SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM

 By MOSES BARITZ.

The unitiated have been misled in thinking that Anarchism is an advance on Socialism. That the former is a system that will come after Socialism and will be on a higher plane, etc., etc.
There never was a greater delusion. The facts are the other way. First, their is no anarchist system as such; secondly, the evolution of society points the opposite way.

There is not a solitary point in the Marxian system, that in any manner is in harmony with the views of the multitude of individuals who proclaim the (greatness) of Anarchism. Socialism is scientific, Anarchism is the reverse. Socialism is in line with the evolutionary theory of society; Anarchism is not. Socialism based upon the materialist conception of history. Anarchism upon the bourgeois system. Socialism proclaims the existence of a class struggle; Anarchism opposes that view. Marxism demonstrates the concentration of capital; Anarchism stands by the decentralisation theory.
Marxism proves the growth of the proletariat and the dissolution of the middle class; Anarchism contends that the small owners are growing.
Socialism predicates a democratic system ; Anarchism advocates the abolition of authority. Marxism lays the basis of working class exploitation to surplus values; Anarchists deny it.
Marxism shows the fact that classes exist, arising from the social system, the system producing these men; Anarchism states the opposite. And now to prove the case.
The scientific basis of Socialism is the materialist conception of history. It formulates the propelling forces operating in society, and deals with the development of masses, and NOT individuals. With social classes and not with isolated beings. Its essence may be summed up in the two following  sentences.
"The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Any person but an unthinking anarchist will realise the potency of those lines. It means that the ideas in any given stage of society are a product of the method of production, which, develops them. It means that ideas emanate from the social process, and that the social conditions produce the classes. The material foundation of society brings with it the reflex, of those conditions. But above all, it shows that morals are the result, of social conditions, instead of social conditions being the outcome of a system of morality.
This is in contrast and opposition to the Anarchist who, being unscientific, thinks that conditions, such as they are, are the result of the act of one or two individuals. Which naturally draws them to the conclusion that if you remove the individual, by death or any such means, that the system they were the product of, would thereby be destroyed. It is because of the ignorance of the Anarchist of the SOCIAL forces operating in human society that he becomes an assassin, or inflames others to perform like deeds AND ASSASSINATIONS HAVE BEEN PART OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF PROPAGANDA BY THE ANARCHISTS.
The science of Marxism is clear when the question of the class struggle is taken under advisement. There it was that both Marx and Engels predated the discovery of Darwin and Wallace, in that the former had already shown the law of development in human society. Or, as Engels said, at the grave of Marx,
"Just as Darwin discovered the law of development in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development in human society."
And the law of human development is the struggle of the classes throughout history, the work of Darwin and Wallace was to show the struggle for existence on the biological field.
And NO Anarchist accepts the materialist conception of history, for if they did, they would not advocate killing individuals as a means of getting rid of a system. If they do advocate violence, it is only because they do NOT understand the social forces.
It is very curious to have to deal with Bakunin, for he was the first to translate the "Communist Manifesto" into Russian, and it was published at his friend Alexander Herzen's newspaper office at Geneva in 1863. Bakunin, though he translated the work which is the foundation of Socialist literature, and the most illuminating document in history, did not realise the importance of it. For he lays down in his "Revolutionary Catechism,"
"The revolutionist is a man under a vow. He ought to have no personal interests, no business, no feelings, no property. He ought to be ready to die, to endure torment, and with HIS OWN HANDS TO KILL ALL who place obstacles in the way of Revolution."
Can there be anything so perverted? Here is an individual, who thinks that his social status in society is the result of a desire. If that were so, there would be no poverty and most likely nothing else. We have interests, but they are class interests. If Bakunin were correct, there is no such thing as a class struggle. But that is not all. Bakunin's opposition to Marx was originally provoked because of an article Marx wrote in the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" on Feb. 14th. 1849. where Marx stated, that a section of the Slavs had no future, because they lacked historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions. This incensed Bakunin who in the simplicity of his ignorance, asked "What has that to do with the matter?" An evidence that Bakunin did not understand the influence of social conditions upon a nation or people.
Bakunin was always an advocate of force, and was good enough to admit to his friend Alexander Herzen that Marx and Engels were right after all. This was after Bakunin wanted what he called the "equalisation of classes." It was in 1869 when Bakunin got into the International. Marx was  not present at that meeting, and he soon demonstrated the ignorance of Bakunin, by writing the famous letter dealing with the class struggle. Marx pointed out that what was wanted was the ABOLITION of classes, not, as Bakunin wanted, their "Equalisation."
Bakunin soon found himself beaten and admitted it too. His friend Herzen, had a surprise one day by getting a letter from Bakunin, in which he stated that Marx was 'a giant.' Herzen replied asking if he meant it. Bakunin sent this answer:
August 28th. 1869.
"Why did I call him a giant? Because in justice it is impossible to deny him greatness. I cannot deny his immense service in the cause of Socialism which he has served wisely, energetically, and truly for the 25 years of my acquaintance with him, and in which he undoubtedly excelled us all. He was one of the founders of the International Society, and that is in my opinion an excellent merit, which I will always acknowledge, his attitude towards me notwithstanding."
