Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JBJM #BLVOJO
Marxism, Freedom and the
State
1
Contents
loiewoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Life of Bakunin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1s
z. Marxist Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1v
3. e State and Marxism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zs
. Internationalism and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3v
s. Social Revolution and the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s
o. Political Action and the Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ss
Appendix o3
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . os
2
3
Foreword
ln my book M:oe| Bo|vn:n onJ Kor| Mor:, l stated in a footnote
that l intended to iepiint ceitain passages fiom Bakunin in a booklet
to be entitled Mor::s, Anor:s onJ |e Soe. e piesent woik is a
fulllment of that intention, but l have slightly alteied the title, because
on ieection, l felt that Bakunin was heie tieating of widei and deepei
maeis than meiely the meiits of one political philosophy as against
anothei. He was tieating of the whole question of mans fieedom in
ielation to society, to the community.
is question is the supieme question of oui geneiation. On its solu-
tion depends the fate of the human iace, foi if the answei to the question
of mans fieedom in ielation to the community is to be the totalitaiian
answei that he has none, then indeed can the maich of human piogiess
be said to have come to its end. And that end, beaiing in mind the cii-
cumstances of this atomic age can only be amidst wai and univeisal
destiuction.
ln many paits of his wiitings, Bakunin has given his views on the na-
tuie and possibilities of human fieedomwhich he shaiply dieientiated
fiom egoism and self centied individualism. Apait fiom that iepioduced
on the ist page of the extiacts, peihaps the best denition he has given
is that couched in the following woids
We undeistand by libeity, on the one hand, the development, as
complete as possible of all the natuial faculties of each individual, and,
on the othei hand, his independence, not as iegaids natuial and social
laws but as iegaids all the laws imposed by othei human wills, whethei
collective oi sepaiate.
When we demand the libeity of the masses, we do not in the least
claim to abolish any of the natuial inuences of any individual oi of any
gioup of individuals which exeicise theii action on them. What we want
is the abolition of aiticial, piivileged, legal, ocial, inuences. (M:oe|
Bo|vn:n onJ Kor| Mor:, p. 300)
With this view of libeity is linked Bakunins view of authoiity, which
he by no means equates with oiganisation and self-discipline, which, in
themselves, he iegaided as veiy desiiable. What he meant by authoiity,
namely the r:g| to command oi to enfoice obedience, was consideied
4
by him to be fundamentally of ieligious oiigin. e idea of an authoiitai-
ianism that it is oui Jv, to obey authoiity, is deiived, accoiding to his
theoiy fiomieligious oiigins, even when it has latei taken political foims.
Hence the opposition to ieligion, which takes a piominent position in
his wiitings, much moie so than in those of the Maixians, and which
sometimes is iathei violently expiessed.
eie is also anothei ieason foi the ciiticism of ieligion and chuiches
that is to be found so fiequently in his wiitings, and that is the close con-
nection between ieligion and the State which distinguishes the Hegelian
philosophy, against which Bakunin had iebelled. lt is pointed out by
Gide and Rist e State, accoiding to Hegel, is an aggiession of the
spiiit iealising itself in the conscience of the woild, while natuie is an
expiession of the same spiiit without the conscience, an o|er egoa spiiit
in bondage. God moving in the woild has made the State possible. lts
foundation is in the might of ieason iealising itself in will. lt is necessaiy
to think of it not meiely as a given State oi a paiticulai institution, but
of its essence oi idea as a ieal manifestation of God. Eveiy State, of
whatevei kind it may be, paitakes of this divine essence. (A H:sor, o[
Fcono:c Docr:nes, p. 43)
Now this close identication of the spiiit of God and the spiiit of the
State is ieason enough why Bakunin, as an enemy the State, should also
have consideied it necessaiy to aack ieligion. us, the teim God and
the State latei applied by its editois to a fiagment of his woiks, is quite
ing. e Maixians, on the othei hand, as adheients of the State, and
as champions of authoiity, found no such necessity foi making a fiontal
aack on ieligion, and encounteied accoidingly much less of the animous
of ieligiously-minded people than was the fate of the Anaichists.
Opinions may diei in the Socialist movement itself as to the ielative
impoitance to be given to the discussion of the ieligious questions, but
the maei is mentioned heie only in oidei to explain Bakunins aitude
and to show that it had a logical development, whethei oi not it weie the
best tactic to puisue, and whethei oi not its fundamental assumptions
weie coiiect.
As will be indicated in moie detail in the following biogiaphy, the
extiacts piinted in this volume aie taken mainly fiom those wiitings
Bakunins use of the teim supieme end of histoiy (in the sense of aim oi objective),
must not be taken to have a teleological signication, that is, taken to mean that he
consideied that the natuie of things is such that theie is a cosmic aim oi puipose which
infoims the whole cosmic activity. Such a theoiy inevitably involves the notion of
some diiective intelligence behind Natuie, and this, as a mateiialist, Bakunin absolutely
denied. He means by supieme end of histoiy simply the ideal at which the human iace
should aim, as dened by him a few lines fuithei on in the text. As he said in anothei
passage of his woiks, man is pait of univeisal Natuie and cannot ght against it, But
by studying its laws, by identifying himself in some soit with them, tiansfoiming them
by a psychological piocess piopei to his biain, into ideas and human convictions, he
emancipates himself fiom the tiiple yoke imposed on him istly by exteinal Natuie,
then by his own individual inwaid Natuie, and nally by the society of which he is the
pioduct. (Michael Bakunin and Kail Maix, p. 33.)
21
undei all the ieligious symbols of all epochs, because it is inheient in the
human iace, the most social of all the iaces of animals on eaith. us
this ideal, to-day beei undeistood than evei, can be summed up in the
woids I :s |e r:v| o[ |von:,, : :s |e conqves onJ occo|:s|en
o[ |e [v|| [reeJo onJ [v|| Je+e|oen, oer:o|, :ne||ecvo| onJ oro|,
o[ e+er, :nJ:+:Jvo|, |, |e o|so|ve|, [ree onJ sononeovs orgon:so:on o[
econo:c onJ soc:o| so|:Jor:, os co|ee|, os oss:||e |e+een o|| |von
|e:ngs |:+:ng on |e eor|.
Eveiything in histoiy that shows itself confoimable to that end, fiom
the human point of viewand we can have no otheiis good, all that
is contiaiy to it is bad. We know veiy well, in any case, that what we
call good and bad aie always, one and the othei, the natuial iesults of
natuial causes, and that consequently one is as inevitable as the othei.
