Programme of the World Revolution/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV.
AN ANARCHIST OR A COMMUNIST ORDER.
There are people who call themselves Anarchists, that is to say, adherents to an order of things where there is no Government. They affirm that the Bolshevik-Communists are on the wrong path, because they wish to preserve order, and that any kind of power or authority, and any kind of state, means oppression and violence. We have seen that such an opinion of communism is not right. A communist order of life is an order in which there are neither workers nor capitalists, nor any kind of State. The difference between an anarchist and a communist order is not in the fact that there is a State in one and none in the other. No; there is no State in either of them. The real difference is in the following:—
Anarchists think that human life will be better and freer when they sub-divide all production into small labour-commune organisations. A group or association, say, of ten men is formed who have united by their own free will. Very well. These ten men begin to work on their own account and at their own risk. In another place there has arisen a similar association; in a third another. In time all these associations enter into negotiations and agreements with one another concerning the things which are lacking in each respective union. Gradually they come to an understanding, and "free contracts" or agreements are drawn up.
And now all production is carried on in these small communes. Every man is free at any time to withdraw from the commune, and each commune is free to withdraw from the voluntary union (federation) of these small communes (labour associations). Do anarchists reason rightly? Any worker acquainted with the present system of factory machine production will see that this is not right. Let us explain why.
The future order is meant to save the working class from two evils. In the first place from the subjection of man by man, from exploitation from the evil of one man oppressing another. This is attained by casting off the yoke of capital and depriving the capitalists of all their wealth. But there is yet another problem, that of shaking off the yoke of Nature, of mastering Nature, of organising production in the best, most perfect way. Only then will it be possible for each man to spend but a little time in the manufacture of food products, boots, clothes, houses, etc.. and to spend the rest of his time for developing his mind, for studying science, tor art, for all that which makes human life beautiful. Prehistoric man lived in groups in which all were equal. But they led a brutal existence, because they did not subject Nature to themselves, but allowed Nature entirely to subject them. Although with the capitalist production on a large scale humanity has learned to control Nature, the working class still live like beasts of burden, because the capitalist holds them in his clutches, owing to the existence of economic inequality. What follows? That economic equality should be united with production on a large scale. It is not enough to do away with capitalists. It is indispensable that production should be organised, as we have already said, on a large scale. All small, inefficient enterprises must disappear. The whole work must be concentrated in the largest factories, works and estates. And not in such a way that Tom should not know what John is doing, nor John know what Tom is doing; this kind of management is all wrong. What we want is a united 'plan of work. The more localities such a plan embraces the better. The world must ultimately become one labour enterprise, where the whole of humanity, in accordance with a strictly worked out, estimated and measured plan, would work for its own needs, on the best machines, at the biggest works, without either employers or capitalists. In order to advance production, we must on no account sub-divide the big production which capitalism has left us as a heritage. It should, on the contrary, be still more widened. The wider and larger the general plan, the bigger the scale on which production will be organised, the more will it be guided by the estimates and accounts of the statistical centres. In other words, the more centralised industry 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 if these twenty million little communes began acting independently! What chaos and anarchy we should have! Nor would it he surprising that if such groups began, independently of each other, to usurp the wealth of the rich, nothing but a sharing-out would result. And sharing-out leads, as we have seen above, to the reign of capital all over again, to violence and oppression of the labouring masses.