Let’s discuss ‘’History’’ specifically the question, ‘‘Does history have an end?’’
For the Marxist, there is no ‘‘end’’ to history, is it a constant march but at the same time claim that history has an end in communism. I disagree, for what is history? I characterize history as ‘‘Past Events’’ material objects that survive the passage of time. In this chapter I shall be referring to two terms, and I would ask a favor of the reader, to not confuse the terms ‘‘idealist history and material history’’ — I have created these terms only for the sake of this argument and not to be confused with conventional materialism and idealism. Let us first distinguish between material history and idealist history.
Material history — is that which survives the passage of time, that which belongs both to the present and the past. The fragments, the documents, the scrolls, the video tapes, the statues that the archeologist and historians collect dating thousands of years ago are surely historical material artifacts. These material artifacts belong both to the history they were first created, but also belong to the present. Many objects however, in fact if I were to give a random approximation (98%) of all matter of the past has turned into bones and ashes. Much that once was the roman empire has crumbled into dust and only limited fragments of that time remain. Eventually even these fragments will turn to dust, and they will also transform into idealist history.
Now that we have explained material history, let us explain what we mean by idealist history.
Idealist history — This is the history that remains in the minds of people as an ‘’idea’’ — We have an idea of the French revolution, but we do not necessarily have firsthand material experience of the time 1789. We conjure about what we think 1789 was like, but even this is just a concept, we attempt to relate to the past, but since we have never experienced the past, we can never fully relate to it correctly. One needs to experience something before relating to the object. This history is a ‘’Phantom, a spook’’ — most history is a concept that remains in the minds of people. This is not ‘’material history’’, there is no materialism involved. Most of history therefore is merely a concept, not actual reality.
Historical materialism — ‘’So what does historical materialism deal with? Does it deal with idealist history (Ideas of people) on history or does it deal with Materialist history (The fragments of the past that survive the passage of time), If the answer is the first one, then historical materialism is not ‘’materialist’’ at all, but rather idealist, if the answer is the second option, that deals with the fragments of the past that survive the passage of time — Then might I interject and say ‘‘that since these objects that survive the passage of time will also die out, and transform themselves into ‘’idealist history’’ — then no matter which option one shall choose, whether the first or the second, — both are idealist anyways, because even that which is material today, will once die out and become merely a concept of a once long forgotten age and civilization. Matter does not evolve or progress it dies out, the only evolution that occurs is within species that evolve through time, and possibly lead their ancestors to extinction. History therefore also ‘’The history of mutual aid and sociobiological evolution’’ for an anarchist. We only have a distant memory of Neanderthal as part of our idealist history, we can no longer relate materially to these extinct species, but we can surely relate materially to modern man who lives today.
Even productive forces have an ‘‘end’’, so I ask the Marxists, if productive forces can have an end? Why can’t history? Why would you prioritize the ending of one thing and deny the ending of another? The Marxist claim that productive forces have an end, but then go on an erroneous claim that history on the other hand has no end. How is this possible when every organism living or non-living is in a state of constant chemical and biological decay? Let’s take the example of productive forces. The productive forces of the medieval age give rise to other productive forces, the new productive forces over take the old forces. Therefore, the old forces die, transforming them into a concept in the minds of people, they cease to make part of material reality. Even the new productive forces of today will alter with time, change, and even die out. Every material object today will die, and become an idealistic concept. When an object dies, it ceases to make part of material history and becomes idealist history, becomes a mere concept or memory. When an entire civilization dies out, its history becomes idealist, a mere distant memory, the once class struggle of the Bolshevik revolution for example many years ago died with the death of its object, the USSR. Therefore, the history of the Bolshevik revolution has transferred from material history to idealist history, now it is a distant memory, no longer part of material reality. So how can a distant memory somehow have material consequences in today’s world? — How can the class struggle of a 100 years ago which is now idealist history somehow have any consequence on material reality today? Perhaps Marx was wrong when he claimed, ‘‘All history of societies is that of class struggle’’ — because quite clearly, the object of the past, the class struggle of the past has died alongside with its history. Something that has died and decayed no longer has a hold on the world on a material level. So how can the roman empire or the byzantine empire, something that has been dead long ago have any materialist control over me? The answer is: ‘‘It doesn’t’’ because history is not a continuation, it dies just like any other object. History is linear, but at the same time the line does not stretch to infinity, it stretches and stops, and a new line is born, that line dies too, another one is born. History is finite, but the process of history or rather the act of birth and death is eternal.
