If it’s hard to drink, it’s better to drink right away. Man from the Closet: Molchalin (based on the comedy A

All anarchist movements are opposite and oppose capitalism. This is because capitalism is based on oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject "the assumption that people cannot work together unless they have a leader who takes a percentage of their labor" and they think that in an anarchist society "real workers will make their own rules, decide when, where and how to work." By being able to control the production process, workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism."[Voltaire de Clare, "Anarchism", pp. 30-34, Human!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

We must emphasize that anarchists deny All economic forms based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, the Soviet type of “socialism”, etc. We concentrate our efforts on capitalism only because this type of social organization is now the most widespread.

Anarcho-individualists (Benjamin Tucker) along with anarcho-socialists (Proudhon and Bakunin) declared themselves "socialists". They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay Modern Science and Anarchism,"long before Socialism was understood in its broad and in true sense- like effort cancel exploitation of labor by Capital - Anarchists walked hand in hand with the Socialists of that time.”[Development and Environment , p. 81] Or, in Tucker, “the basis of Socialism is that the results of labor should be the property of the workers,” So what “both schools of Socialist thought... State Socialism and Anarchism” - strive for one result. [ Anarchist Reader, page 144]. Therefore the word "socialist" had an original meaning that included “all those who believed in the right of the individual to own what he or she produced.”[Lance Klufta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," V Anarchy: Journal of Desire Armed, Number 34] This opposition to exploitation is shared by all true anarchists.

For most socialists “The only guarantee that the fruits of your labor will not be taken away is ownership of the means of production.”[P. Kropotkin, Bread and Freedom, p. 145] For this reason, Proudhon, for example, supported workers' cooperatives, where "every individual has his share in the ownership of the enterprise" And “participates in the profits and losses... of the entire team”, Thus “Labor ceases to be a source of profit for a few managers: it becomes the property of all workers. " [General Idea of ​​the Revolution, page 222 and page 223]. Socialists strive to create a society in which workers own and control the means of production. The means by which this result is supposed to be achieved is a controversial point among anarchism and other socialist movements, but the desire is common to all. Anarchists favor direct worker control and management of property in the form of workers' associations or communes (see section 3 on various types anarchists).

In addition, anarchists reject capitalism due to the fact that, in addition to the exploitation of people, it also carries authoritarianism. Under capitalism, workers do not take part in managing the production process and do not own the results of their labor. This situation is based on pseudo-equal freedom for everyone, and at the same time it cannot be non-exploitative, which is why it is disputed by anarchists. This tendency is best revealed in the work of Proudhon, where he argues that "capitalism (private property) has established everywhere a system of wages constituting exploitation; and any worker... will simply be an employee of the owner-capitalist-patron; if he does not participate in the process of managing production... In the first case, the worker is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is obedience... In the second case he is a full-fledged man and citizen... he is an equal owner of the enterprise in which he was formerly a slave... we must not hesitate, since there is no other choice... it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION of workers. ... because without this they would remain exploited, subordinated to the capitalists, and such a society would always consist of two castes... a caste of owners and a caste of workers, which is incompatible with the idea of ​​a free and democratic society." [Favorite prod. pp. 233 and pp. 215-216]

That's why All Anarchists are anti-capitalists. "If labor brought wealth, there would be no capitalism"[Alexander Berkman, Anarcho-communism, page 37]. Benjamin Tucker called his ideas "Anarchist socialism" and condemned capitalism as a system based on "usury, interest, rent and profit." Tucker believed that in an anarchist non-capitalist society, capitalists would become unnecessary and the exploitation of labor by capital would cease, and since then "labor... will... provide only wages". [Anarcho-Individualism, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy would be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between cooperatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other anarcho-individualists, capitalism is not a truly free market, it is controlled by various laws and monopolies that guarantee the superiority of the capitalists over the workers, guaranteeing the exploitation of the latter through profit, interest and rent (see section D). M. Stirner had only contempt for capitalist society and its various “ghosts,” which for him meant ideas that are considered sacred, such as private property, competition, division of labor, etc.

