From ats5@internet01.comp.pge.com Thu Aug  4 15:11:05 1994
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 23:46:49 PDT
From: Andy Smith <ats5@internet01.comp.pge.com>
Subject: THE RELEVANCE OF ANARCHISM


                          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
