism of the State -- the total plan not dictated on high

     by the State, but resulting from the harmonizing by congresses and spec-

     ial assemblies from below.[17]



   Augustin Souchy, vetern Anarcho-Syndacalist activist, theoretician, one-

time Secretary of the anarcho-syndaclist International Workingmens' Associa-

tion and actively involved with the Spanish National Confederation of Labor,

wrote that



     ...during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) the Spanish workers and 

     peasants were establishing what could be loosely called "Libertarian 

     Syndicalist Socialism": a system without exploitation and injustice. In 

     this type of libertarian collectivist economy, wage slavery is replaced 

     by the equitable and just sharing of labor. Private or State Capitalism 

     (or State "Socialism") is replaced by workers' factory council, the union,

     the industrial association of unions up to the national federation of 

     industrial unions. [18]



   It is essentially a system of workers' self-management at all levels.



                           "After the Revolution"



   The anarchist thinkers were not so naive as to expect the installation of 

the perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously 

shed all their ingrained prejudices and old habits on the day after the revol-

ution. They were primarily concerned with the immediate problems of social

reconstruction that will have to be faced in any country -- industrialized or

not.

   They are issues which no serious revolutionary has the right to ignore. It

was for this reason that the anarchists tried to work out measures to meet the

pressing problems most likely to emerge during what Malatesta called "the 

period of reorganization and transition." We summarize Malatesta's descussion

of some of the more important questions. [19]

   Crucial problems cannot be avoided by postphoning them to the distant 

future -- perhaps a century or more -- when anarchism will have been fully 

realized and the masses will have finally become convinced and dedicated 

anarchist-communists. We anarchists must have our own solutions if we are not

to be relegated to the role of useless and impotent grumblers, while the more

realistic and unscrupulous authoritarians seize power. Anarchy or no anarchy,

the people must eat and be provided with the necessities of life. The cities

must be provisioned and vital services cannot be disrupted. Even if poorly

served, the people in their own interests would not allow us or anyone alse to

disrupt these services unless and until they are reorganized in a better way;

and this cannot be achieved in a day.

  The organization of the anarchist-communist society on a large scale can

only be achieved gradually as material conditions permit, and as the masses 

convince themselves of the benefits to be gained and as they gradually become

psychologically accustomed to radical alterations in their way of life. Since

free and voluntary communism (Malatesta's synonym for anarchism) cannot be

imposed, Malatesta stressed the necessity for the coexistence of various eco-

nomic forms, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- on the condition that 

there will be no exploitation of others. Malatesta was confident that the 

convincing example of successful libertarian collective will



     attract others into the orbit of the collectivity...for my part I do not

     believe that there is "one" solution to the social problem, but a thou-

     sand different and changing solutions, in the same way as social exist-

     ence is different in time and space...[20]



                        "Pure Anarchism Is A Fiction"



   Aside from the "individualists" (a very ambiguous term) none of the anar-

chist thinkers were "pure" anarchists. The typical "pure" anarchist grouping,

explains Geirge Woodcock, "is the loose and flexible affinity group" which

needs no formal organization and carries on anarchist propaganda through an 

"invisible network of personal contacts and intellectual influences." Woodcock

argues that "pure" anarchism is incompatible with mass movements like anarcho-

syndicalism because they need



     stable organizations precisely because it moves in a world that is only

     partly governed by anarchist ideals...and make compromises with day-to-

     day situations...[It} has to maintain the allegiance of masses of 

     [workers] who are only remotely conscious of the final aim of anarchism.

     [21]



   If these statements are true, then "pure" anarchism is a pipe dream. First,

because there will never be a time when everybody will be a "pure" anarchist, 

and humanisty will forever have to make "compromises with the day-to-day situ-

ation." Second, because the intricate economic and social operations of an 

interdependent world cannot be carried on without these "stable organiza-

tions," even if every inhabitant were a convinced anarchist, "pure" anarchism

would still be impossible for technical and functional reasons alone. This is

not to say that anarchism excludes affinity groups. Anarchism envisions a 

flexible, pluralist society where all the needs of mankind would be supplied 

by an infinite variety of voluntary associations. The world is honeycombed

with affinity groups from chess clubs to anarchist propaganda groups. They are

formed, dissolved and reconstituted according to the fluctuating whims and 

fancies of the individuals adherents. It is precisely because they "reflect

individual preferences" that such groups are the lifeblood of the free 

society.