Anarchists consider themselves socialists, but of a certain kind - libertarian socialists . As an anarcho-individualist, Joseph A. Labadie expressed his opinion this way (similar to Tucker and Bakunin): "[I] said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two types of Socialism - authoritarian and anarchic (libertarian), state and free. Indeed, the opinion of each person should either increase or decrease the powers delegated to the management of people. As they increase, they are hierarchical; as they decrease, they are anarchic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Isn't]

Labadie stated that usually "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's comment that “Anarchism is truly synonymous with socialism. An anarchist is first and foremost a socialist whose goal is to abolish the exploitation of man by man.”, is reflected throughout the history of the anarchist movement. [ Anarchism, page 12]. Indeed, Adolf Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact - "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist"- confirming that the anarchist movement was "divided into two factions; communist anarchists and Proudhonist or middle-class anarchists." [Autobiographies of Martyrs, page 81]

Anarcho-socialists and anarcho-individualists have differing opinions on many issues - for example, whether a non-capitalist, free market is the best remedy maximizing freedom. But they all agree that capitalism is exploitative and repressive, and that an anarchist society must counter it with non-wage labor. Only collective work"will reduce the individual's dependence on the influence of external forces" During working hours, therefore, self-government of workers is the basic ideal of real socialism. This tendency is clearly expressed by Joseph Labadie, who argued that trade unions are "prerequisite obtaining freedom of association" So what "without such a union, the worker is much more a slave of the capitalist than with a union."[Various Stages of Labor.]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today, socialism almost always means state socialism, a system that all anarchists opposed as against freedom and true socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with N. Chomsky's statement on this issue: "If the left consciously collaborates with the Bolsheviks, then I would categorically separate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the most ardent enemies of socialism."["Anarchism, Marxism and the Hope of the Future",Red-Black Revolution, Number 2]

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin came to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned Marx's followers against "Red bureaucracy", which means "the worst of all despotic governments", if Marx's state socialist ideas are ever realized. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin predict the horrors of state socialism with great accuracy. In addition, anarchists were the first among critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

However, while being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (but not with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker agree with Marx's dialectical materialism and critique of capitalism, as well as his labor theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was significantly influenced by Max Stirner's book Ego and His Own which contains brilliant critical analysis what Marx called “vulgar” communism, as well as state socialism. Often Marxists had views very similar to social anarchism (especially anarcho-syndicalism) - for example, the views of Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Mattick and other Marxists who were quite far from the views of Lenin. Karl Korsch and other writers sympathized with the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many letters from Marx to Lenin, but there are also a large number of letters from Marx to libertarian Marxists, who were sharply critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas come close to those of anarchism.

Therefore, anarchism is a form of socialism that is in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (that is, state ownership, control and management). Instead of the "central planning" that many associate with the word "socialism", anarchists advocate free association and cooperation between individuals, workers and communities, and thus oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism where “a person becomes a captive of the State, since it is the monopoly payer of wages.”[Benjamin Tucker, Anarcho-Individualism, page 81] Therefore, anarchists reject Marxism (by which most people mean "socialism") because "the ideas of State Capitalism... which the Social Democratic faction of the Socialist Party is now trying to pervert Socialism."[Peter Kropotkin, Great French revolution , page 31] The anarchist objection to the identification of Marxism, "central planning" and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in section H.

Because of these differences with state socialists and to avoid confusion, most anarchists only call themselves "anarchists" since it is taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the development of so-called "libertarianism" in the United States, some pro-capitalist forces accused anarchists of plagiarism, and that is why we focused on this point. Historically and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, that is, socialism, and this position is fully supported by all anarchists; it has been discussed by them more than once, and, in particular, the problem of anarcho-capitalism, which is recognized by almost all anarchists, is not quite an “anarchist” movement. (See section F).

