The Theory and Praxis of Anarchist Application

What wins people the class war is not the party, we need less of the party and more of these armed disciplined organized men and women ready to defend their cause voluntarily? — How do we get to organize men and women voluntarily? — Simply install connected platformist groups across schools, workplaces, factories, farms, shipyards and the like, educate these masses, bid them to join you after work, ask them for their concerns regarding their labour, help in the propoganda, Prop up revolutionary posters across the rural and industrial area, write for anarchism as a journalist or in a paper, distribuite books, pamphpets, gather these workers around you so that together you may collectively purchase a small revolutionary library filled with anarchist literature, which keeps getting bigger and bigger, collectively purchase the aesthethics for the groups, whether it be anarchists flags, weapons to protect onself or a simple anarchist insignia one can wear. Take photographs of these groups — of course (always hidden with a mask or something to cover one’s face), sharing these pictures of organization on social media, enlaring a social media presence and lastly developing reading groups where anarchists come together, reading theory and internalizing the correct doctrine into their heart and also construct struggle sessions with each other.

Furthermore get into discussions with local unions, or even perhaps prop up your own union, — establish mutual aid groups and soup kitches to help the poor and the unemployed, furthermore house these lumpenproletariat, give them shelter, and voluntarily try to gauge whether they want to take part in the revolutionary movement. Of course, even if the lumpen proletariat declines this offer, this doesn’t mean that we should no longer help them as part of our mutual aid campaign. Our movement should not be sectarian — although at first I might have given that impression — while the movement should be strictly anarcho-communist, other anarchists such as individualist anarchists, egoists and mutualists are allowed. First and foremost one needs only to convince the individualist anarchists, that as long as there is ‘‘consent’’ within the groups, the individualist can still keep being individualist and remain within the anarcho-communist sphere. Meanwhile for the egoists, if they can be convinced that this arrangement is merely a union of egoists, — the egoist will join and play his part as well. Of course, if the egoist no longer wants to remain in this arrangement, everyone is free to voluntarily leave our movement. Even if there is a christian anarchists who is a pacifists then he can join us aswell, even though we are a violent group. The christian anarchists can spread the anarchists message in the churches and fight in his own way against the church dogmatic institutions. Just because an anarchists is a pacifists does not mean that he cannot join the class war, instead of fighting physically, he can do other tasks, whether praying with the laity, cooking for the anarchists militias, labouring around the collective farms, making sure that the other anarchists have enough food. The same goes for Anarcha-feminists that can carry the struggle against the patriarchy. The Anarcha-feminists are not like those liberal feminists who hope to construct a world free of the patriarchy from within the patriarchy itself like the casual reformist, but seeks to abolish the state that has been constructed by men and replace it with a society where both men and women are considered equal.

On the other hand, mutualists are allowed- but we must be cautious that petit-bourgeois propoganda doesn’t spread. Mutualists are allowed as guests, perhaps as a temporary alliance, — one should try to convert them to anarcho-communism, or at least temporarily use them as a tool of persuasion. If the mutualists start up a worker co-operative that could spread our anarchist ideas, then our reach would have a longer grasp. However mutualism is not allowed to become the dominant ideology in the platformists groups — of course this is not much of a problem, since the number of mutualists are few and anarcho-communists are higher in number. Should Marxists be able to join us? — Yes, but we must struggle with them until they reach a stage of anarchist political consciousness.

The stages of Struggle:

1. The first stage of Struggle has already been identified as that which organizes the masses after the ideology of anarchism through the methods I have already mentioned above. A platformist group in a community, that starts out as clandestine cells, and that expands in the community, after a community has expanded, the teaching is also expanded to other surrounding communities. Also opening up to the world at large through the presence of social media etc. This stage is the pre-revolutionary stage, where organization, education and expansion are the most important factors.
2. The second stage of struggle is for a struggle for more immediate concerns rather than to abolish the state. This stage is an in-between-stage between organizing, expanding and also struggling via a protest with the state. During this stage, people protest both violentally and non-violentally, they arm themselves, they help unionize and fight for better working conditions. Yet one must not fall in the trap of the comforts of the union and immediate relief. The struggle should be on-going, the second stage, being a stage of violent escalation in order for the authorities to take the movement seriously.
3. The final stage - the revolutionary stage: Careful militant plan of action against abolishing the state, furthermore, those workers that have been organized from the factories, from the shipyards, from the schools, serve as a way to radicalized the factories, workplaces, shipyards and schools, in such a way that in this revolutionary stage, not only are we abolishing the state, but the workers within our movement are asked to seize the means of production of these workplaces, so that after the state is abolished, the workers have in their hands the necessary workplaces to collectivize.