So, what type of control does the roman empire, and the Bolshevik revolution have on society if not of a materialist kind?
The answer to this question is found in Max Stirner, ‘‘That humanity is dominated by concepts, abstractions, spooks from its dead historical past’’ — The Greek way of life, and the roman Christian way of life, and the French liberal way of life still haunt our minds. It takes an egoist to dismantle these spooks from our minds in order to attain liberation. As we claimed before, modern society is not controlled by the implications of material history, because as we have established Material history is not eternal, it is finite, and when it dies, it re-joins idealist history. Even if a Marxist makes use of his dialectical materialism, it wouldn’t matter, because as we have established, ‘‘Historical materialism’’ eventually decays and becomes ‘‘Idealist history’’. The enemy that needs to be defeated is idealist history, material history simply is that which is not idealist history yet, but will soon become part of the Spooktacle. History is indeed material, but when it no longer is material, it escapes the realm of materiality and becomes an idealistic concept which cannot be contained in the boundaries of materialism. It is not the materialism of the past that pushes us towards class struggle, but rather the materialism of the present conditions of class struggle. It is not the material history of the Roman empire, the French and Bolshevik revolution that compel us via their materialist determinism. It is not possible for something to materially determine us, when that object no longer exists materially unless you consider Dust and Ash to somehow determine you — and to this stupid assertion I answer, that the only way dust and ash can determine you towards something, it would be towards your own death. So even if you make the argument, that the object turned ash is still material, it doesn’t remove the fact, that the object has now decayed and no longer exists as it used too. We cannot say that a roman statue lost in the passage of time now turned ash still exists, because it has decayed, the only existing historical reference to that statue would be a memory, a fragment in the form of historical idealism. Anything that decays is progressing towards death, therefore since all of matter progresses towards death, so is history. Since human beings cannot understand things that have died nor communicate with such objects or relate to them materially, they create an idealist version of history within their mind that will survive the passage of time. Take for instance a ‘’Red Apple’’- we can look at this apple, appreciate its aesthetics, the painter can paint it on a canvas with exact precision, the hungry man can eat the apple in order to satisfy hunger. In all cases, as long as the apple exists, it will materially determine the painter, the aesthetics enthusiast and the hungry man. However, if the red apple decays, ceases to exist as a red apple, it no longer influences the painter, no longer determines the enthusiast to appreciate its beauty, and the hungry man can no longer satisfy his hunger with that object. The only way to relate to this apple now is to construct a mental image in one’s mind in an attempt to immortalize the apple in one’s memory, but one must note, that a mental image in one’s head is a phantom and not actually the red apple as a thing-in-itself as material object. History is that which happened and no longer is happening. One might make the argument posing as a question: ‘‘Isn’t history like “The Big Bang”. Not something that happened, but something that is happening?’’ — To this I answer, Is the roman empire still happening? Is the french revolution still happening? The big bang is time born itself, therefore it will go on, so as long as time exists. However, even the universe is finite, since it’s still growing. Things within the universe come to an end, so that other things come anew. When it comes to big bang, there are still many things which scientists are yet to discover but one cannot make the argument that because the ‘‘Big bang’’’ exists, therefore history is forever eternal.
Anything that decays is progressing towards death, therefore since all of matter progresses towards death, so is history (This includes the decay of matter from the big bang explosion as well). Since human beings cannot understand things that have died nor communicate with such objects or relate to them materially, they create an idealist version of history within their mind that will survive the passage of time.
Each civilization, each age in human history has a particular materialist class struggle particular to itself and not connected to its historical past and past material conditions — Simply because there is no such thing as ‘‘Past material conditions’’, for they have decayed through time and died out. Every age has its own beginning and its own end, independent from the ages of the past. There isn’t a single line of history leading us to one sole thing, but rather many histories, all of them with unique possibilities and unique directions. Marx is a follower of the thought that history progresses through one linear motion, all leading to communism. On one hand he claims that people are free to make meaningful choices, on the other, this choice does not matter, because no matter our choice, communism for Marx is inevitable. So, the question needs to be asked, ‘‘How can we be free, if according to Marx, communism is inevitable?’’ — The simple answer is that we aren’t. In a Marxist analysis of history, the individual is not free but determined by this linear progress through one line of history. I oppose this line of thought by claiming that there are many lines of histories, therefore there are many paths which an individual could take, and potentially the action of one individual may even create through nothingness another history that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible if that sole individual didn’t exist. History is not one linear progressive movement, nor is history a cyclical movement, but history is rather a numberless number of histories all in their own linear progression with an end, the history that is followed eventually dies alongside the object, and the memories in the form of idealist history remains.