But as in what is piopeily called Natuie we iecognise many necessities
that we aie lile disposed to bless, foi example the necessity of dying
of hydiophobia when bien by a mad dog,
s
in the same way, in that im-
mediate continuation of the life of Natuie, called Histoiy, we encountei
many necessities which we nd much moie woithy of oppiobiium than
of benediction and which we believe we should stigmatise with all the en-
eigy of which we aie capable, in the inteiest of oui social and individual
moiality, although we iecognise that fiom the moment they have been
accomplished, even the most detestable histoiic facts have that chaiactei
of inevitability which is found in all the Phenomena of Natuie as well as
those of histoiy.
To make my idea cleaiei, l shall illustiate it by some examples. When l
study the iespective social and political conditions in which the Romans
and the Gieeks came into contact towaids the decline of Antiquity, l
aiiive at the conclusion that the conquest and destiuction by the militaiy
and civic baibaiism of the Romans, of the compaiatively high standaid
of human libeity of Gieece was a logical, natuial, absolutely inevitable
fact. But that does not pievent me at all fiom taking ietiospectively and
veiy imly, the side of Gieece against Rome in that stiuggle, and l nd
that the human iace gained absolutely nothing by the tiiumph of the
Romans.
s
Bakunin wiote some yeais befoie Pasteuis discoveiy of a cuie foi this disease.
22
ln the same way, l considei as peifectly natuial, logical, and conse-
quently inevitable fact, that Chiistians should have destioyed with a
holy fuiy all the libiaiies of the Pagans, all the tieasuies of Ait, and of
ancient philosophy and science.
o
But it is absolutely impossible foi me to
giasp what advantages have iesulted fiom it foi oui political and social
development. l am even veiy much disposed to think that apait fiom
that inevitable piocess of economic facts in which, if one weie to believe
Maix, theie must be sought to the exclusion of all othei consideiations,
the only cause of all the intellectual and moial facts which aie pioduced
in histoiyl say l am stiongly disposed to think that this act of holy bai-
baiity, oi iathei that long seiies of baibaious acts and ciimes which the
ist Chiistians, divinely inspiied, commied against the human spiiit,
was one of the piincipal causes of the intellectual and moial degiadation
and consequently also of the political and social enslavement which lled
that long seiies of baneful centuiies called the Middle Ages. Be suie of
this, that if the ist Chiistians had not destioyed the libiaiies, Museums,
and Temples of antiquity, we should not have been condemned to-day
to ght the mass of hoiiible and shameful absuidities, which still ob-
stiuct mens biains to such a degiee as to make us doubt sometimes the
possibility of a moie human futuie.
lollowing on with the same oidei of piotests against facts which have
happened in histoiy and of which consequently l myself iecognise the
inevitable chaiactei, l pause befoie the splendoui of the ltalian Republics
and befoie the magnicent awakening of human genius in the epoch of
the Renaissance. en l see appioaching the two evil geniuses, as ancient
as histoiy itself, the two boa-constiictois which up till now have de-
vouied eveiything human and beautiful that histoiy has pioduced. ey
aie called the Chuich and the State, the Pooc, and the F:re. Eteinal
evils and insepaiable allies, l see them become ieconciled, embiace each
othei and togethei devoui and stie and ciush that unfoitunate and too
beautiful ltaly, condemn hei to thiee centuiies of death. Well, again l
o
is, of couise, is an exaggeiation on Bakunins pait. Such vandalism was not common.
lt was the political convulsions, baibaiian invasions, and endless wais, foieign and
civil, that caused the decline of cultuie. e Chiistians tended to neglect and ignoie
the classical cultuie iathei than peisecute it. Of couise, it is tiue that the decline and
piactical extinction of the ancient cultuie gieatly impaiied intellectual piogiess.
23
nd all that veiy natuial, logical, inevitable, but neveitheless abominable,
and l cuise both Pope and Empeioi at the same time.
Let us pass on to liance. Aei a stiuggle which lasted a centuiy
Catholicism, suppoited by the State, nally tiiumphed theie ovei Piotes-
tantism. Well, do l not still nd in liance to-day some politicians oi
histoiians of the fatalist school and who, calling themselves Revolution-
aiies, considei this victoiy of Catholicisma bloody and inhuman victoiy
if evei theie was oneas a veiitable tiiumph foi the Revolution` Catholi-
cism, they maintain, was then the State, demociacy, whilst Piotestantism
iepiesented the ievolt of the aiistociacy against the State and conse-
quently against demociacy. lt is with sophisms like thatcompletely
identical besides with the Maixian sophisms, which, also, considei the
tiiumphs of the State as those of Social Demociacyit is with these
absuidities, as disgusting as ievolting, that the mind and moial sense
of the masses is peiveited, habituating them to considei theii blood-
thiisty exploiteis, theii age-long enemies, theii tyiants, the masteis and
the seivants of the State, as the oigans, iepiesentatives, heioes, devoted
seivants of theii emancipation.
lt is a thousand times iight to say that Piotestantism then, not as
Calvinist theology, but as an eneigetic and aimed piotest, iepiesented
ievolt, libeity, humanity, the destiuction of the State, whilst Catholicism
was public oidei, authoiity, divine law, the salvation of the State by the
Chuich and the Chuich by the State, the condemnation of human society
to a boundless and endless slaveiy.
Whilst iecognising the inevitability of the accomplished fact, l do
not hesitate to say that the tiiumph of Catholicism in liance in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuiies was a gieat misfoitune foi the whole
human iace, and that the massacie of Saint Baitholomew, as well as the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, weie facts as disastious foi liance
heiself as weie lately the defeat and massacie of the people of Paiis in
the Commune. l have actually heaid veiy intelligent and veiy estimable
lienchmen explain this defeat of Piotestantism in liance by the essen-
tially ievolutionaiy natuie of the liench people. Piotestantism, they
said, was only a semi-ievolution, we needed a complete ievolution,
it is foi that ieason that the liench nation did not wish, and was not
able to stop at the Refoimation. lt piefeiied to iemain Catholic till the
24
moment when it could pioclaim Atheism, and it is because of that that
it boie with such a peifect and Chiistian iesignation both the hoiiois
of Saint Baitholomew and those not less abominable of the executois of
the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
ese estimable patiiots do not seem to want to considei one thing. lt
is that a people, who undei whatsoevei pietext it may be, sueis tyianny,
necessaiily loses at length the salutoiy habit of ievolt and even the veiy
instinct of ievolt. lt loses the feeling foi libeity, and once a people has
lost all that, it necessaiily becomes not only by its outei conditions, but in
itself, in the veiy essence of its being, a people of slaves. lt was because
Piotestantism was defeated in liance that the liench people lost, oi
iathei, nevei acquiied, the custom of libeity. lt is because this tiadition
and this custom aie lacking in it that it has not to-day what we call
o|::co| consc:ovsness, and it is because it is lacking in this consciousness
that all the ievolutions it has made up to nowhave not been able to give it
oi secuie it political libeity. With the exception of its gieat ievolutionaiy
days, which aie its festival days, the liench people iemain to-day as
yesteiday, a people of slaves.