After the state has been overthrown these following necessary steps must be taken:

1. First and foremost the anarchists must realize, that abolishing the state is the beginning not the end. There is a transitionary peroid between capitalism and anarcho-communism. Capitalism progresses to socialism (Anarchist construction) and then finally progresses to the final stage anarcho-communism.

We must also keep in mind Malatesta views on ‘‘Means and Ends’’ — For the Marxist, ‘‘The end justifies the means’’ — but what the marxist does not realize is that the means produce the end, therefore if one uses an incorrect means such as the vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, one will reproduce the incorrect end through a wrong means, as a result communism is not achieved. Meanwhile for the anarchists we believe in that ‘‘The means become the end’’, that the means helps you to achieve what you want, even though it may not be enjoyable or important in itself. One could also use the anarchist slogan, ‘‘The means produces the end’’ (The means are on their way of ‘‘becoming’’ the end), which is conflict with the marxist conception of the end justifies the means, because it is grabbling onto the situation from its tail rather from its head. This means that when Marxist-Leninists implement the worker’s party, the means becomes the end, henceforth what they are building isn’t a road to communism, but rather a worker’s party, and it will remain this way, until new contradictions arise to challenge the worker’s party and abolish it in yet another revolution. Nothing in history ‘‘Withers away’’ — no state or power in history has ever withered away, in fact, all powers, institutions and states have either been abolished by force or put there by force. Are we supposed to take Engels’s words for it, that the proletariat state will just wither away? — Of course Engel’s logic makes sense, that when class society is destroyed, the state will also be destroyed or wither away. Anarchists argue against this logic, that while it is true that once class society is destroyed, so will the state, we do not argue that in order to destroy class society one needs a proletarian state, because this state will prop up its own class system, and as long as this state exists, it will propogate class relations rather than destroy them. It is necessary to abolish the state, so that class relations are not propogated, and in turn the anarchists must construct a communist mode of production so that the fragments of the old society are destroyed, once that is done, class society has been destroyed, and the potentiality for a state to emerge via counter-revolutionary effort will also be destroyed. Hence the state will never prop up in existence ever again, because the people would have transitioned into a society where one does not recquire a state. The means becomes the end — the marxist-leninists in constructing the worker’s state indirectly make the worker’s state their end, and as such communism is not their goal. On the other hand the anarchists constructs the way to the communist mode of production after the bourgeois state has been abolished, and therefore communism becomes their goal and their end. Even though even marxists try to pave the way to communism through socialist construction, they do this through the state apparatus, and therefore what takes immediate absolute importance is the state apparatus’s development into a worker’s state, the same sort of mistake was done in CNT’s anarchist spain, that used the means of unionism. As such in Spain, the means became the end, the anarchists there relied too much on unions and as a result their primary goal became unionism, rather than communism. Even though they were using unions to pave the way to communism, union construction took main importance and therefore that became the goal, and that became the end.

If Anarchists seize power through the wrong means such as the marxists who seize power through the state, then they will produce wrong ends, if revolutionaries make the mistake of using the wrong means, then they will produce a society which is opposed to what they originally intended. So if the Marxists being wrong seizes power through the state, then they will produce a society that will not lead to communism, but will always lead back to the state. If the people use the wrong means, then they will produce wrong ends, and the people making use of such means, will also influence the people’s political consciousness and turn them into villians. If however the revolutionaries use the appropriate means, then they will produce the desired ends, and will result in a society that was initially intended to be achieved, rather than diameterically opposed to it. To quote Malatesta, ‘‘it is not enough to desire something; if one really wants it adequate means must be used to secure it. And these means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the highroad and takes a wrong turning does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him.’’