Later, about two years afterwards, Bakunin again wrote to Herzen, regarding the armed insurrection, He said: "When I think of it now, I must say frankly that Marx and Engels were right. They truly estimated the affairs of those days."
Bakunin was an advocate of organisation, and favored a system of electing delegates to form a central council which would have an "imperative mandate."
As Marx pointed out in a reply to Bakunin, that a central authority with an inoperative mandate would be leaving the power in the hands of an executive committee to which Bakunin had always been opposed. For did not Bakunin write in his "The Socialism of Mazzini" that "the possession of power transformed into a tyrant the most devoted friend of liberty." The Anarchists have always protested against "authority," as against the system of social democracy, but that did not prevent them from forming an ELECTED international committee when the Anarchist Congress was held in Amsterdam.
Perhaps now we will deal with others who cannot understand the development of society. The famous bourgeois idol of America, Emma Goldman, has time after time, denied the existence of social forces, though she talks of it in her "Social Significance of the Modern Drama." In her first essay on Anarchism, in her book on "Anarchism and other Essays," she actually has the nerve to tell her reader that there would have been no abolition of slavery in the United States if it had not been for John Brown, (He was lynched by a crowd of slave-owners and their sympathisers at Harper's Ferry in 1859.)
To Emma Goldman as with most anarchists, the Civil War in America was not the outcome of the growth of capitalist industry, which necessitated a free market for the obtaining of labor power, but due to the ethical actions of Wendell, Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and the other abolitionists. In fact anarchists like Emma Goldman, cannot be expected to realise the significance of that question when the reader will note that Lewis Henry Morgan, the author of the greatest work of Ethnology, yet printed, "Ancient Society," and the "League of the Iroquois," etc., actually supported the Southerners in the interpretation of Constitution dealing with the holding of slaves.
(Morgan was elected as a Republican in the -New York State Assembly in November 1860, and the writer has seen the resolution he moved in January, 1861 in the 'Journals of the Assembly.' But it maybe pointed out that Morgan's work on 'Ancient Society' had not yet been compiled.)
Though Emma Goldman does not and will not believe in "authority" it is significant that she has lent herself to agitations that have had for their basis the release of prisoners from various gaols, etc.
Another woman anarchist, by far more illustrious than Emma Goldman, was Louise Michel, the 'Red Virgin.' She believed in the 'deed' and was responsible for this view : 'To strike down men personally responsible for the slavery and oppression of a whole nation there can be no more hesitation than to destroy a viper, or knock the poor shewolf with her young ones. Tyrants are doomed to die, no pity can be shown them.
The constantly recurring assassination of monarchs, and 'rulers,' is due to this kind of foolish propaganda. Even political assassination is (nothing but) the work of a destitute brain, inflamed by the ridiculous propaganda of the Anarchists. They fail to learn that the system of society is a growth in the evolutionary process, and that we are the products of the process. The remedy lies not in the hands of a few individuals, but by the action of a social class acting for its CLASS interests. To the anarchist there is NO class struggle, and consequently he seeks to wreak vengeance upon an individual who like himself is a product of the system.
Then, as if not to try and understand the system, the anarchists wilfuly advocate all kinds of silly notions regarding the amelioration of conditions. No anarchist yet, except it be Prince Peter Kropotkin, has endeavoured to give a system of 'economies.' and even he makes a botch of it. Kropotkin his 'Conquest of Bread' he tries to show that there is no such thing as Surplus Value. And further that it is not an evil of this system.
This is, of course, in opposition to Marxian economics. To understand this, we must ask the question what is Surplus Value? It is the portion in the means of life that the workers create, that causes their destitution. IT IS THE VERY BASE OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION. It is the taking of the surplus value, that distinguishes this system from any other. Surplus Value is that portion of production in capitalist Society that the workers create, but for which they receive no equivalent. - Hit of it are sustained the master class- their armies, navies, and their "charitable institutions. "
As soon as the workers dispossess the master class, there will be no surplus value created. Social production will be socially owned. The existence of surplus value permits of the retention of a parasite class, who live by taking the pro ducts from I he working class. Robbery within the system, is only possible by the creation of surplus value. YET KROPOTKIN SAYS THAT THERE IS NO EVIL IN IT!
Proudhon, who was —according to the anarchists—the 'Father of Anarchism,' was so scientific, that he told the electors when he was standing for Deputy — taking political action mind you— that the interests of the masters and slaves were identical. He told them that, they ought shake hands, etc.
Other advocates have taught the policy of anarchists acting as petty thieves, such as Netchajeff. Nor is he by any means alone.
Others, though anarchists believe in voluntary (?) organisation, have openly avowed the necessity of organisation such as Malatesta. who at the debate in Amsterdam at the International Anarchist Congress in 1907, said the poor should have an organisation greater even than the 'rich.' Emma Goldman attacked him, but> . . . .illegible . . .< The fact remains, however, that industry is being developed to such an extent, that it now rests in a few hands. The growth of monopolies in trade, cannot exist without its social equivalent, namely, the greater degradation of the working class. The constant effort by the workers to get more out of what they create, is only an evidence NOT OF THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIAL CONDITIONS, but of the deterioration of those conditions. To the thinker, the result is plain. Emancipation from a system that is based on the socialisation of labour, can only be accomplished by a social class. The activities of a social class can only be determined by the majority of the consensus of opinion of that class. That makes the whole project of Anarchism superfluous and — ridiculous.

International Socialist (Sydney, NSW : 1910 - 1920), Saturday 5 April 1919, page 1