2
3. e State and Marxism
All woik to be peifoimed in the employ and pay of the Statesuch
is the fundamental piinciple of Authoiitaiian Communism, of State So-
cialism. e State having become sole piopiietoiat the end of a ceitain
peiiod of tiansition which will be necessaiy to let society pass without
too gieat political and economic shocks fiom the piesent oiganisation
of bouigeois piivilege to the futuie oiganisation of the ocial equality
of allthe State will be also the only Capitalist, bankei, money-lendei,
oiganisei, diiectoi of all national laboui and distiibutoi of its pioducts.
Such is the ideal, the fundamental piinciple of modein Communism.
Enunciated foi the ist time by Babeuf,
1
towaids the close of the Gieat
liench Revolution, with all the aiiay of antique civism and ievolutionaiy
violence, which constituted the chaiactei of the epoch, it was iecast and
iepioduced in miniatuie, about foity-ve yeais latei by Louis Blanc
z
in
his tiny pamphlet on e Orgon:so:on o[ Lo|ovr, in which that estimable
citizen, much less ievolutionaiy, and much moie indulgent towaids
bouigeois weaknesses than was Babeuf, tiied to gild and sweeten the
pill so that the bouigeois could swallow it without suspecting that they
weie taking a poison which would kill them. But the bouigeois weie
not deceived, and ietuining biutality foi politeness, they expelled Louis
Blanc fiom liance. ln spite of that, with a constancy which one must
admiie, he iemained alone in faithfulness to his economic system and
continued to believe that the whole futuie was contained in his lile
pamphlet on the oiganisation of Laboui.
e Communist idea latei passed into moie seiious hands. Kail Maix,
the undisputed chief of the Socialist Paity in Geimanya gieat intel-
lect aimed with a piofound knowledge, whose entiie life, one can say
it without aeiing, has been devoted exclusively to the gieatest cause
which exists to-day, the emancipation of laboui and of the toileisKail
1
Babeuf (129) foimed conspiiacy of Equals to seize powei in liance and intioduce
an authoiitaiian equalitaiian Communism. Plot discoveied and conspiiatois executed.
z
Blanc, Louis (181182) advocated State Socialism in liance, paiticulaily in the peiiod
18400.
2
Maix who is indisputably also, if not the only, at least one of the piinci-
pal foundeis of the lnteinational Woikingmens Association, made the
development of the Communist idea the object of a seiious woik. His
gieat woik, Co:o|, is not in the least a fantasy, an a piioii conception,
hatched out in a single day in the head of a young man moie oi less
ignoiant of economic conditions and of the actual system of pioduction.
lt is founded on a veiy extensive, veiy detailed knowledge and a veiy
piofound analysis of this system and of its conditions. Kail Maix is
a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His woik on
Capital, though unfoitunately biistling with foimulas and metaphysical
subtleties which iendei it unappioachable foi the gieat mass of ieadeis,
is in the highest degiee a scientic oi iealist woik in the sense that it
absolutely excludes any othei logic than that of the facts.
Living foi veiy neaily thiity yeais, almost exclusively among Geiman
woikeis, iefugees like himself and suiiounded by moie oi less intelligent
fiiends and disciples belonging by biith and ielationship to the bouigeois
woild, Maix natuially has managed to foim a Communist school, oi a
soit of lile Communist Chuich, composed of feivent adepts and spiead
all ovei Geimany. is Chuich, iestiicted though it may be on the
scoie of numbeis, is skilfully oiganised, and thanks to its numeious
connections with woiking-class oiganisations in all the piincipal places
in Geimany, it has alieady become a powei.
3
Kail Maix natuially enjoys
an almost supieme authoiity in this Chuich, and to do himjustice, it must
be admied that he knows how to govein this lile aimy of fanatical
adheients in such a way as always to enhance his piestige and powei
ovei the imagination of the woikeis of Geimany.
Maix is not only a leained Socialist, he is also a veiy clevei Politician
and an aident patiiot. Like Bismaick, though by somewhat dieient
means, and like many othei of his compatiiots, Socialists oi not, he
wants the establishment of a gieat Geimanic State foi the gloiy of the
Geiman people and foi the happiness and the voluntaiy, oi enfoiced
civilization of the woild.
e policy of Bismaick is that of the piesent, the policy of Maix, who
consideis himself at least as his successoi, and his continuatoi, is that of
3
Wiien in Septembei, 180.
2
the futuie. And when l say that Maix consideis himself the continuatoi
of Bismaick, l am fai fiom calumniating Maix. lf he did not considei
himself as such, he would not have peimied Engels, the condant of all
his thoughts, to wiite that Bismaick seives the cause of Social Revolution.
He seives it now in his own way, Maix will seive it latei, in anothei
mannei. at is the sense in which he will be latei, the continuatoi, as
to-day he is the admiiei of the policy of Bismaick.
Now let us examine the paiticulai chaiactei of Maixs policy, let us
asceitain the essential points on which it is to be sepaiated fiom the
Bismaickian policy. e piincipal point, and, one might say, the only
one, is this Maix is a demociat, an Authoiitaiian Socialist, and a Repub-
lican, Bismaick is an out and out Pomeianian, aiistociatic, monaichical
Junkei. e dieience is theiefoie veiy gieat, veiy seiious, and both
sides aie sinceie in this dieience. On this point, theie is no possible
undeistanding oi ieconciliation possible between Bismaick and Maix.