Freedom Equal for All Tucker Benjamin Ricketson

State socialism and anarchism. (What are their similarities and what are their differences)

In all likelihood, no agitation, either in the number of its supporters or in the degree of its influence, has ever achieved such strength as modern socialism; at the same time, no doctrine has been so misinterpreted as socialism; and not only by their opponents and the indifferent masses, but also by friendly people and even by the vast majority of supporters. This unpleasant and extremely dangerous state of affairs is due in part to the fact that the human relations which this movement (if so chaotic a phenomenon can be called a movement) seeks to transform are not inherent in any particular class or several classes, but literally in the whole of humanity; partly because by their nature these relations are infinitely more complex and varied than those with which social reformers had to deal; and, finally, by the fact that the great creative forces of society, the means of education and communication, are at the almost exclusive disposal of those whose immediate pecuniary interests are contrary to the fundamental demand of socialism - namely, that labor should own what belongs to it.

Perhaps the only people who even approximately understand the meaning, basic provisions and goals of socialism are the main leaders of the extreme flanks of the socialist forces, and perhaps even some of the money kings. It is truly remarkable that both wings of the huge army that interests us in given time, united general requirement so that labor receives what is due to it, in the basic principles of social tactics and methods of achieving the desired goal, they diverge more diametrically from each other than from their common enemy, the dominant social order. They proceed from two principles, tracing the history of which is tantamount to tracing the history of the world from the moment man appeared in it; nevertheless, intermediate parties, including those defending the existing system, are based on a compromise of these two principles. This means that it is clear that any reasonable and deep opposition to the existing order must come from one or another extreme camp; any other movement, far from revolutionary protest, can only strive for superficial changes, and therefore is unable to focus on itself as much attention and interest as is given to modern socialism.

These two principles are the essence of Power and Freedom, and the schools of socialist thought, which fully and unconditionally represent both directions, are called state socialism and anarchism. Anyone who knows what these schools want and how they propose to achieve their goal understands what the socialist movement is. Just as there is no home, according to the proverb, halfway between Rome and Reason, so there is no home halfway between state socialism and anarchism. Two currents constantly emanate from the center of socialist forces, concentrating them on the left and right flanks; and if socialism had won, it is quite possible that after the division of the flanks, after the existing order had been crushed, a final and even more bitter struggle would have arisen between the two camps.

The economic foundations of modern socialism are logical conclusion from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of The Wealth of Nations - namely, that labor is the true measure of value. But Adam Smith, having formulated this principle in a clear and concise form, immediately abandoned further study of it, intending to show how value is actually measured and how wealth is currently distributed. From this time on, almost all political economists, following his example, limited their task to the description of society in its present state, its modern industrial and commercial stages. Socialism, on the contrary, sets as its task the description of society as it should be, as well as the discovery of means by which it can be made as it should be. In fifty seconds extra years After Smith made his position public, socialism picked it up where Smith left it and, following it to its final logical conclusions, made it the foundation of a new economic philosophy.

Apparently this was done independently by three by different people, three different nationalities, in three different languages: by the American Joshua Warren; Frenchman Pierre Proudhon; German Jew Karl Marx. That Warren and Proudhon reached their conclusions independently and independently of each other is beyond doubt; but it is possible that Marx owed much of his economic ideas to Proudhon. Be that as it may, Marx's presentation of these ideas is so imbued with his personal creativity that he can rightfully claim originality in this area. The fact that this interesting triumvirate was working almost simultaneously seems to indicate that socialism was already in the air, and that the time and conditions were favorable for the emergence of this new school philosophical thought, are already ripe.

From Smith's proposition that labor is the true measure of value—or, as Warren puts it, that value is the true measure of price—these three gentlemen drew the following conclusions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage or product is the only fair source of income (not counting, of course, donations, inheritance, etc.); that all who receive income from another source shall deduct it, directly or indirectly, from the natural and just wages of labour; that this process of subtraction usually takes one of three forms—interest, rent, and profit; that these three things constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply three different ways of exacting tribute to capital; that since capital is simply accumulated labor that has already received its full payment, it must be free, on the principle that labor is the only basis of value; that a person lending capital has the right only to receive it back without prejudice, and nothing more; What the only reason that the banker, the stockbroker, the landowner, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to extort a surplus from labor, is because they have a legal privilege or monopoly behind them; So what the only way to ensure that labor enjoys the full product, or natural wages, is to abolish the monopoly.