   Bu anarchist have also insisted that since the necessities of life and 

vital services must be supplied without fail and cannot be left to the whims

of individuals, they are Social Obligations which every able bodied individual

is honor-bound to fulfill, if he expects to enjoy the benefits of collective

labor. The large scale organizations, anarchistically organized, are NOT a 

DEVIATION. They are THE VERY ESSENCE OF ANARCHISM AS A VIABLE SOCIAL ORDER.

   THERE IS NO "PURE" ANARCHISM. THERE IS ONLY THE APPLICATION OF ANARCHIST

PRINCIPLES TO THE REALITIES OF SOCIAL LIVING. THE AIM OF ANARCHISM IS TO STIM-

ULATE FORCES THAT PROPEL SOCIETY IN A LIBERTARIAN DIRECTION. IT IS ONLY FROM

THIS STANDPOINT THAT THE RELEVANCE OF ANARCHISM TO MODERN LIFE CAN BE PROPERLY

ASSESSED.



                     Automation Could Expedite Anarchism



   We consider that the constructive ideas of anarchism are rendered even more

timely by the cybernetic revolution still in its early stages, and will become

increasingly more relevant as this revolution unfolds. There are, even now, no

insurmountable technical-scientific barriers to the introduction of anarchism.

The greatest material drawback to the realization of the ideal of "To each

according to his needs from each according to his ability" has been the scarc-

ity of goods and services. "...Cybernation, a system of almost unlimited pro-

ductive capacity which requires progressively less human labor...would make 

possible the abolition of poverty at home and abroad..." [22] In a consumer 

economy where purchasing power is not tied to production, the wage system be-

comes obsolete and the preconditions for the realization of the socialist 

ideal immeasurably enhanced.

   When Kropotkin in 1899 wrote his "Fields, Factories and Workshops", to 

demonstrate the feaseability of decentralizing industry to achieve a greater

balance between rural and urban living, his ideas were dismissed as premature.

It is now no longer disputed that the problem of scaling down industry to man-

ageable human proportions, rendered even more acute by the pollution threat-

ening the very existence of life on this planet, can now be largely solved by

modern technology. There is now an enormous amount of research on this subject

---see his "Post Scarity Anarchism" (Ramparts Press, 1971) The following are

a few examples:



   Marshall MuIuhan writes: "ELECTRICITY DOES NOT CENTRALIZE BUT DECENTRAL-

IZE...ELECTRIC POWER, EQUALLY AVAILABLE IN THE FARMHOUSE AND THE EXECUTIVE

SUITE, PERMITS ANY PLACE TO BE A CENTER, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE LARGE AGGREA-

TIONS...airplanes and radio permit the utmost continuity and diversity in 

spatial organization...(pp 47-48)...by electricty, we everywhere resume PER-

SON-TO-PERSON RELATIONS ON THE SMALLES VILLAGE SCALE...IT IS A RELATION IN

DEPTH, AND WITHOUT DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS AND POWERS...(p 225)...IN THE WHOLE

FIELD OF THE ELECTONIC REVOLUTION THIS PATTER OF DECENTRALIZATION APPEARS IN

MULTIPLE GUISES...("Understanding Media", emphasis added)



   Franz Schurman in "The New American Revolution", 1971, advocates an 

"ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST SOLUTION BASED ON DECENTRALIZED ASSOCIATIONS..."



   Christopher Lasch, discussing R.A. Dahl's "Authority in the Good Society"

(New York Review of Books, 10-21-71) writes, "Self-mangement will transform 

corporate employees from corporate subjects to citizens of the enterprise...

SELF-MANAGEMENT WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED FROM ABOVE BUT FROM BELOW...He (Dahl)..

DENIES THAT WORKERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RUN INDUSTRY IN THE INTEREST OF 

SOCIETY...."



   The reviewers of John M. Blair's critique of economic centralization (New

York Times Book Review, 9-10-72) find that Blair's researches are most impres-

sive in debunking the myth that large scale, centralized enterprises are more

efficient...the largest railroad in America, Penn Central, couldn't keep track

of its boxcars...The most successful of all industrial behemoths, General 

Motors, long ago decentralized its operations; only the profits are concen-

trated.

   Blair's point is re-enforced by a will-known English economist, E. F. Schu-

macher in "Small Is Beautiful", "The achievement of Sloan and General Motors 

was to structure the gigantic firm in such a manner that it became, in fact, A

FEDERATION OF REASONABLY SIZED FIRMS..."

   John Kenneth Galbraith in the "New Industrial State" wrote, "In giant indus-

trial corporations AUTONOMY IS NECESSARY FOR BOTH AND SMALL DECISIONS AND...

