In chapter three of his pamphlet Socialism from Below, David
McNally decides to expose (what he calls) "The Myth Of Anarchist
Libertarianism." In reality, his account is so distorted and,
indeed, dishonest that all it proves is that Marxists will go
to extreme lengths to attack anarchist ideas. As Brain Morris
points out, defending the Leninist tradition and ideology "implies
. . . a compulsive need to rubbish anarchism." [Ecology &
Anarchism, p. 128] McNally's pamphlet is a classic example of
this. As we will prove, his "case" is a mish-mash of illogical
assertions, lies and, when facts do appear, their use is simply
a means of painting a false picture of reality.
He begins by noting that "Anarchism is often considered to represent
[a] current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian.
It is hailed in some quarters as the only true political philosophy [of]
freedom." Needless to say, he thinks that the "reality is quite
different." He argues that "[f]rom its inception anarchism has
been a profoundly anti-democratic doctrine. Indeed the two most
important founders of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael
Bakunin, developed theories that were elitist and authoritarian to
the core." We will discover the truth of this assertion later.
However, we must note that McNally uses the typical Marxist approach
to attacking anarchism -- namely to attack anarchists rather than
anarchism as such. Indeed, he lamely notes that "[w]hile later
anarchists may have abandoned some of the excesses' of their
founding fathers their philosophy remains hostile to ideas of
mass democracy and workers' power." Thus, we have the acknowledgement
that not all anarchists share the same ideas and that anarchist
theory has developed since 1876 (the year of Bakunin's death).
This is to be expected as anarchists are not Proudhonists or
Bakuninists -- we do not name ourselves after one person,
rather we take what is useful from libertarian writers and
ignore the rubbish. In Malatesta's words, "[w]e follow ideas
and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle
in a man." [Life and Ideas, p. 199] However, this is beside the point as
McNally's account of the anarchism of Proudhon and Bakunin
is simply false -- indeed, so false as to make you wonder if
he is simply incompetent as a scholar or seeks to present a
patchwork of lies as fact and "theory."
McNally does start out by acknowledging that "anarchism developed
in opposition to the growth of capitalist society. What's more,
anarchist hostility to capitalism centred on defence of the
liberty of the individual." However, he then distorts this actual
historical development by arguing that "the liberty defended by
the anarchists was not the freedom of the working class to make
collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the freedom
of the small property owner -- the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman --
against the encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise."
Such a position is, to say the least, a total distortion of the
facts of the situation. Proudhon, for example, addressed himself
to both the peasant/artisan and the proletariat. He argued in What
is Property? that he "preach[ed] emancipation to the proletaires;
association to the labourers." [p. 137] Thus Proudhon addressed
himself to both the peasant/artisan and the "working class"
(i.e. wage slaves). This is to be expected from a libertarian
form of socialism as, at the time of his writing, the majority
of working people were peasants and artisans . Indeed, this
predominance of artisan/peasant workers in the French economy
lasted until the turn of the century. Not to take into account
the artisan/peasant would have meant the dictatorship of a
minority of working people over the rest of them. Given that
in chapter 4 of his pamphlet McNally states that Marxism aims for
a "democratic and collective society . . . based upon the fullest
possible political democracy" his attack on Proudhon's concern
for the artisan and peasant is doubly strange. Either you support
the "fullest possible political democracy" (and so your theory
must take into account artisans and peasants) or you restrict
political democracy and replace it with rule by the few.
Thus Proudhon did support the "the freedom of the working class
to make collectively a new society." His ideas were aimed at both
artisan/peasant and proletarian. Moreover, this position was a
distinctly sensible and radical position to take:
Nor does Marx seem to have been correct concerning the
revolutionary nature of the industrial proletariat. It has
become a cliche of French labour history that during the
nineteenth century artisans were much oftener radical than
industrial workers. Some of the most militant action of
workers in late nineteenth century France seems to have
emerged from the co-operation of skilled, urbanised
artisanal workers with less highly skilled and less
urbanised industrial workers." [K. Steven Vincent,
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French
Republican Socialism, pp. 282-3]
The fruits of this union included the Paris Commune (an event
both McNally and Marx praise -- see
section 12 for more discussion
on this). In addition, as we will see, Proudhon's proposals for
a mutualist society included workers self-management and collective
ownership of large scale workplaces as well as artisan and peasant
production. This proposal existed explicitly for the proletariat,
for wage slaves, and explicitly aimed to end wage labour and
replace it by association and self-management (Proudhon stated that
he aimed for "the complete emancipation of the worker . . . the
abolition of the wage worker." [quoted by Vincent,
Op. Cit., p. 222]). Thus, rather than
being backward looking and aimed at the artisan/peasant, Proudhon's
ideas looked to the present (and so the future) and to both the
artisan/peasant and proletariat (i.e. to the whole of the
working class in France at the time).