It must not be thought that Warren, Proudhon, or Marx literally expressed themselves in such words, or thought to say literally what is stated above; but I have quite accurately outlined the main essence of their ideas within the limits to which they went together.

It was at this point - on the issue of the need to destroy the monopoly - that their paths diverged. The road forked. They saw that they had to turn either to the right or to the left—to go either the path of power or the path of freedom. Marx took one road; Warren and Proudhon are different. This is how state socialism and anarchism were born.

Let us deal first with State Socialism, which may be called the doctrine that all human affairs should be conducted by the government, regardless of the individual's personal wishes.

Its founder, Marx, came to the conclusion that it is possible to destroy class monopolies only by concentrating and consolidating all industrial and commercial interests, all production and distribution forces in the hands of the state, as one huge monopoly. The government must become banker, manufacturer, landowner, transporter and merchant, and in all these fields must tolerate no competition. Land, tools, all instruments of production must be removed from the possession of private individuals and become the property of the collective whole. An individual or a private person should own the products to be consumed, and not the means of producing them. A man may be the owner of his clothes and food, but not the sewing machine that makes his shirt, or the shovel with which he digs his potatoes. Product and capital are two things that are essentially different from each other; the first belongs to individuals, the second to society. Society must seize the capital that belongs to them, if possible, by force of vote, and if not, then by revolutionary means. Having once taken possession of it, it must govern it according to the principle of the majority, through the medium of its organ, the state; utilize it for the purposes of production and distribution, set all prices in accordance with the amount of labor expended, and give the whole people work in their workshops, farms, shops, etc. The nation must turn into a gigantic bureaucratic mechanism, and each individual into a government official. Everything should be done on the principle of value, so that people will not be motivated to seek profit. Since individuals are not allowed to have capital, no one can hire another, or even be hired himself. Everyone will be a worker, and only the state will be the employer. Anyone who does not want to work for the state will have to die of hunger, or, more likely, go to prison. All free trade will have to disappear. Competition will disappear without a trace. All industrial and commercial activity will have to be concentrated in one broad, huge, all-encompassing monopoly. The remedy for monopoly is monopoly.

This is the economic program of state socialism according to Karl Marx.

What the further development of this principle of power will lead to, if applied to the economic sphere, is not difficult to guess. It will lead to the absolute control of the majority over the behavior of the individual. The right of such supervision is already recognized by state socialists, although they maintain that in reality the individual will be given much more freedom than he currently enjoys. But it will only be provided to him; he will not be able to claim it as something inalienable. Society will not be built on the guarantee of equal enjoyment of the widest freedom possible.

Freedom will only be tolerable and can be taken away at any moment. Constitutional guarantees will be powerless. In a country of state socialism there will be only one constitutional paragraph: “The right of the majority is indisputable.”

State socialist assertion that this right will not be exercised in cases concerning the most intimate and private parties individual life, is by no means confirmed by the history of governments. Power has always strived to grow stronger, to expand its sphere, to step over the boundaries allotted to it; and where the habit of resisting such temptation is not encouraged, and the individual is not accustomed to jealously guard his rights, individuality little by little disappears, and the government or state becomes the omnipotent factor of life. Control, of course, comes with responsibility. Therefore, under the system of state socialism, which considers society responsible for the health, material security and sanity of the individual, society, represented by its majority, will, of course, increasingly strive to regulate hygienic and other living conditions, will destroy, and in the end will completely kill personal independence, and with it any sense of individual responsibility.