Since there is no political party, the organ of power of the proletarian ruling Class is not centralized (Not democratic centralism) but rather distributed to every anarchist individual. Since every individual has political power, we do not say that we believe in ‘‘Decentralized power’’ — but in the ‘‘individual power’’ — no longer is power centralized in one party, but rather power belongs to the people, or rather ‘‘individuals’’ — who have now voluntarily organized themselves together community per community. So when we say we have abolished ‘‘power’’ — the anarchists mean that we have abolished ‘‘State power’’ — not actual power. Anarchism is defined based as ‘‘No rulers’’ — this doesn’t mean that powers don’t exists, it merely means that power belongs to each and every individual and hence, there are no supreme rulers, no rulers whatsoever over the individual. The marxists is confused when he says ‘‘Anarchists want to abolish power’’ — we don’t want to abolish all power, we simply want to abolish the power that belongs to rulers. Power doesn’t vanish away magically after the state is abolished, it is given to the individual who is now free from the influence that the state once had over him. Since each and every individual has ‘‘power’’ — therefore there are no rulers. Just like the Marxists boast about their ‘‘State power’’ and state apparatus that can act as an organ of the ruling class, the anarchists boasts that every individual power that has now voluntarily joined together as a strong organized revolutionary has now become an organ of the class rule without the need of the state power, but instead by voluntarily individual power, unity and organization.

There is to be what we call ‘‘Anarchist construction’’ — after the state has abolished, there are still many problems left behind. What is anarchist construction? — It is many things, such as The anarchists rely on their social organization of federalized groups between united platformist groups and with unity of action they help in the reconcilations of contradictions within the masses and also protect everyone against counter-revolutionary attacks. Furthermore, everything that obstructs mutual aid such as private property, the state and the like have to be destroyed, and likewise there has to be creation, this ‘‘creation’’ is basically ‘‘Anarchist Construction’’ such as Democratization of the work place, collectivization, communalisation, emancipation of culture, waging the cultural revolution — All these things aid mutual aid. Since Anarchism is developing a very sociable society, it will evolve, while the unsociable society will decay. There are three useful methods in Anarchist construction, the first one is simple: ‘‘Destroy everything that negates and obstructs mutual aid, create everything that has to do with mutual aid’’ — This means that instead of using a struggle session or constantly critique the masses with a self-crit situation, the masses are persuaded to understand through mutual aid itself, if they find that mutual aid is more effective and in accordance to their interests, then they are shown that the new way of life is much better than the old way of life. Furthermore, the development and creation of everything that has to do with mutual aid will develop society, and become a factor of evolution. Workers are educated that ‘‘Mutual aid is all that they need in order to get what they need’’ — Cheating or stealing produce in the commune is not recquired because as long as mutual aid is practice, production will be higher than the need, and everyone will serve the principle of ‘‘to each according to his need’’ — when one freuqents a shop he is educated that, he will get what he needs from that shop, but at the same time, if he hopes to find the same kind of store filled with produce tomorrow, the labourer must do his part and work as hard as he can. Even punishing criminals or those who are not yet politically conscious of anarchism in a post-revolutionary anarchist construction society are not punished by imprisonment or immediate execution, but rather punished through a social justice system, where instead of imprisonment — the criminal has to be edcuated on mutual aid, then apply what he has learned in regards to mutual aid in actual reality while society at large oversees his actions. If the society is satisfied with the mutual aid that was applied to repay the debt of the crime, then the issue is resolved. In a similiar manner, the church in the past used to solve crimes in similiar ways, rather than imprisonment, the christian was asked to perform acts of repentance, until the church was satisfied that the debt has been repayed — the reason for this repentance system was to always make sure that the criminal could be rehabilitated to christanity and become a better christian. In the same way, under anarchism those who do harm unto the community by stealing, vandalism or other minor crimes, are asked to perform acts of mutual aid on the behalf of the community, to essentially become better anarchists.

Needles to say, anarchists believe that crime is tied like shoe laces around capitalism, therefore under an anarchist system criminality will be much less of a problem. The more the anarchist construction is implemented, the less crime there will be.

Of course there will come issues when punishment through mutual aid is not enough, in this manner — the anarchist relies on other weapons, such as persuasion or even exile from the community, however never are we allowed to reconstruct prisons — because prisons are counter-revolutionary and obstruct ‘‘Anarchist Construction’’ — the construction of prison implies the destruction of anarchism at its core. As long as we have prisons, police and a standing armies, communism cannot be achieved. Prisons and police are to be abolished, and instead of standing armies, anarchists always rely on militias. One does not need a state apparatus to protect the community from an attack, one does not need centralized monopoly of power.