Even apait fiom the numeious iiievocable pledges that Maix thioughout
his life, has given to the cause of Socialist demociacy, his veiy position
and his ambitions give a positive guaiantee on this issue. ln a monai-
chy, howevei Libeial it might be, oi even cannot be any place, any iole
foi Maix, and so much the moie so in the Piussian Geimanic Empiie
founded by Bismaick, with a bugbeai of an Empeioi, militaiist and big-
oted, as chief and with all the baions and buieauciats of Geimany foi
guaidians. Befoie he can aiiive at powei, Maix will have to sweep all
that away.
eiefoie he is foiced to be Revolutionaiy. at is what sepaiates
Maix fiom Bismaickthe foim and the conditions of Goveinment. One
is an out and out aiistociat and monaichist, and in a Conseivative Re-
public like that of liance undei ieis
ieis, Adolphe (1918), Piesident of the iid Republic in 1813. He was piimaiily
iesponsible foi the iuthless suppiession of the Paiis Commune.
28
States man. But neithei do l believe that l shall have need of too gieat
eoits to piove that it is the same with Maix. He loves goveinment to
such a degiee that he even wanted to institute one in the lnteinational
Woikingmens Association, and he woiships powei so much that he
wanted to impose and still means to-day to impose his dictatoiship on us.
lt seems to me that that is sucient to chaiacteiise his peisonal aitude.
But his Socialist and political piogiamme is a veiy faithful expiession
of it. e supieme objective of all his eoits, as is pioclaimed to us by
the fundamental statutes of his paity in Geimany, is the establishment
of the gieat Peoples State (Volksstaat).
But whoevei says State, necessaiily says a paiticulai limited State,
doubtless compiising, if it is veiy laige, many dieient peoples and
countiies, but excluding still moie. loi unless he is dieaming of the
Univeisal State as did Napoleon and the Empeioi Chailes the lih, oi
as the Papacy dieamed of the Univeisal Chuich, Maix, in spite of all the
inteinational ambition which devouis him to-day, will have, when the
houi of the iealisation of his dieams has sounded foi himif it evei does
soundhe will have to content himself with goveining a single State
and not seveial States at once. Consequently, who evei says State says,
o State, and whoevei says o State aims by that the existence of seveial
States, and whoevei says se+ero| States, immediately says competition,
jealousy, tiuceless and endless wai. e simplest logic as well as all
histoiy beai witness to it.
Any State, undei pain of peiishing and seeing itself devouied by neigh-
bouiing States, must tend towaids complete powei, and, having become
poweiful, it must embaik on a caieei of conquest, so that it shall not be
itself conqueied, foi two poweis similai and at the same time foieign to
each othei could not co-exist without tiying to destioy each othei. Who-
evei says conquest, says conqueied peoples, enslaved and in bondage,
undei whatevei foim oi name it may be.
lt is in the natuie of the State to bieak the solidaiity of the human
iace and, as it weie, to deny humanity. e State cannot pieseive itself
as such in its integiity and in all its stiength except it sets itself up as
supieme and absolute be-all and end-all, at least foi its own citizens, oi
to speak moie fiankly, foi its own subjects, not being able to impose
itself as such on the citizens of othei States unconqueied by it. liom that
29
theie inevitably iesults a bieak with human, consideied as univesisal,
moiality and with univeisal ieason, by the biith of State moiality and
ieasons of State. e piinciple of political oi State moiality is veiy simple.
e State, being the supieme objective, eveiything that is favouiable to
the development of its powei is good, all that is contiaiy to it, even if
it weie the most humane thing in the woild, is bad. is moiality is
called Por:o:s. e lnteinational is the negation of patiiotism and
consequently the negation of the State. lf theiefoie Maix and his fiiends
of the Geiman Socialist Demociatic Paity should succeed in intioducing
the State piinciple into oui piogiamme, they would kill the lnteinational.
e State, foi its own pieseivation, must necessaiily be poweiful as
iegaids foieign aaiis, but if it is so as iegaids foieign aaiis, it will
infallibly be so as iegaids home aaiis. Eveiy State, having to let itself
be inspiied and diiected by some paiticulai moiality, confoimable to the
paiticulai conditions of its existence, by a moiality which is a iestiiction
and consequently a negation of human and univeisal moiality, must keep
watch that all its subjects, in theii thoughts and above all in theii acts, aie
inspiied also only by the piinciples of this patiiotic oi paiticulai moiality,
and that they iemain deaf to the teachings of puie oi univeisally human
moiality. liom that theie iesults the necessity foi a State censoiship,
too gieat libeity of thought and opinions being, as Maix consideis, veiy
ieasonably too fiom his eminently political point of view, incompatible
with that unanimity of adheience demanded by the secuiity of the State.
at that in ieality is Maixs opinion is suciently pioved by the aempts
which he made to intioduce censoiship into the lnteinational, undei
plausible pietexts, and coveiing it with a mask.
But howevei vigilant this censoiship may be, even if the State weie
to take into its own hands exclusively education and all the instiuction
of the people, as Mazzini wished to do, and as Maix wishes to do to-day
the State can nevei be suie that piohibited and dangeious thoughts may
not slip in and be smuggled somehow into the consciousness of the
population that it goveins. loibidden fiuit has such an aiaction foi
men, and the demon of ievolt, that eteinal enemy of the State, awakens so
easily in theii heaits when they aie not suciently stupied, that neithei
this education noi this instiuction, noi even the censoiship, suciently
guaiantee the tianquillity of the State. lt must still have a police, devoted
30
agents who watch ovei and diiect, secietly and unobtiusively, the cuiient
of the peoples opinions and passions. We have seen that Maix himself
is so convinced of this necessity, that he believed he should ll with
his seciet agents all the iegions of the lnteinational and above all, ltaly,
liance, and Spain. linally, howevei peifect may be, fiom the point
of view of the pieseivation of the State, the oigansation of education
and instiuction foi the people, of censoiship and the police, the State
cannot be secuie in its existence while it does not have, to defend it
against its ene:es o |oe, an aimed foice. e State is goveinment
fiom above downwaids of an immense numbei of men, veiy dieient
fiom the point of view of the degiee of theii cultuie, the natuie of the
countiies oi localities that they inhabit, the occupation they follow, the
inteiests and the aspiiations diiecting themthe State is the goveinment
of all these by some oi othei minoiity, this minoiity, even if it weie a
thousand times elected by univeisal suiage and contiolled in its acts
by populai institutions, unless it weie endowed with the omniscience,
omnipiesence and the omnipotence which the theologians aiibute to
God, it is impossible that it could know and foiesee the needs, oi satisfy
with an even justice the most legitimate and piessing inteiests in the
woild. eie will always be discontented people because theie will
always be some who aie saciiced.