Whatever the state socialists may affirm or refute, their system must eventually degenerate into state religion, which everyone is obliged to support with their own means and at the altar of which everyone will have to kneel; to the state school of medicine, from whose representatives all patients will be required to be treated; V state system hygiene prescribing what everyone should eat, drink, wear and do, and what they should not; a state code of morality, which will not be content with punishing crimes, but will prohibit everything that the majority recognizes as vice; a state system of public education, which will abolish all private schools, academies and gymnasiums; a state nursery, in which all children will have to be raised together, at the expense of the state; and finally, a state family, in which a man and a woman will not be able to have children if the state prohibits them from doing so, and no one will be able to refuse to have children if the state demands it. So power will reach its culminating point, and Monopoly will reach its highest power.

This is the ideal of consistent socialist statists, and the goal that lies at the end of the path outlined by Karl Marx. Now let us follow Warren and Proudhon, who followed a different path - the path of Freedom.

It leads us to anarchism, which may be characterized as the doctrine that all human affairs should be conducted by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished.

When Warren and Proudhon, in their search for justice for labor, encountered the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested on power; from this they concluded that it was necessary not to strengthen this power and thereby give the monopoly a universal character, but, on the contrary, to completely eradicate power and give full development to the opposite principle, freedom, making competition, the direct opposite of monopoly, universal. They saw competition as a powerful means of bringing prices down to the labor cost of production. Naturally, the question arose as to why all prices do not fall to labor value; where to include income received from a source other than labor; in a word, why there is a usurer, a recipient of interest, rent and profit. The explanation was found in the current one-sidedness of competition. It turned out that capital has arranged legislation in such a way that unlimited competition is left to man in the sphere of supply of productive labor, as a result of which wages are kept at a level of malnutrition close to starvation; What greater freedom competition is provided to him in the sphere of distribution, or trade, intermediary labor, due to which not the prices of goods, but the commercial profit from them is kept at a level approximately corresponding to fair remuneration for trade labor; but almost no competition is allowed in the supply of capital, on which both productive and distributive labor depend, due to which the amount of monetary interest, rent and ground rent is kept at an unbearable height for the people.

Marx, as we have seen, solved this by declaring capital to be a thing distinct from a product; he argued that capital belongs to society, should be captured by society and used for the common good. Proudhon laughed at this difference between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product were not two different kinds of wealth, but were simply variable conditions or functions of the same wealth; that all wealth undergoes a constant transformation from capital into product and from product again into capital, and this process continues endlessly; that capital and product are purely social terms; that what is a product for one person immediately becomes capital for another, and vice versa; that if there were only one person in the world, then all wealth would be for him both capital and product; that the fruit of one man's labor is his product, which, when sold to another man, becomes that other man's capital; that a steam engine is as much a product as a coat, and a coat is as much capital as a steam engine, and that the ownership of both the former and the latter is subject to the same laws of justice.

For these and other reasons, Proudhon and Warren did not consider it possible to approve such a measure as the seizure of capital by society. However, opposing the socialization of the right of ownership of capital, they sought to socialize its consequences, making the use of capital beneficial for all, whereas it usually serves as a means of enriching the few at the expense of the ruin of the many. They saw that this could be achieved by subordinating capital to the natural law of competition, which would reduce the price of using it to the level of cost - that is, the costs necessary to manage and move capital. Then they unfurled the banner Absolute Freedom Trade, freedom of both domestic and foreign trade. Under this banner they began to fight against monopolies, be it the all-encompassing monopoly of state socialists or the various class monopolies that dominate today.

From these latter they identified four monopolies of primary importance: the coin monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly and the patent monopoly.

The first in its harmfulness is the coin monopoly, which consists in the privilege granted by the government to certain persons, or persons owning certain types of property, to the right to issue exchange notes. It is argued that the holders of this privilege set the level of interest, the rental price of houses and premises and the price of goods - the first directly, the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if banking were accessible to everyone, then everything would join this specialty. larger number individuals, until strong competition would reduce wages for money to labor costs, which, as statistics show, is less than three-quarters of one percent.