LARGE QUESTIONS OF POLICY...the comparative advantages of atomic and molecular

for the generation of scientists, technical, economic, and planning judge-

ments. ONLY A COMMITTEE, OR MORE PRECISELY, A COMPLEX OF COMMITTEES CAN 

COMBINE THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THAT MUST BE BROUGHT TO BEAR...(p.111).

THE EFFECT OF THE DENIAL OF AUTONOMY AND THE INABILITY OF THE TECHONOSTRUCTURE

(coporate centralized industry) TO ACCOMODTE ITSELF TO CHANGING TASKS HAS BEEN

VISIBLY DEFICIENT OPERATIONS...THE LARGER AND MORE COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS ARE,

THE MORE THEY MUST BE DECENTRALIZED..." (emphasis in all above quote has been

added)

   One of the major obstacles to the establishment of the free society is the

cumbersome, all pervasive, corporate-statist apparatus manned by an entrenched

bureaucratic elite class of administrators, managers and officials who at all

levels exercise de facto control over the operations of society. This has up 

till now been regarded as an unaviodable evil, but thanks to the development

of computerized technology, this byzantine apparatus can now be dismantled.

   Alan Toffler ("Future Shock", 1970, p.141) summing up the evidence, con-

cludes that "far from fastening the grip of bureaucracy on civilization more

than before, automation leads to its overthrow..." Another source, quoting

Business Week, emphasizes that



     ...automation not only makes economic planning necessary -- it also makes

     it possible. The calculations required for planning on nationwide scale

     are complicated and difficult, but they can be performed by the new elec-

     tronic computers in an amazingly short time...



   The libertarian principle of workers' control will not be invalidated by

changes in the composition of the work force or in the nature of work itself.

With or without automation, the economic structures of the new society must be

based on self-administration by the people directly involved in economic func-

tions. Under automation millions of highly trained technicians, engineers,

scientists, educators, etc, who are already organizaed into local, regional,

national, and international federations will freely circulate information, 

constantly improving both the quality and availability of goods and services

and developing new products for new needs.

   By closely intermeshing and greatly expanding the already existing networks

of consumer cooperative associations with the producer associations at every

level, the consumers will amke their wants known and be supplied by the pro-

ducers. The innumerable variety of supermarkets, chain stores and service 

centers of every description now blanketing the country, though owned by corp-

orations or privately, are so structured that they could be easily socialized

and converted into cooperative networks. In general, the same holds true for

production, exchange, and other beranches of the economy. The integration of

these economic organisms will undoubtedly be greatly facilitated because the

same people are both producers and consumers.

   The progress of the new society will depend greatly upon the extent to 

which its self-governing units will be able to speed up direct communication 

- to understand each other's problems and better coordinate activities. Thanks

to modern communications technology, all the essential facilities are now 

available: tape libraries, "computer laundromats", closed television and tele-

phone circuits, communications satelities and a plethora of other devices are

making instant, direct communication on a world scale accessable to all 

(visual and radio contact between earth and moon within seconds!). "Face-to-

face democract" -- a cornerstone of a free society, is already foreshadowed by

the increasing mobility of peoples.

   There is an exaggerated fear that a minority of scientific and technical 

workers would, in a free society, set up a dictatorship over the rest of soc-

iety. They certainly do not new wield the power generally attributed to them.

In spite of their "higher" status, they are no less immune to the fluctuation

of the economic system than are the "ordinary" workers (nearly 100,000 are 

jobless). Like lower paid workers, they too, must on pain of dismissal obey 

the orders of their employers.

   Tens of thousands of frstrated first-rate technical and scientific em-

ployees, not permitted to exercise their knowledge creatively, find themselves

trapped in monotonous, useless and anti-social tasks. And nothing is more mad-

dening than to stand helplessly by, while ignoramuses who do not even under-

stand the language of science, dictate the direction of research and develop-

ment. Nor are these workers free to exercise these rights in Russia or any-

where else.

   In addition to these general consideration, there are two other preventa-

tive checks to dictatorship of the techno-scientific elite. The first is that

the wider diffusion of scientific and technical training, providing millions 

of new specialists, would break up any possible monopoly by a minority and 

eliminate the threat of dictatorship. "The number of scientists and techolo-

gists in this country has doubled in little more than ten years and now forms

twenty percent of the labor force -- this growth is much faster than that of 

the population..." (New York Times, 12-29-70)

   The second check to dictatorship is not to invest specialists or any other

group with political power to rule over others. While we must ceaselessly 

guard against the abuse of power, we must never forget that in the joint ef-

fort to build a better world, we much also learn to trust each other. If we do

not, then this better world will forever remain a utopia.