We shall quote Kropotkin who questions the ability of the state apparatus,

‘‘Do we require a government to educate our children? Only let the worker have leisure to instruct himself, and you will see that, through the free initiative of parents and of persons fond of tuition, thousands of educational societies and schools of all kinds will spring up, rivaling one another in the excellence of their teaching. If we were not crushed by taxation and exploited by employers, as we now are, could we not ourselves do much better than is now done for us? The great centers would initiate progress and see the example, and you may be sure that the progress realized would be incomparably superior to what we now attain through our ministries. — Is the State even necessary for the defense of a territory? If armed brigands attack a people, is not that same people, armed with good weapons, the surest rampart to oppose to the foreign aggressor? Standing armies are always beaten by invaders, and history teaches that the latter are to be repulsed by a popular rising alone. — While Government is an excellent machine to protect monopoly, has it ever been able to protect us against ill-disposed persons? Does it not, by creating misery, increase the number of crimes instead of diminishing them? In establishing prisons into which multitudes of men, women, and children are thrown for a time in order to come forth infinitely worse than when they went in, does not the State maintain nurseries of vice at the expense of the tax-payers? In obliging us to commit to others the care of our affairs, does it not create the most terrible vice of societies — indifference to public matters?’’ — ‘‘The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution’’, Peter Kropotkin.

Here Kropotkin shows us that the state apparatus is an excellent machine to protect its monopoly, in the case of marxism-leninism, the communisty party is centralized power, a monopoly of power. The party owns all power like the capitalist monopoly that owns raw materials. If a company owns all the diamond in the world as a monopoly, it therefore means that nobody else has access to diamonds. Likewise the communist party that acts like a monopoly owns all power in the country, it therefore means that the proletariat under the communist party do not have access to power unless through the state.

In a second quotation of ‘‘The place of Anarchism in socialistic Evolution’’ — Kropotkin gives us a summary of what anarchism hopes to accomplish,

‘‘Let us now combine the three preceding elements, and we shall have Anarchy and its place in Socialistic Evolution. Emancipation of the producer from the yoke of capital; production in common and free consumption of all the products of the common labor. Emancipation from the governmental yoke; free development of individuals in groups and federations, free organization ascending from the simple to the complex, according to mutual needs and tendencies. Emancipation from religious morality; free morality, without compulsion or authority, developing itself from social life and becoming habitual.’’ — ‘‘The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution’’, Peter Kropotkin.

Secondly he illustrates what anarchism seeks to conquer,

‘‘Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests — individual liberty — and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis — economic liberty, without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding — god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his independence, his will, his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formerly made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, “No society is free so long as the individual is not so. Do not seek to modify society by imposing upon it an authority which shall make everything right; if you do, you will fail as popes and emperors have failed. Modify society so that your fellows may not be any longer your enemies by the force of circumstances: abolish the conditions which allow some to monopolize the fruit of the labor of others; and instead of attempting to construct society from top to bottom, or from the center to the circumference, let it develop itself freely from the simple to the composite by the free union of free groups. This course, which is so much obstructed at present, is the true forward march of society: do not seek to hinder it, do not turn your back on progress, but march along with it. Then the sentiment of sociability which is common to human beings, as it is to all animals living in society, will be able to develop itself freely, because our fellows will no longer be our enemies, and we shall thus arrive at a state of things in which each individual will be able to give free rein to his inclinations, and even to his passions, without any other restraint than the love and respect of those who surround him.” — ‘‘The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution’’, Peter Kropotkin.

In this Paragraph perhaps, we see the hint of Stirner in Kropotkin, the idea that even as anarchists we must not allow the community to become the tyrant, but rather it is every individual who has been freed from the monopoly of the state that has now the power to consent himself to improve the community. While Marxists see the state as an ‘‘organ of class rule’’ — anarchists see the state as the ‘‘Monopoly of power’’ — the state owns all power, so that the individual does not. Therefore when anarchists abolish the state, the monopoly of power is destroyed — Where does that power go? Does it simply vanish away? — No, it is given to the individual who is now free from the state, — this individual power allows every individual to unite themselves together and as a result society itself or the societal dimension is also free.