In this case, thousands of people who are now not engaged in business because of the incredibly high interest rate that they have to pay for the initial capital would not have encountered any difficulties in obtaining a loan. If they have property that they wish to turn into money by selling, the bank will take it as security for a loan in the amount of the market price, taking into account less than one percent. If they have no property, but are hardworking, honest and capable, then they will find a sufficient number of reliable guarantors and receive a loan against a bill, and on the most favorable terms. Thus usury will be killed with one blow. Banks, in essence, will no longer lend capital, but will conduct business with the capital of their clients; these things will consist of exchanging the known and living credit of banks for the unknown and dead, but equally good credit of clients and charging for this less than one percent, not in the form of profit for the use of capital, but in the form of payment for labor in maintaining a banking affairs. Such ease of obtaining capital will give business an unprecedented boost and, consequently, will create an unprecedented demand for labor - a demand that will always exceed supply, whereas at present we observe in the market a completely opposite picture. Then the words of Richard Cobden will come true that when there are two workers for one owner, then wages fall, but when there are two employers for one worker, then wages rise. Labor will be able to dictate its terms, it will provide itself with a natural wage, a full product. The same blow that kills the pawnbroker will push wages up. But that's not all. Profits will also fall. For merchants, instead of buying at a high price on credit, will borrow money from banks for an insignificant percentage, less than one, and buy at a cheap price with cash, which means they will lower prices for their customers. And then the rent will fall. For no one, having the opportunity to borrow capital from one percent and build a house with it, will voluntarily pay the owner a rent exceeding one percent. Such is the horizon presented to Proudhon and Warren by the simple abolition of the monetary monopoly.

The second place in importance is occupied by land monopoly, the bad fruits of which are especially noticeable in purely agricultural countries. This monopoly consists of the government's consolidation of land holdings that are not based on personal occupation or cultivation. It was clear to Warren and Proudhon that as soon as individuals were deprived of the support of their neighbors in everything that was not personal possession or cultivation of the land, then land rent would disappear, and extortion would lose another of its foundations. Their followers are inclined to modify this statement to the effect that a very small part of the rent, based not on monopoly, but on the superiority of soil or location, will continue to exist for some time, and perhaps forever; although in conditions of freedom it will continuously strive for a minimum. But the qualitative inequality of soils, which gives rise to economic rent for land, just like the inequality of human talents, which gives rise to economic rent of talent, does not pose a serious threat even in the eyes of the most implacable enemies of extortion; in nature they do not have the embryo from which other, more important inequalities grow; rather, they can be likened to a dying branch, which sooner or later rots and falls off.

The third, tariff, monopoly consists in encouraging production in non- favorable conditions and at high prices by taxing those who patronize the production of low prices and in favorable conditions. The evil resulting from this monopoly would be more accurately called poverty rather than covetousness, for it forces labor to pay not for the use of capital, but rather for the non-use of it. The abolition of this monopoly would entail a strong reduction in the prices of not all taxed items, and the savings thus formed among consumer-workers would give them the opportunity to take another step towards providing themselves with natural wages. Proudhon admitted, however, that the abolition of this monopoly earlier than the monetary monopoly would be a cruel and disastrous measure; firstly because the shortage of money - the result of a monetary monopoly - would increase due to the outflow of money abroad, which would entail an excess of imports over exports, and secondly because part of the workers currently employed in protected branches of industry would find herself on the verge of starvation, without finding immediate use of her powers. Freedom of coinage within the country, which would entail an abundance of money and work, is, according to Proudhon, a precondition for the free exchange of goods with abroad.

The fourth, patent, monopoly consists in protecting authors and inventors from competition for a long period of time, giving them the opportunity to extort from the people a reward immeasurably greater than labor value their services; in other words, it consists of giving some people whole line years of ownership of laws and natural phenomena, and the right to collect tribute from other people for the use of this natural wealth, which should be available to everyone. The abolition of this monopoly will instill in those who enjoy it a saving fear of competition, which will force them to be content with a remuneration for their services that does not exceed the remuneration of other workers; but this will also ensure their reward, for from the very beginning they will put their labor and products on the market at such low prices that their specialty will no more tempt competitors than any other.