Besides, the State, like the Chuich, by its veiy natuie is a gieat sac-
iicei of living beings. lt is an aibitiaiy being, in whose heait all the
positive, living, individual, and local inteiests of the population meet,
clash, destioy each othei, become absoibed in that abstiaction called the
common inteiest, the v||:c gooJ, the v||:c so[e,, and wheie all ieal
wills cancel each othei in that othei abstiaction which heais the name
of the +:|| o[ |e eo|e. lt iesults fiom this, that this so-called will of
the people is nevei anything else than the saciice and the negation of
all the ieal wills of the population, just as this so-called public good is
nothing else than the saciice of theii inteiests. But so that this om-
nivoious abstiaction could impose itself on millions of men, it must be
iepiesented and suppoited by some ieal being, by living foice oi othei.
Well, this being, this foice, has always existed. ln the Chuich it is called
the cleigy, and in the Statethe iuling oi goveining class.
31
And, in fact, what do we nd thioughout histoiy` e State has always
been the patiimony of some piivileged class oi othei, a piiestly class, an
aiistociatic class, a bouigeois class, and nally a buieauciatic class, when,
all the othei classes having become exhausted, the State falls oi iises, as
you will, to the condition of a machine, but it is absolutely necessaiy foi
the salvation of the State that theie should be some piivileged class oi
othei which is inteiested in its existence. And it is piecisely the united
inteiest of this piivileged class which is called Patiiotism.
By excluding the immense majoiity of the human iace fiom its bosom,
by casting it beyond the pale of the engagements and iecipiocal duties
of moiality, justice and iight, the State denies humanity, and with that
big woid, Patiiotism, imposes injustice and ciuelty on all its subjects,
as a supieme duty. lt iestiains, it mutilates, it kills humanity in them,
so that, ceasing to be men, they aie no longei anything but citizensoi
iathei, moie coiiectly consideied in ielation to the histoiic succession
of factsso that they shall nevei iaise themselves beyond the level of
the citizen to the level of a man.
lf we accept the ction of a fiee State deiived fiom a social contiact,
then disceining, just, piudent people ought not to have any longei any
need of goveinment oi of State. Such a people can need only to live,
leaving a fiee couise to all theii instincts justice and public oidei will
natuially and of theii accoid pioceed fiom the life of the people, and
the State, ceasing to be the piovidence, guide, educatoi, and iegulatoi of
society, ienouncing all its iepiessive powei, and failing to the subaltein
iole which Pioudhon assigns it, will no longei anything else but a simple
business oce, a soit of cential cleaiing house at the seivice of society.
Doubtless, such a political oiganisation, oi iathei, such a ieduction
of political action in favoui of libeity in social life, would be a gieat
benet foi society, but it would not at all please the devoted adheients
of the State. ey absolutely must have a State-Piovidence, a State
diiecting social life, dispensing justice, and administeiing public oidei.
at is to say, whethei they admit it oi not, and even when they call
themselves Republicans, demociats, oi even Socialists, they always must
have a people who aie moie oi less ignoiant, minoi, incapable, oi to
call things by theii iight names, ii-ia, to govein, in oidei, of couise,
that doing violence to theii own disinteiestedness and modesty, they
32
can keep the best places foi themselves, in oidei always to have the
oppoitunity to devote themselves to the common good, and that, stiong
in theii viituous devotion and theii exclusive intelligence, piivileged
guaidians of the human ock, whilst uiging it on foi its own good and
leading it to secuiity, they may also eece it a lile.
Eveiy logical and sinceie theoiy of the State is essentially founded on
the piinciple of ov|or:,that is to say on the eminently theological,
metaphysical and political idea that the masses, o|+o,s incapable of
goveining themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of
a wisdom and a justice, which in one way oi anothei, is imposed on them
fiom above. But imposed in the name of what and by whom` Authoiity
iecognised and iespected as such by the masses can have only thiee
possible souicesfoice, ieligion, oi the action of a supeiioi intelligence,
and this supieme intelligence is always iepiesented by minoiities.
Slaveiy can Change its foim and its nameits basis iemains the same.
is basis is expiessed by the woids being a slave is being foiced to
woik foi othei peopleas being a mastei is to live on the laboui of
othei people. ln ancient times, as to-day in Asia and Afiica, slaves weie
simply called slaves. ln the Middle Ages, they took the name of seifs,
to-day they aie called wage-eaineis. e position of these laei is
much moie honouiable and less haid than that of slaves, but they aie
none the less foiced by hungei as well as by the political and social
institutions, to maintain by veiy haid woik the absolute oi ielative
idleness of otheis. Consequently, they aie slaves. And, in geneial, no
State, eithei anacient oi modein, has evei been able, oi evei will be able
to do without the foiced laboui of the masses, whethei wage-eaineis oi
slaves, as a piincipal and absolutely necessaiy basis of the libeity and
cultuie of the political class the citizens.
Even the United States is no exception to this iule. lts maivellous
piospeiity and enviable piogiess aie due in gieat pait and above all to
one impoitant advantagethe gieat teiiitoiial wealth of Noith Ameiica.
e immense quantity of uncultivated and feitile lands, togethei with
a political libeity that exists nowheie else aiacts eveiy yeai hundieds
of thousands of eneigetic, industiious and intelligent colonists. is
wealth, at the same time keeps o paupeiism and delays the moment
when the social question will have to be put. A woikei who does not
33
nd woik oi who is dissatised with the wages oeied by the capitalist
can always, if need be, emigiate to the fai West to cleai theie some wild
and unoccupied land.
s
is possibility always iemaining open as a last iesoit to all Ameiican
woikeis, natuially keeps wages at a level, and gives to eveiy individual
an independence, unknown in Euiope. Such is the advantage, but heie is
the disadvantage. As cheapness of the pioducts of industiy is achieved in
gieat pait by cheapness of laboui, the Ameiican manufactuieis foi most
of the time aie not in a condition to compete against the manufactuieis
of Euiopefiom which theie iesults, foi the industiy of the Noithein
States, the necessity foi a piotectionist taii. But that has a iesult, istly
to cieate a host of aiticial industiies and above all to oppiess and iuin
the non-manufactuiing Southein States and make them want secession,
nally to ciowd togethei into cities like New Yoik, Philadelphia, Boston
and many otheis, pioletaiian woiking masses who, lile by lile, aie
beginning to nd themselves alieady in a situation analogous to that of
the woikeis in the gieat manufactuiing States of Euiope. And we see,
in eect the social question alieady being posed in the Noithein States,
just as it was posed long befoie in oui countiies.