                       The True Revelance Of Anarchism



   I have tried to show that anarchism is not a panacea that will miraculously

cure all the ills of the body social, but rather, a 20th century guide to 

action based on a realistic conception of social econstrction. The well-nigh

insuperable material obstacle to the introduction of anarchism -- scarcity

of goods and services and excessive industrial-mangerial centralization - have

or can be removed by the cybernetic-technical revolution. Yet, the movement 

for empancipation is threatened by the far more formidable political, social

and brain-washing techniques of "The Establishment".

   In their polemics with the Marxists, the anarchists insisted that the 

political state subjects the economy to its own ends. A high sophisticated

economic system, once viewed as the prerequisite for the realization of 

socialism, now serves to reinforce the domination of the ruling classes with 

the technology of physical and mental repression and the ensuing obliteration

of human values. The very abundance which can liberate man from want and 

drudgery, now enables the state to establish what is, in effect, a national-

ized poorhouse, where the millions of technologically unemployed -- forgotten,

faceless outcasts on public "welfare," will be given only enough to keep them

quiet. The very technology that has opened new roads to freedom, has also

armed states with unimaginably frightful weapons for the annihilation of 

humanity.

   While the anarchists never underestimated the great importance of the eco-

nomic factor in social change, they nevertheless rejected fanatical economic

fatalism. One of the most cogent contributions of anarchism to social theory

is the proper emphasis on how political institutions, in turn, mold economic

life. Equally sigificant is the importance attached to the will of man, his 

asperations, the moral factor, and above all, the spirit of revolt in the 

shaping of human history. In this area too, anarchism is particularly relevent

to the renewal of society. To indicate the importance attached to this factor,

we quote a passage from a letter that Bakunin wrote to his friend Elisee

Reclus:



     ...the hour of revolution is passed, not because of the frightful dis-

     aster [the Franco-Prussian War and the slaughter of the Paris Commune,

     May 1871] but because, to my great dispair, I have found it a fact, and

     I am finding it every day anew, that revolutionary hope, passion, are

     absolutely lacking in the masses; and when these are absent, it is vain

     to make desperate efforts...



   The availability of more and more consumer goods plus the sophisticated 

techniques of mass indoctrination has corrupted the public mind. Bourgeoisifi-

cation has sapped the revolutionary vitality of the masses. It is precisely

this divorce from the inspiring values of socialism, which, to a large extent,

accounts for the venality and corruption in modern labor and socialist move-

ments.

   To forge a revolutionary movement, which, inspired by anarchist ideas, 

would be capable of reversing this reactionary trend, is a task of staggering 

proportions. But therein lies the true relevance of anarchism.





                                 REFERENCES



1 - "Influences Bougueses en el Anarquismo" Solidaridad Obrera, Paris, 1959.

2 - "The Nation", 11-16-70

3 - "Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas", Freedom Press, London, 1965, p. 24

4 - quoted in a letter to a friend

5 - "Federalism-Socialism-Anti-Theologism"

6 - "Anarchism", World Publishing, Cleveland, 1962, p. 469, 473

7 - "L'Anarchisme", Gallimard, Paris, 1965, p. 180, 181

8 - "Anarchy", # 25, March 1963, London

9 - "General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century", Freedom Press, 

    London, 1923, p. 89

10- "Revolutionary Pamphlets", Vanguard Press, New York, 1927, p. 76, 77

11- "After the Revolution", Greenbery Publisher, New York, 1937, p. 85, 100

12- "The Age of iscontinuity", Harper & Row, New York, 1968, 

    p. 212, 217, 222, 225, 226, 251, 252

13- "Beyond the Welfare State", Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968, 

    p. 102, 97, 108

14- Op cit #9, p. 90

15- "Revolutionary Pamphlets", Dover Publications, 1970 edition, 

    pp. 166-7, 168, 284, 285

16- Words of a Rebel, quoted by P. Berman in "Quotations from the Anarchists",

    New York, 1972, p. 171

17- "Memoirs of a Revolutionary", Oxford University Press, London, 1967, 

    pp. 147-8

18- "Nacht Uber Spanien", Verlag die Freie Gesellschaft, Darmstadt-land, 

    1954(?), p. 164

19- Op cit #3, p. 100

20- Ibid, p. 99, 151

21- "Anarchism", p. 273, 274

22- "Manifesto"...Committee for the Triple Revolution, quoted in "Liberation"

    magazine, New York, April 1964