The logical development of the economic program, which consists in the destruction of these monopolies and replacing them with the most free competition, led its authors to the conclusion that their ideas are built on a single basic principle - the beginning of individual freedom, its right of sovereignty, i.e., supreme power over oneself, the products of their labor and their deeds, and their unwillingness to obey the dictates of external authority. How the idea of ​​taking capital away from private individuals and transferring it to the government led Marx down a path at the end of which he would inevitably have to recognize everything in the state and nothing in the individual; so the idea of ​​withdrawing capital from government-protected monopolies and making it available on preferential terms to individuals led Warren and Proudhon onto a path at the end of which the individual would be everything and the government nothing. If the individual has the right to govern himself, then any external government is tyranny. Therefore, it is necessary to abolish the state. This was the logical conclusion to which Warren and Proudhon naturally arrived, and it became the cornerstone of their political philosophy. This is the doctrine that Proudhon called anarchism, a word in Greek meaning not the absence of order, as many people think, but the absence of government. Anarchists believe that “the best government is the one that governs the least,” and the government that governs the least is not a government at all. They deny to a government that relies on compulsory taxation of citizens even the simple police function of protecting persons and property. Such protection, so far as it is necessary, they consider it possible to organize by voluntary association and cooperation for the purpose of protection, which can be sold, like any other commodity, by those who offer it of the best quality at the cheapest price. In their view, forcing a person to pay for or receive protection from an attack that he did not ask for and does not want is also an attack. They argue, further, that when poverty, and with it vice, disappears after the implementation of their economic program, protection will become a unnecessary commodity. For them, forced taxation is the lifeblood of all monopolies, and passive but organized resistance to the tax collector will in due time play the role of one of the most effective means to achieve their goals.

Their position on this issue also characterizes their attitude to all other issues of a political or economic nature. In religion they are atheists, so far as their own convictions are concerned, for in divine authority and the religious sanction of morality they see the main pretext put forward privileged classes for the exercise of human power. “If God exists,” said Proudhon, “then he is the enemy of man.” And in contrast famous phrase Voltaire: “If God did not exist, then it would be necessary to invent him,” the great Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin put forward his position: “If God existed, then it would be necessary to abolish him.” And yet, considering the spiritual hierarchy a hostile anarchy and not recognizing God, anarchists firmly stand for the freedom to believe in him. They are ardently opposed to any restriction of religious freedom.

While defending the right of every individual to be his own shepherd or to choose one, they at the same time proclaim the right of the individual to be his own doctor or to freely choose one for himself. Neither the monopoly of theology nor the monopoly of medicine. Competition in everything and always; spiritual advice or medical advice alike must be maintained only by the strength of one’s dignity. This principle of freedom must be observed not only in medicine, but also in hygiene. An individual has the right to decide not only what to do to have a piece of bread, but also what to do to be healthy. No external authority can tell a person what he can or cannot eat, drink, wear or do.

Likewise, anarchist philosophy does not provide a moral code that can be imposed on the individual. “Know yours” is the only one moral code anarchist. Interfering in other people's affairs is a crime, and, moreover, the only one that can be resisted with appropriate measures. Accordingly, anarchists consider the very attempts to eradicate vice through arbitrariness criminal. They are convinced that freedom and the general prosperity associated with it are the most reliable cure for all vices. But they recognize the right of the drunkard, the gambler, the prostitute and the reveler to continue their way of life until they voluntarily give it up.

As for raising and educating children, anarchists will not establish a communist kindergarten in the spirit of socialist-statists, nor to patronize school system currently dominant. A nanny and a teacher, just like a doctor and a priest, must be chosen by the free will of the parent, and their services must be paid for by those who care for the children. Parental rights should not be taken away from a person, just as parental responsibility should not be given to others.

Anarchists do not hesitate to apply their principles to such a delicate area as relations between the sexes. They recognize and defend the right of every man and woman to love each other for as long as they want or can. For anarchists, legal marriage and legal divorce are equally absurd. They hope that the time will come when every individual, whether man or woman, will live on his own, will have own home– whether a separate building or an apartment in a multi-storey building; when the love relationships between these independent individuals will be as varied as individual inclinations and inclinations are varied; and when the children born from such relations will belong exclusively to their mothers until they are old enough to belong to themselves.

