20
dustry will be, the better: for then the less labour will fall to the share of each individual, the freer will each man be, the greater the scope for mental development in human society.
But the future state of society propagated by the anarchists is just the opposite of this. Instead of enlarging, centralising or regulating production, it sub-divides it, and consequently weakens the domination of man over Nature. There is no general plan, no large organisation. Under an anarchist order it will be even impossible to utilise large machines to the fullest extent, to reconstruct railroads, according to a general plan, to undertake irrigation on a big scale. Let us give an example. A great deal is being spoken of substituting steam plant by electricity, and of utilising waterfalls, etc., for obtaining electric motor power. In order to distribute correctly the electrical energy obtained, it is of course necessary to estimate, weigh and measure where and how much of this energy is to be directed, so as to derive the greatest possible advantage therefrom. What does that mean, and how is it to be made possible? It is only possible when production is organised on a large scale, when it is concentrated in one or two great centres of management and control. And, on the other hand, it is impossible under an anarchist order of small, disseminated communes but loosely held together. In this way we can. see that, as a matter of fact, production cannot be properly organised in an anarchist State. This in its turn results in a long working day, i.e., dependence to a great extent on Nature. An anarchist order would only serve as a bridle retarding the progress of humanity. That is why we, communists, are fighting against the teaching spread by the anarchists.
Now it is plain why anarchist propaganda leads to a sharing of wealth instead of a communist construction of society. A small anarchist commune is not a vast collaboration of men, but a tiny group, which can even consist of as few as two or three men. At Petrograd there existed such a group—"The Union of Five Oppressed." According to the anarchist teachings it might have been "A Union of Two Oppressed." Imagine what would happen if every five men or every couple of men began independently to requisition, confiscate, and then start work at their own risk. There are in Russia about a hundred million of the labouring population. If they were to form "unions of five oppressed," we should have in Russia twenty millions of such communes. Imagine what a Babel would ensue