And theie too, the self-goveinment of the masses, in spite of all the
display of the peoples omnipotence, iemains most of the time in a state of
ction. ln ieality, it is minoiities which govein. e so-called Demociatic
Paity, up to the time of the Civil Wai to emancipate the slaves, weie the
out and out paitisans of slaveiy and of the feiocious oligaichy of the
planteis, demagogues without faith oi conscience, capable of saciicing
eveiything to theii gieed and evil-minded ambition, and who, by theii
detestable inuence and actions, exeicised almost unhindeied, foi neaily
y yeais continuously, have gieatly contiibuted to depiave the political
moiality of Noith Ameiica.
s
lt should be kept in mind in ieading this and the paiagiaphs conceining the United States,
that they weie wiien in 18 not long aei the close of the Civil Wai. At that time it
was not as easy to see as it is now, that the Republican Paity was not ieally a Paity of
Libeiation but the Paity of lndustiial Capitalism, and that the Civil Wai was fought,
not to emancipate the slaves but meiely to decide whethei they should continue as
chael slaves oi change theii status to that of wage-slaves.
34
e Republican Paity, though ieally intelligent and geneious, is still
and always a minoiity, and whatevei the sinceiity of this paity of lib-
eiation, howevei gieat and geneious the piinciples it piofesses, do not
let us hope that, in powei, it will ienounce this exclusive position of a
goveining minoiity to meige into the mass of the nation so that the self-
goveinment of the people shall nally become a ieality. loi that theie
will be necessaiy a ievolution fai moie piofound than all those which
hitheito have shaken the Old and New Woilds.
ln Switzeiland, in spite of all the demociatic ievolutions that have
taken place theie, it is still always the class in comfoitable ciicumstances,
the bouigeoisie, that is to say, the class piivileged by wealth, leisuie, and
education, which goveins. e soveieignty of the peoplea woid which,
anyway, we detest because in oui eyes, all soveieignty is detestablethe
goveinment of the people by themselves is likewise a ction. e people
is soveieign in law, not in fact, foi necessaiily absoibed by theii daily
laboui, which leaves them no leisuie, and if not completely ignoiant,
at least veiy infeiioi in education to the bouigeoisie, they aie foiced
to place in the hands of the laei theii supposed soveieignty. e sole
advantage which they get out of it in Switzeiland, as in the United States,
is that ambitious minoiities, the political classes, cannot aiiive at powei
otheiwise than by paying couit to the people, aeiing theii eeting
passions, which may sometimes be veiy bad, and most oen deceiving
them.
lt is tiue that the most impeifect iepublic is a thousand times beei
than the most enlightened monaichy, foi at least in the iepublic theie aie
moments when, though always exploited, the people aie not oppiessed,
while in monaichies they aie nevei anything else. And then the demo-
ciatic iegime tiains the masses lile by lile in public life, which the
monaichy nevei does. But whilst giving the piefeience to the iepub-
lic we aie neveitheless foiced to iecognise and pioclaim that whatevei
may be the foim of goveinment, whilst human society iemains divided
into dieient classes because of the heieditaiy inequality of occupations,
wealth, education, and piivileges, theie will always be minoiity govein-
ment and the inevitable exploitation of the majoiity by that minoiity.
3
e State is nothing else but this domination and exploitation iegu-
laiised and systematised. We shall aempt to demonstiate it by examin-
ing the consequence of the goveinment of the masses of the people by
a minoiity, at ist as intelligent and as devoted as you like, in an ideal
State, founded on a fiee contiact.
Suppose the goveinment to be conned only to the best citizens. At
ist these citizens aie piivileged not by iight, but by fact. ey have
been elected by the people because they aie the most intelligent, clevei,
wise, and couiageous and devoted. Taken fiom the mass of the citizens,
who aie iegaided as all equal, they do not yet foim a class apait, but a
gioup of men piivileged only by natuie and foi that veiy ieason singled
out foi election by the people. eii numbei is necessaiily veiy limited,
foi in all times and countiies the numbei of men endowed with qualities
so iemaikable that they automatically command the unanimous iespect
of a nation is, as expeiience teaches us, veiy small. eiefoie, undei pain
of making a bad choice, the people will be always foiced to choose its
iuleis fiom amongst them.
Heie, then, is society divided into two categoiies, if not yet to say two
classes, of which one, composed of the immense majoiity of the citizens,
submits fieely to the goveinment of its elected leadeis, the othei, foimed
of a small numbei of piivileged natuies, iecognised and accepted as
such by the people, and chaiged by them to govein them. Dependent
on populai election, they aie at ist distinguished fiom the mass of the
citizens only by the veiy qualities which iecommended them to theii
choice and aie natuially, the most devoted and useful of all. ey do
not yet assume to themselves any piivilege, any paiticulai iight, except
that of exeicising, insofai as the people wish it, the special functions
with which they have been chaiged. loi the iest, by theii mannei of
life, by the conditions and means of theii existence, they do not sepaiate
themselves in any way fiom all the otheis, so that a peifect equality
continues to ieign among all. Can this equality be long maintained` We
claim that it cannot and nothing is easiei to piove it.
Nothing is moie dangeious foi mans piivate moiality than the habit
of command. e best man, the most intelligent, disinteiested, geneious,
puie, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this tiade. Two sentiments
3
inheient in powei nevei fail to pioduce this demoialisation, they aie
contempt foi the masses and the oveiestimation of ones own meiits.
e masses, a man says to himself, iecognising theii incapacity
to govein on theii own account, have elected me theii chief. By that
act they have publicly pioclaimed theii infeiioiity and my supeiioiity.
Among this ciowd of men, iecognising haidly any equals of myself, l
am alone capable of diiecting public aaiis. e people have need of me,
they cannot do without my seivices, while l, on the contiaiy, can get
along all iight by myself they, theiefoie, must obey me foi theii own
secuiity, and in condescending to command them, l am doing them a
good tuin.
ls not theie something in all that to make a man lose his head and his
heait as well, and become mad with piide` lt is thus that powei and
the habit of command become foi even the most intelligent and viituous
men, a souice of abeiiation, both intellectual and moial.