These are the main features social ideal anarchy. But anarchists differ greatly on the question of the best way achieving it. This ideal is completely at odds with the ideal of the communists, who call themselves anarchists, and at the same time defend the regime of archism, a power as despotic as the state of the socialists. This ideal is as difficult to bring closer by the violent expropriation recommended by Johann Most and Prince Kropotkin, as it is to distance it by the court sentences that sent these writers to prison; it is an ideal whose triumph the Chicago martyrs contributed far more to by their glorious death on the scaffold for a common cause than during their lifetime by their unsuccessful defense, in the name of anarchism, of force as a revolutionary agent, and of power as the guardian of the new social order. Anarchism sees freedom as both an end and a means, and is hostile to everything that contradicts it.

I would not begin to summarize this already too summary sketch of socialism from the point of view of anarchism, if this task had not already been completed before me by the brilliant French journalist and historian Ernest Lezin, in the form of a series of antitheses; I will take the liberty of citing them in the hope of deepening the impression I would like to make in this work.

“There are two socialisms.

One is communist, the other is solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other is libertarian.

One is metaphysical, the other is positive.

One is dogmatic, the other is scientific.

One is emotional, the other is based on reflection.

One is destructive, the other is creative.

Both strive for the greatest welfare for all that is possible.

One strives to establish happiness for everyone, the other wants to give everyone the opportunity to be happy in their own way.

The first sees in the state a society sui generis, of a special nature, a product of some divine right, standing outside and above any other society; it is endowed with special rights and may require special obedience. The second considers the state to be the same association as any other, moreover, governed by general rule worse than any others.

The first proclaims the supremacy of the state, the second does not recognize any sovereignty.

One wants all monopolies to be in the hands of the state; the other wants the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes for the governed class to become the ruling class; the other wants the disappearance of all class divisions.

Both declare that the existing order of things cannot continue.

The first considers revolution a necessary factor in evolution; the second teaches that only repression transforms evolution into revolution.

The first one believes in a coup.

The second knows that social progress is determined by the free manifestation of individual forces.

Both recognize that we are entering a new phase of history.

One wants there to be only proletarians.

Another wishes that there were no proletarians at all.

The first one wants to take everything from everyone.

The second wants to leave everyone what belongs to them.

One wants to expropriate everyone.

Another wants everyone to be an owner.

The first says: “Do what the government wants.”

The second says: “Do what you want.”

The first threatens despotism.

The second promises freedom.

The first makes the citizen a subject of the state.

The second makes the state the servant of the citizen.

One announces that the birth of a new world will be fraught with suffering.

Another states that true progress will not cause suffering to anyone.

The first believes in social war.

The second one believes only in peaceful work.

One seeks to command, regulate, legislate.

The other wants to reduce to a minimum the need to command, regulate, legislate.

The first would be followed by the most severe reaction.

The second will open up boundless horizons for progress.

The first one will fail; the second one will succeed.

Both want equality.

One of them considers it necessary to bend their heads, which are raised too high, to do this.

Another is to raise heads that are bowed too low.

One sees equality in general submission to the yoke.

The other wants to provide him with complete freedom.

One is intolerant, the other is tolerant.

One intimidates, the other encourages.

One wants to teach everyone.

Another wants to give everyone the opportunity to learn on their own.

The first one wants to support everyone.

The second wants to give everyone the opportunity to support themselves.

One says:

Land for the state.

Ore - to the state.

The instrument of labor belongs to the state.

The product goes to the state.

Another says:

The land is for the farmer.

Ore to the miner.

The tool of labor is for the worker.

Product - to the manufacturer.

There are only two socialisms.

One is in the childhood stage; the other is in the stage of mature courage.

One belongs to the past; the other is for the future.

One will give way to the other.

Everyone must choose one or the other socialism or admit that he is not a socialist at all.”