In the words of Gustav Landauer, Proudhon's "socialism . . . of the
years 1848 to 1851 was the socialism of the French people in the
years 1848 to 1851. It was the socialism that was possible and
necessary at that moment. Proudhon was not a Utopian and a
prophet; not a Fourier and not a Marx. He was a man of action
and realisation." [For Socialism, p. 108] Vincent makes the
same point, arguing that Proudhon's "social theories may not be
reduced to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it
a socialism only for the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism
of and for French workers. And in the mid-nineteenth century . . .
most French workers were still artisans. . . French labour
ideology largely resulted from the real social experiences and
aspirations of skilled workers . . . Proudhon's thought was
rooted in the same fundamental reality, and therefore
understandably shared many of the same hopes and ideals."
[Op. Cit., pp. 5-6] It is no coincidence,
therefore, that when he was elected to the French Parliament in
1848 most of the votes cast for him were from "working class
districts of Paris -- a fact which stands in contrast to the
claims of some Marxists, who have said he was representative
only of the petite bourgeoisie." [Robert L. Hoffman, quoted
by Robert Graham, "Introduction", P-J Proudhon, General Idea
of the Revolution, p. xv]
Given that his proposals were aimed at the whole working class,
it is unsurprising that Proudhon saw social change as coming
from "below" by the collective action of the working class:
In the same work he continues his discussion of proletarian
self-organisation as the means of social change:
Little wonder Proudhon saw the validity of his mutualist
vision from the self-activity of French workers (see
section A.1.5 for
details). Where Proudhon differs from
later anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and
Goldman is that this self-activity is reformist in nature,
that is seeking alternatives to capitalism which can
reform it away rather than alternatives that can fight
and destroy it. Thus Proudhon places his ideas firmly in
the actions of working people resisting wage slavery
(i.e. the proletariat, not the "small property owner").
Similarly with Bakunin. He argued that "revolution is only
sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses" and so
socialism can be achieved "by the development and organisation,
not of the political but of the social (and, by consequence,
anti-political) power of the working masses . . . . organise[d]
and federate[d] spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up,
by their own momentum according to their real interest, but
never according to any plan laid down in advance and imposed
upon the ignorant masses by some superior intellects." Such
a socialist society would be based on "the collective ownership
of producers' associations, freely organised and federated
in the communes, and by the equally spontaneous federation
of these communes." Thus "the land, the instruments of work
and all other capital [will] become the collective property
of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers,
in other words by the agricultural and industrial associations."
And the means to this socialist society? Trade unionism
("the complete solidarity of individuals, sections and
federations in the economic struggle of the workers of
all countries against their exploiters.") [Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings, p. 237, pp. 197-8, p. 197, p. 174 and
p. 177] Indeed, he considered trade unions (organised from
the bottom up, of course) as "the natural organisation of
the masses" and thought that "workers' solidarity in their
struggle against the bosses . . . [by] trades-unions,
organisation, and the federation of resistance funds"
was the means by which workers could emancipate itself
"through practical action." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139
and p. 103]
And McNally asserts that "the liberty defended by the anarchists
was not the freedom of the working class to make collectively a
new society"! Only someone ignorant of anarchist theory or with a
desire to deceive could make such an assertion.
Needless to say, McNally's claim that anarchism is the politics
of the "small property owner" would be even harder to justify if
he mentioned Kropotkin's communist anarchism. However, like
Proudhon's and Bakunin's support for collective ownership by
workers associations it goes unmentioned -- for obvious reasons.
McNally continues. He asserts, regardless of the facts, that anarchism
"represented the anguished cry of the small property owner against
the inevitable advance of capitalism. For that reason, it glorified
values from the past: individual property, the patriarchal family,
racism."