But in the Peoples State of Maix, theie will be, we aie told, no piiv-
ileged class at all. All will be equal, not only fiom the juiidical and
political point of view, but fiom the economic point of view. At least that
is what is piomised, though l doubt veiy much, consideiing the mannei
in which it is being tackled and the couise it is desiied to follow, whethei
that piomise could evei be kept. eie will theiefoie be no longei any
piivileged class, but theie will be a goveinment and, note this well, an
extiemely complex goveinment, which will not content itself with gov-
eining and administeiing the masses politically, as all goveinments do
to-day, but which will also administei them economically, concentiating
in its own hands the pioduction and the just division of wealth, the
cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factoiies, the
oiganisation and diiection of commeice, nally the application of cap-
ital to pioduction by the only bankei, the State. All that will demand
an immense knowledge and many heads oveiowing with biains
o
in
this goveinment. lt will be the ieign of sc:en:c :ne||:gence, the most
aiistociatic, despotic, aiiogant and contemptuous of all iegimes. eie
will be a new class, a new hieiaichy of ieal and pietended scientists and
o
A satiiic allusion to the iefeience to Maix by Soige, the Geiman- Ameiican delegate, at
the Hague Confeience.
3
scholais, and the woild will be divided into a minoiity iuling in the name
of knowledge and an immense ignoiant majoiity.
lent the Social Demociatic Paity to become a meie tool in the hands of
the bouigeois demociats.
Does Maix himself sinceiely want the antagonism of class against
class, that antagonism which iendeis absolutely impossible any paitici-
pation of the masses in the political action of the State` loi this action,
consideied apait fiom the bouigeoisie, is not piacticable it is only possi-
ble when it develops in conjunction with some paity of that class and lets
itself be diiected by the bouigeois. Maix cannot be ignoiant of that, and
besides, what is going on to-day in Geneva, Zuiich, Basel, and all ovei
Geimany, ought to open his eyes on this point, if he had closed them,
which, fiankly, l do not believe. lt is impossible foi me to believe it altei
having iead the speech he deliveied iecently at Amsteidam, in which
he said that in ceitain countiies, peihaps in Holland itself, the social
question could be iesolved peacefully, legally, without foice, in a fiiendly
fashion, which can mean nothing but this it can be iesolved by a seiies
of success sive, pacic, voluntaiy and judicious compiomises, between
bouigeoisie and pioletaiiat. Mazzini nevei said anything dieient fiom
that.
3
Mazzini and Maix aie agieed on this point of capital impoitance, that
the gieat social iefoims which aie to emancipate the pioletaiiat cannot
be iealised except in a gieat demociatic, Republican, veiy poweiful and
stiongly centialised State, which foi the piopei well-being of the people,
in oidei to be able to give themeducation and social welfaie, must impose
on them, by means of theii own vote, a veiy stiong goveinment.
is is essentially the line put foiwaid to-day by Laboui politicians, especially when, in
Austialia, they aie asking foi incieased poweis foi the ledeial Goveinment.
8
lt is always the same Geiman tempeiament and the same logic which
leads the Maixists diiectly and fatally into what we call Bouigeois Social-
ism and to the conclusion of a new political pact between the bouigeois
who aie Radicals, oi who aie foiced to become such and the intelligent,
iespectable, that is to say, duly bouigeoised minoiity of the town pio-
letaiiat to the detiiment of the mass of the pioletaiiat, not only in the
countiy, but in the towns also.
Such is the tiue meaning of woikeis candidatuies to the Pailiaments
of existing States, and that of the conquest of political powei by the
woiking class. loi even fiom the point of view of only the town piole-
taiiat to whose exclusive piot it is desiied to take possession of political
powei, is it not cleai that the populai natuie of this powei will nevei
be anything else than ction` lt will be obviously impossible foi some
hundieds of thousands oi even some tens of thousands oi indeed foi
only a few thousand men to eectively exeicise this powei. ey will
necessaiily exeicise it by pioxy, that is to say, entiust it to a gioup of men
elected by themselves to iepiesent and govein them, which will cause
them without fail to fall back again into all the falsehoods and seivitudes
of the iepiesentative oi bouigeois iegime. Aei a biief moment of libeity
oi ievolutionaiy oigy, citizens of a new State, they will awake to nd
themselves slaves, playthings and victims of new powei-lusteis. One
can undeistand how and why clevei politicians should aach themselves
with gieat passion to a piogiamme which opens such a wide hoiizon to
theii ambition, but that seiious woikeis, who beai in the heaits like a
living ame the sentiment of solidaiity with theii companions in slaveiy
and wietchedness the whole woild ovei, and who desiie to emancipate
themselves not to the detiiment of all but by the emancipation of all, to
be fiee themselves with all and not to become tyiants in theii tuin, that
sinceie toileis could become enamouied of such a piogiamme, that is
much moie dicult to undeistand.
But then, l have a imcondence that in a fewyeais the Geiman woik-
eis themselves, iecognising the fatal consequences of a theoiy which
can only favoui the ambition of theii bouigeois chiefs oi indeed that
of some exceptional woikeis who seek to climb on the shouldeis of
theii comiades in oidei to become dominating and exploiting bouigeois
in theii tuinl have condence that the Geiman woikeis will ieject
9
this theoiy with contempt and wiath, and that they will embiace the
tiue piogiamme of woiking-class emancipation, that of the destiuction
of States, with as much passion as do to-day the woikeis of the gieat
Mediteiianean countiies, liance, Spain, ltaly, as well as the Dutch and
Belgian woikeis.
Meanwhile we iecognise the peifect iight of the Geiman woikeis to
go the way that seems to them best, piovided that they allow us the same
libeity. We iecognise even that it is veiy possible that by all theii histoiy,
theii paiticulai natuie, the state of theii civilisation and theii whole
situation to-day, they aie foiced to go this way. Let then the Geiman,
Ameiican and English toileis tiy to win political powei since they desiie
to do so. But let them allow the toileis of othei countiies to maich with
the same eneigy to the destiuction of all political powei. Libeity foi all,
and a natuial iespect foi that libeity, such aie the essential conditions
of inteinational solidaiity.
e Geiman Social Demociatic Laboui Paity founded in 189 by
Liebknecht and Bebel, undei the auspices of Maix, announced in its
piogiamme that |e conqves o[ o|::co| o+er +os |e re|::nor, conJ:
:on o[ |e econo:c eonc:o:on o[ |e ro|eor:o, and that consequently
the immediate object of the paity must be the oiganisation of a wide-
spiead legal agitation foi the winning of univeisal suiage and of all
othei political iights, its nal aim, the establishment of the gieat pan-
Geiman and so-called Peoples State.