The community is not to become another tyrant, and where there are problems, it is up to the individuals to either solve it themselves or unite with others to solve the problem. For example, if the community has become lazy, and has decided not to work as much as the week before, either they will notice a drop in produce and will be motivated to work harder, or else those in the community will propose a meeting between the workers to discuss the issue and work harder the next week. Children in schools are thought the principle of mutual aid from a young age, that one needs to be an altruist, and that society will get what it needs, as long as it labors just as much. For every input, there is an equal output. The more mutual aid is employed, the less the question of ‘‘Money and currency’’ becomes a problem — as such currency will cease to exist because the principe ‘‘to each according to his need’’ is immediately put into practice the moment the farms and the workplaces are collectivized. Of course, there might be issues of not having too much of a certain products, in such a case, trading might become necessary, it is up to the community to decide whether for a temporary moment, they could use labor notes, or some form of currency. This issue, needs to be furthermore discussed and analyzed by anarchists today.

In essence, the anarchists must realize that their march in history is a march towards free agreement, federation between the masses and voluntary cooperation that replaces the need for private property and the state. The Marxist merely build up a worker’s state, but have no idea, with what to replace this worker’s state, they argue that when class no longer exists, the state will merely wither away, but here the marxists does not realize that class can only stop existing through annihilating the bourgeois way of life and the only way to do that is through the anarchist method of free agreement. The state is abolished by anarchist revolution, which allows the anarchists to implement free agreement and cooperation, this in turn annihilates the bourgeois way of life and replaces it with a proletarian and collective way of life, this in turn abolishes class, and the need for a state to prop up again also vanishes. Even Engels agrees that if society organized production on the basis of free and equal assosciation it will inherently remove the need for the state to ever re-emerge.

“The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong — into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax” — Frederick Engels, in The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

Unfortunately while Engels’s statement rings true, the rest of the marxist method doesn’t. The Marxists wants to achieve this new basis through the state, and therefore rather than depends on free and equal assosciation of producers, it enforces such action through the state. It is not merely enough to organize production anew, if producers are free yet production isn’t based on freedom, then you have capitalism, if producers are not free, yet production is free, then you have marxism-leninism. Anarchism maintains that in order for communism to be made a reality, both producers and production must be made free. The method of anarchism, that is the organization of production on basis of free and equal association among free labourers will necessarily in essence put the state machinery where it belongs in the musuem of antiquities.

The state by necessity needs to be abolished, otherwise it will always maintain the bourgeois way of life, — in simple words the state is nothing but the accumulation of all bourgeois sentiments and methods within it. The state by definition is a tool of the bourgeoisie, of the reactionary, of the oppressor, — attempting to turn the state revolutionary and giving it a revolutionary edge is blashemphy of the highest degree as it will only dillute revolutionary potential and turn it into a counter-revolutionary force. The state maintains a particular way of life that enhances class, as Bakunin claims,

‘‘The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost. And since all States, ever since they came to exist upon the earth, have been condemned to perpetual struggle — a struggle against their own populations, whom they oppress and ruin, a struggle against all foreign States, every one of which can be strong only if the others are weak — and since the States cannot hold their own in this struggle unless they constantly keep on augmenting their power against their own subjects as well as against the neighborhood States — it follows that the supreme law of the State is the augmentation of its power to the detriment of internal liberty and external justice.” — Bakunin

The marxists are clear about their so-called ‘‘Socialist construction’’ — they do not know that because they rely on a party and a state apparatus, they are indirectly solving contradictions but also propping them up once again. The worker’s state because it is revolutionary attempts to resolve contradictions and remove class elements within society, but because it is a state by nature, it also ironically puts new class elements to replace those that just have been removed. The worker’s state therefore has a dual nature, the revolutionary side and the reactionary side. One side tries to labour towards a classless society, and the other side being totally reactionary tries to maintain the class structure because without it, the state’s existence would be endangered, and if the state is endanger the marxists will not be able to see their communist vision turn true! It is through this logic that every communist party has lead the revolution to failure, through ironically thinking that they were being revolutionary but at the same time maintaing class relations, to maintain the state that was supposed to destroy class in the first place.