Firstly, we should note that unlike Marx, anarchists did not think
that capitalism was inevitable or an essential phase society had
to go through before we could reach a free society. They did not
share Marx's viewpoint that socialism (and the struggle for socialism)
had to be postponed until capitalism had developed sufficiently
so that the "centralisation of the means of production and the
socialisation [sic!] of labour reach a point at which they become
incompatible with their capitalist integument." [Karl Marx,
Capital, vol. 1, p. 929] As McNally states, socialism was once
the "banner under which millions of working people resisted the
horrors of the factory system and demanded a new society of
equality, justice, freedom and prosperity." Unfortunately, the
Marxist tradition viewed such horrors as essential, unavoidable
and inevitable and any form of working class struggle -- such
as the Luddites -- which resisted the development of capitalism
was denounced. So much for Marxism being in favour of working
class "self-emancipation" -- if working class resistance
to oppression and exploitation which does not fit into its
scheme for "working class self-emancipation" then it is the
product of ignorance or non-working class influences.
Thus, rather than representing "the anguished cry of the small
property owner against the inevitable advance of capitalism"
anarchism is rather the cry of the oppressed against capitalism
and the desire to create a free society in the here and now and
not some time in the future. To quote Landauer again:
Thus McNally confuses a desire to achieve socialism with
backward looking opposition to capitalism. As we will see,
Proudhon looked at the current state of society, not
backwards, as McNally suggests, and his theory reflected
both artisan/peasant interests and those of wage slaves
-- as would be expected from a socialist aiming to
transform his society to a free one. The disastrous
results of Bolshevik rule in Russia should indicate
the dangers of ignoring the vast bulk of a nation (i.e.
the peasants) when trying to create a revolutionary
change in society.
Secondly, it is not really true that Proudhon or Bakunin
"glorified" "individual property" as such. Proudhon
argued that "property is theft" and that "property is
despotism." He was well aware of the negative side
effects of individual property. Rather he wanted to
abolish property and replace it with possession. We
doubt that McNally wants to socialise all "property"
(including individual possessions and such like). We
are sure that he, like Marx and Engels, wants to retain
individual possessions in a socialist society. Thus
they state that the "distinguishing feature of
Communism is not the abolition of property generally,
but the abolition of bourgeois property" and that
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate
the products of society; all that it does is to deprive
him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by
means of such appropriation." [The Manifesto of the
Communist Party, p.47 and p. 49] Later Marx argued
that the Paris Commune "wanted to make individual
property a truth by transforming the means of production,
land and capital . . . into mere instruments of free and
associated labour." [Selected Writings, pp. 290-1]
Thus support for "individual property" is not confined
to Proudhon (and we must note that Proudhon desired to
turn capital over to associated labour as well -- see
section A.5.1
for Proudhon's influence in the economic
measures made during the Commune to create co-operatives).
Indeed, initially Marx had nothing but praise for Proudhon's
critique of Property contained in his classic work What is
Property?:
As Rocker argues, Marx changed his tune simply to
"conceal from everyone just what he owed to Proudhon
and any means to that end was admissible." This can
be seen from the comments we quote above which clearly
show a Proudhonian influence in their recognition that
possession replaces property in a socialist society
and that associated labour is its economic basis. However,
it is still significant that Proudhon's analysis
initially provoked such praise by Marx -- an analysis
which McNally obviously does not understand.
It is true that Proudhon did oppose the socialisation
of artisan and peasant workplaces. He considered having
control over the means of production, housing, etc. by
those who use it as a key means of maintaining freedom
and independence. However, Proudhon also called for
"democratically organised workers' associations" to
run large-scale industry in his 1848 Election Manifesto.
[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] This aspect of his
ideas is continual throughout his political works and
played a central role in his social theory. Thus to say that
Proudhon "glorified" "individual property" distorts
his position. And as the experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
McNally now attempts to provide some evidence for his remarks.
He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father
of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes, he was a "printer by vocation"
and that he "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France."
However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism
was largely backward-looking in character" as he "did not look
forward to a new society founded upon communal property which
would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of
his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working
class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen,
small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got
his facts wrong. It is well known that this was not the case (which
is why McNally used the words "largely backward-looking" -- he is
aware of facts but instead downplays them).
If you look at Proudhon's writings, rather than what Marx and Engels
claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in
fact favoured collective ownership of large scale industry by
workers' associations. He argued for "the mines, canals, railways
handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . .
We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies
and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social
Republic." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62] Three years later
he stressed that "[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which
by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workmen
of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 216]
This argument for workers' self-management and collective ownership
follows on from his earlier comment in 1840 that "leaders" within
industry "must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers
themselves." [What is Property?, p. 414]
Rather than base his utopia on "small, private property" Proudhon
based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked
by both artisan and large-scale production. The later he desired
to see transformed into the collective property of workers'
associations and placed under workers' self-management. The
former, as it did not involve wage-labour, he supported as
being non-capitalist. Thus his ideas were aimed at both the
artisan and the appearing class of wage slaves. Moreover, rather
than dismiss the idea of large-scale industry in favour of "small,
private property" Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:
As can be seen, McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on this question.
McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppos own experience of workers under
Lenin indicates, collective ownership by the state
does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression.
Proudhon's arguments in favour of possession and
against capitalist and state ownership were proven
right by Bolshevik Russia --state ownership did lead to "more
wage slavery." [Ibid.] As the forced collectivisation
of the peasantry under Stalin shows, Proudhon's
respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very
sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally
supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is one of the few
positions a socialist can take.
Moving on from Proudhon, we discover even less support
for "individual property." Bakunin, for example, was
totally in favour of collective property and opposed
individual property in the means of life. As he put it,
"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
[will] become the collective property of society and
by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the
agricultural and industrial associations." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174] With regards
to peasants and artisans Bakunin desired voluntary
collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued,
"collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by
a free spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin
on Anarchism, p. 200]). Thus, rather than being
a defender of "individual property" Bakunin was in
fact a supporter of collective property (as organised
in workers' associations and communes) and supported
peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation (which would result
in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction."
[Op. Cit., p. 197]).
Hence Daniel Guerin's comments:
Similarly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the
patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike
Proudhon, Bakunin argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to
both men and women," that women must "become independent
and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly
when private property and the State will have been
abolished will the authoritarian juridical family
disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the
man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women"
and argued that the cause of women's liberation was
"indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the
exploited workers -- men and women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7] Hardly what would be considered
as the glorification of the patriarchal family -- and
a position shared by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman,
Goldman, Chomsky and Ward. Thus to state that "anarchism"
glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief.
Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory
could make such an assertion. We could make similar
remarks with regards to the glorification of racism (as
Robert Graham points out "anti-semitism formed no part
of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." [Op. Cit., p. xxxvi]
The same can be said of Bakunin).
1. Introduction
2. Is anarchism the politics of the "small property owner"?
"While Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance
of the industrial proletariat vis-a-vis skilled workers, such
predominance was neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion in
France during the nineteenth century. The absolute number of
small industries even increased during most of the century. . .
"If you possess social science, you know that the problem of
association consists in organising . . . the producers, and
by this organisation subjecting capital and subordinating
power. Such is the war that you have to sustain: a war of
labour against capital; a war of liberty against authority;
a war of the producer against the non-producer; a war of
equality against privilege . . . to conduct the war to a
successful conclusion, . . . it is of no use to change
the holders of power or introduce some variation into
its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination
must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of
society, shall become its slave." [System of Economical
Contradictions, pp. 397-8]
"Thus power [i.e. the state] . . . finds itself inevitably
enchained to capital and directed against the proletariat. . .
The problem before the labouring classes, then, consists,
not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly,
-- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people,
from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more
potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the State
and subjugate them. Every proposition of reform which
does not satisfy this condition is simply one scourge
more . . . which threatens the proletariat." [Op. Cit.,
p. 399]
3. Does anarchism "glorify values from the past"?
"Karl Marx and his successors thought they could make no
worse accusation against the greatest of all socialists,
Proudhon, than to call him a petit-bourgeois and petit-peasant
socialist, which was neither incorrect nor insulting, since
Proudhon showed splendidly to the people of his nation and
his time, predominately small farmers and craftsmen, how
they could achieve socialism immediately without waiting
for the tidy process of big capitalism." [Op. Cit., p. 61]
"Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the
proletarians he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier.
His work is a scientific manifesto of the French
proletariat." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Marx and
Anarchism]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]
4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?
"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]
"Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to
say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour
of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
associated workers of the large-scale means of production
and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite
wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private
property. . . At the Bale congress [of the First International]
in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist
Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The
Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p.32]