Between this tendency and that of the Alliance [Bakunins oiganisa-
tion] which iejected all political action, not having as immediate and
diiect objective the tiiumph of the woikeis ovei Capitalism, and as a
consequence, the abolition of the State, theie exists the same dieience,
the same abyss, as between the pioletaiiat and the bouigeoisie. e Al-
liance, taking the piogiamme of the lnteinational seiiously, had iejected
contemptuously all compiomise with bouigeois politics, in howevei Rad-
ical and Socialist a guise it might do itself up, advising the pioletaiiat as
the only way of ieal emancipation, as the only policy tiuly salutaiy foi
them, the exclusively nego:+e policy of the demolition of political insti-
tutions, of political powei, of goveinment in geneial, of the State, and as
a necessaiy consequence the inteinational oiganisation of the scaeied
0
foices of the pioletaiiat into ievolutionaiy powei diiected against all the
established poweis of the bouigeoisie.l
e Social Demociats of Geimany, quite on the contiaiy, advised an
the woikeis so unfoitunate as to listen to them, to adopt, as the imme-
diate objective of theii association, legal agitation foi the pieliminaiy
conquest of political iights, they thus suboidinate the movement foi
economic emancipation to the movement ist of all exclusively political,
and by this obvious ieveisal of the whole piogiamme of the lnteinational,
they have lled in at a single stioke the abyss they had opened between
pioletaiiat and bouigeoisie. ey have done moie than that, they have
tied the pioletaiiat in tow with the bouigeoisie. loi it is evident that
all this political movement so boosted by the Geiman Socialists, since
it must piecede the economic ievolution, can only be diiected by the
bouigeois, oi what will be still woise, |, +or|ers rons[oreJ :no |ovr
geo:s |, |e:r o|::on onJ +on:,, and, passing in ieality ovei the head of
the pioletaiiat, like all its piedecessois, this movement will not fail once
moie to condemn the pioletaiiat to be nothing but a blind instiument
inevitably saciiced in the stiuggle of the dieient bouigeois paities
between themselves foi the conquest of political powei, that is to say,
foi the powei and iight to dominate the masses and exploit them. To
whomsoevei doubts it, we should only have to show what is happenings
in Geimany, wheie the oigans of Social Demociacy sing hymns of joy
on seeing a Congiess (at Eisenach) of piofessois of bouigeois political
economy iecommending the pioletaiiat of Geimany to the high and
pateinal piotection of States and in the paits of Switzeiland wheie the
Maixian piogiamme pievails, at Geneva, Zuiich, Basel, wheie the lntei-
national has descended to the point of being no longei anything moie
than a soit of electoial box foi the piot of the Radical bouigeois. ese
incontestable facts seem to me to be moie eloquent than any woids.
ey aie ieal and logical in this sense that they aie a natuial eect
of the tiiumph of Maixian piopaganda. And it is foi that ieason that
we ght the Maixian theoiies to the death, convinced that if they could
tiiumph thioughout the lnteinational, they would ceitainly not fail to
kill at least its spiiit eveiywheie, as they have alieady done in veiy
gieatpait in the countiies just mentioned.
1
e instinctive passion of the masses foi economic equality is so gieat
that if they could hope to ieceive it fiom the hands of despotism, they
would indubitably and without much ieection do as they have oen
done befoie, and delivei themselves to despotism. Happily, histoiic ex-
peiience has been of some seivice even with the masses. To-day, they
aie beginning eveiywheie to undeistand that no despotism has noi can
have, eithei the will oi the powei to give them economic equality. e
piogiamme of the lnteinational is veiy happily explicit on this ques-
tion. e eonc:o:on o[ |e o:|ers cor |e |e +or| on|, o[ |e o:|ers
|ese|+es.
ls it not astonishing that Maix has believed it possible to gia on this
neveitheless so piecise declaiation, which he piobably diaed himself,
his sc:en:c Soc:o|:s` at is to say, the oiganisation and the gov-
einment of the new society by Socialistic scientists and piofessoisthe
woist of all despotic goveinment'
But thanks to this gieat beloved ii ia of the common people, who
will oppose themselves, uiged on, by an instinct invincible as well as just,
to all the goveinmentalist fancies of this lile woiking-class minoiity
alieady piopeily disciplined and maishaled to become the myimidons of
a new despotism, the sc:en:c Soc:o|:s of Maix will always iemain as a
Maixian dieam. is new expeiience, moie dismal peihaps than all past
expeiiences, will be spaied society, because the pioletaiiat in geneial, and
in all countiies is animated to-day by a piofound distiust against what is
political and against all the politicians in the woild, whatevei theii paity
cooloui, all of them having equally deceived, oppiessed, exploitedthe
ieddest Republicans just as much as the most absolutist Monaichists.
2
3
Appendix
4
Appendix A
ln l. Beilins Kor| Mor: H:s L:[e onJ Fn+:ronen (Home Univeisity
Libiaiy) aie iepiinted some passages of Bakunins wiiting which l have
not seen elsewheie and which emphasise his views on the State, and
othei passages on the chaiactei of Maix. e ist selection is as follows
We ievolutionaiy anaichists aie the enemies of all foims of State
and State oiganisations . . . we think that all State iule, all goveinments
being by theii veiy natuie placed outside the mass of the people, must
necessaiily seek to subject it to customs and puiposes entiiely foieign to
it. We theiefoie declaie ouiselves to be foes . . . of all State oiganisations
as such, and believe that the people can only be happy and fiee, when,
oiganised fiom below by means of its own autonomous and completely
fiee associations, without the supeivision of any guaidians, it will cieate
its own life.
We believe powei coiiupts those who wield it as much as those who
aie foiced to obey it. Undei its coiiosive inuence some become gieedy
and ambitious tyiants, exploiting society in theii own inteiest, oi in
that of theii class, while otheis aie tuined into abject slaves. lntellectu-
als, positivists,
1
doctiinaiies, all those who put science befoie life . . .
defend the idea of the state as being the only possible salvation of soci-
etyquite logically since fiom theii false piemises that thought comes
befoie life, that only abstiact theoiy can foim the staiting point of social
piactice . . . they diaw the inevitable conclusion that since such theo-
ietical knowledge is at piesent possessed by veiy few, these few must
be put in possession of social life, not only to inspiie, but to diiect all
populai movements, and that no soonei is the ievolution ovei than a
new social oiganisation must at once be set up, not a fiee association of
populai bodies . . . woiking in accoidance with the needs and instincts
of the people, but a centialised dictatoiial powei, concentiated in the
1
lolloweis of Auguste Comte (19818) foundei of the science of Sociology. ln his latei
wiitings Comte advocated a Religion of Humanity, to be led by a soit of agnostic seculai
piiesthood consisting of scientic intellectuals, who would act as the moial and spiiitual
guides of a new social oidei.