The State is abolished by anarchists, giving the anarchist the opportunity to implement anarchist construction, to implement free agreement and cooperation that replace the bourgeois way of life, and thus resolve contradictions in society in this manner. Through the annihilation of bourgeois structures, anarchist structures are placed instead, this will allow society to become classless and as a result a state will never be reborn again, leading us to anarcho-communism. Society becomes classless when it moves beyond the structures of class. As Kropotkin says,

‘‘…free agreement is becoming a substitute for law. And free cooperation a substitute for governmental guardianship… And the more we study the advance made in this direction, as well as the inadequacy of government to fulfill expectations placed in them, the more we are bound to conclude that humanity, by steadily limiting the functions of government, is marching towards reducing them finally to nil.’’

On the other hand, marxists do not become classless because they maintain class structures, and have no idea whatsoever how to transition from socialism into communism, in fact the question of how the state will actually ‘‘wither away’’ is left rather vague and with no explanation whatsoever. In contrast the anarchists are clear as crystal, that through appropriate means and correct direct action, through moving away from class structures and implementing anarchist structures as we already mentioned, the transition from socialism to anarcho-communism will be fulfilled.

The second way of handling problems within the community is through criticism, — the anarchists can employ maoists methods to reconcile contradictions within the masses, in what we call a democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people in the formula of “unity — criticism — unity”. To quote Mao, ‘‘that means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through criticism or struggle, and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. In our experience this is the correct method of resolving contradictions among the people.’’ — This means that anarchists to resolve contradictions among the people, and not contradictions but even other problems, one should start out with a desire of unity, the anarchist organize a meeting together out of unity, they go to a critical progress to resolve these contradictions with an inner struggle, until they arrive at a new unity on a new basis. Nothing can stop the anarchist from using the maoist method, there’s nothing that tells us one cannot use ‘‘Unity-Criticism-Unity’’ with a party, in fact this formula can be practiced without a party, the community can do itself among itself. Mao says that it can be used for the party itself, but can also be used on the masses, — it seems that Mao sees it possible that contradictions can be settled through the masses themselves, after all, it is the masses who are struggling to reach a new unity on new basis, not the party in this case. Contradictions in anarchism are already solved through mutual aid, and perfect unity, because there is no party that stands in their way of perfect unity, however using a dual method to handle contradictions will improve the community’s efficiency.

So it seems, that anarchists can employ this method, but not enforced through a party, rather enforced by the politically conscious anarchists themselves, the platformist who are not a party, but rather are within the masses themselves, are really developing at the same pace as the masses — so even the problems of commandism do not exists within anarchism.

The anarchists after defending the revolution, after all imperialists, and enemies have been defeated, after the state has been abolished, after the anarchists have organized themselves and initiated anarchist construction through the methods of Unity-Criticism-Unity and the method of destroying the obstruction of mutual and aid and constructing mutual aid. We have both defeated the enemies, reconciled contradictions within the community and also developed the community itself through mutual aid, the people themselves because of mutual aid develop a much heightened political consciousness. If one were to depend on the communist party, the masses would rely on the minority’s political consciousness and not develop their own. When it comes to anarchism, we ask of the masses that together united in action, they develop their own heightened political consciousness, because rather than relying on a minority, a political party for their knowledge, they are relying on themselves. Hence, the anarchists in this manner are more politically conscious and aware when compared to those that simply follow the communist party and rely on it for their consciousness. After all of this has been accomplished, we have more or less achieved the final stage, and we have finally achieved ‘‘Anarcho-Communism’’

Conclusion:

The communist party is like that authoritarian parent, that’s over-bearing and controlling, and although it wants you to become an independent child, it ironically keeps you chained to its home. The child can only gain true independence and self-knowledge through trial and error, through himself as an individual. The communists party does not allow one to gain self-independence or self-knowledge — How can we possinbly achieve communism under Marxism-Leninism, if the people are only allowed the ‘‘Party’s knowledge’’ — the ‘‘Parent’s knowledge’’ — the masses who merely repeat like a parrot what their parent/party has said. When a child imitates their parent, can we say that the child is truly free? Or is the child merely a conduit, a mouth piece of their parent? Self-knowledge and self-independence can only be gained when the child becomes indepedent of the parent of the party, when the child opposes the party and forms their own opinions, his own knowledge and start to speak and act like himself rather than simply ‘‘imitating’’ the example of the party like some parrot. How can the Marxist-Leninist be sure, that when the proletariat are acting in a correct line of thought, that they aren’t simply ‘‘imitating’’ and repeating.

Can we truly claim that under Marxism-leninism, the masses have actually reconciled their own contradictions when they are merely repeating the party’s rhetoric. If they do not repeat the Party’s rhetoric out of fear, then they will do it out of ignorance, and if they do not do it out of fear or ignorance, they will repeat the party’s beliefs and rhetoric simply because they depend on the party rather than themselves. So here we have a situation under marxism, where contradictions cannot possibly be reconciled, because the people do not truly believe the party’s rhetoric, it has not been internalized and materialized into their being, since it’s point of departure is not coming from individual experience, but from the party, — something that is outside the boundaries of the individual and completely alien to it!

‘‘Yes yes… the proletarian in the communist society, under Mao Tse Tsung can repeat, and chant the name ‘‘Mao! Mao!’’ — they can even chant simple understanding in regards to Marxist doctrine, but all this knowledge is coming down from the party, not from themselves. Just because the people are chanting doctrine does not mean that they are understanding it. Anarchism on the other hand, does not simply rely on the chanting of doctrine, but asks of the masses to free themselves, and from experience living this way of life devoid of hierarchy and authority, the doctrine of anarchism will be internalized within them, life experience will show them the doctrine and they will understand it without a problem, just like Robinson Cruseo who after many years on an island had learned the doctrine of the struggle for life under the island, and he didn’t need to chant one word, in fact he was silent most of the time, — silent because of the cannibals or the savages that could have killed him — this is what the doctrine of survivalism thought Robinson Cruseo, on the same note, the doctrine of mutual aid shall teach the anarchists how to survive. Meanwhile Maoism pretends that ‘‘chanting’’ is enough, they hand down pamphlets printed from the party and give them to the people, then they ask of them to recite this pamphlets perfectly, like the catholic christian with his rosary and the protestant with his prayers. The colonial attitude of indoctrination is still very much present in Marxism — Surely, this type of attitude cannot lead us to communism. The Maoists proletariat can chant, sing and recite, but this does not mean that he understand, it only establishes that the proletariat has a voicebox and has a strong memory to remember. The anarchists doesn’t need chanting, singing or reciting theory, he only needs to live day by day — learn through trial and error week after week, and the proletariat under anarchism will develop and itnernalize the anarchist doctrine and way of life through life experience not through reciting the words of the party.

The communist party merely imposes it’s own ideology through hegemony, through the superstructure. If this is true, then the people under this system will never become politically conscious enough and will never develop self-knowledge, because they are simply an imitation of freedom and self-knowledge. In the guise of self-knowledge they are simply repeating the rhetoric of the party, and not the rhetoric of themselves. Under anarchism, the rhetoric, is the rhetoric of individuals voluntarily joined together to form a harmonical rhetoric of the community, they are truly critical of each other, they study each other with a very heightened political consciousness. Furthermore their self-knowledge is not an imitation ripped off from the face of the party, and their independence is true indepence, while their freedom is quite real, not an abstract imitation from freedom that is brought down from the party and finally transmitted into the people. They (The anarchists) and the people who are learning anarchism for the first time are asked to fend for themselves, and thus they free themselves from the uncritical mind. Other comrades will help these people by introducing them to anarchism, but it is up to them to fend for themselves. The anarchists are constantly aware and worried about people who have not re-organized themselves individually and then go about in their laziness at organizing society at large through collective principles. Society depends on the collective, but the collective in turn depends on the individual. Without the individual, there can be no society and no collective, no class whatsoever. Therefore, before attempting to fix society collectively, one should first address the problems within one’s own individual. Individuals who cannot reorganize their lives cannot organize the revolution. The wiser the individual, the wiser the collective and the more knowledgable and competent the individual, the better society will be for it, because of better responsible collective action. Collective action cannot take presidence over individual action, because social collective action depends on the contribution of individual consensual action which without such individuals, collective responsability would be an impossibility in the first place.

The communist party wants to free you; the anarchists want you to free yourself — That is the essence of anarchism — we bring forth a doctrine to the masses, that they should free themselves.