Let us look clearly at the German Ideology where Marx commits the mistake of threating history as a one monistic line,
‘‘History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations’’
Here Marx clearly threats history as a succession of generations, but truly it is not only generations that are in successions, but many histories themselves. ‘‘History is nothing but the succession of separate histories’’ — generations are a secondary aspect of history, just like class struggle is a secondary aspect for every historical period. Secondary aspects are those things which remain the same in principle but alter with each history, for example class struggle is a constant throughout all histories, but each history has its own seperate class struggle, the french revolution class struggle died out with its age, only for a new kind of class struggle to be born later on in the Russian revolution, the generations which Marx mentions are also secondary aspects, since generations and families are a constant throughout all histories, but every one of them dies out in their respective history, only for a new generation with different characteristics to be born later on. A primary aspect would be something that is a consatant throughout all histories and doesn’t die off like class struggle and genologies, for example — the fact that history is nothing but separate histories is a primary aspect, or that mutual aid occurs in all of histories in the same manner and doesn’t die out like other material things do is also a primary aspect. History will survive so as long as the object of history survives, on the same note, mutual aid will survive so as long as the object of mutual aid survives, — and the object of mutual aid is life itself which has been a constant in this universe for approximatly 3.7 billion years. Mutual aid is 3.7 billion years old, and will continue to be a primary aspect of history, since history depends on the existence of life. Without life, there would be no one to ponder this history in its conceptual form. As long as life exists, mutual aid exists and through mutual aid, history exists, and through history different historical peroids with different modes and secondary aspects of class struggle will exist. First and foremost everything depends on ‘‘Life’’, then on mutual aid, then on histories, finally on class struggle and generations. ‘‘The histories of all hitherto existing societies is the history of life and mutual aid’’, — class struggle is merely a character of an age, something that appears and reappears in every historical peroid, with a lifespan of a fruitfly in comparison to mutual aid. The Marxist uses class struggle as a means to make vague predictions of the future economic conditions and claims that ‘‘Communism is ineviatiable’’ but what the Marxist is unconscious off is the fact that class struggle is merely a secondary aspect of a specific historical age, therefore one would have to study a particular age that they are living in and determine with vague precision where the class struggle may be leading too. Marx could only make vague predictions of his time (His historical peroid), while Lenin could only make vague predictions of his time (In his historical peroid) — if one is to seek to make better long lasting predictions, one would use mutual aid and voluntary social organization of people as a means to determine the future but even then the future has not yet taken shape and pretending to know with accuracy exactly what will occur is nothing but arrogant. History after all is made by direct action, if there is no action, communism is not possible. We cannot simply wait a thousand years to arrive at communism, we do not wait for the apple to fall from the tree in due time, but we snatch the apple and take it. There is no end goal to history, because first and foremost there are many histories — There is a history where the apple might fall from the tree, and another history where the apple is snatched by action.
For a marxist, the teleological end goal of history is communism, but ‘‘Communism’’ like any historical peroid will end to give rise to the new. Class struggle which leads to communism is merely a unique secondary aspect within a historical peroid. For the anarchist, history has no teleological end goal. Our end goal is not ‘‘mutual aid’’ because mutual aid already exists and will continue to develop in accordance with the historical peroids. History and mutual aid are related to each other, especially since history depends on mutual aid for its existence because while class struggle may happen three to four times in a century, mutual aid happens at every second of every day encompassing all of history. Marx claims that economic struggle (Class struggle) is the reason why the history of societies exist — this is incorrect, because we have to answer the question, from whence does class struggle commence? What are the origins of class struggle?- The origins of class struggle rely on social organization, which is at the end of the day possible only through mutual aid.
History is the history of social organization. The stronger social organization takes over the weaker one. Capitalism is the social organization of the bourgeois class, Leninism is the social organization of a few conscious proletarians in a party, anarchism is the social organization of the working class and all other people who join the working class in their struggle. Marxists view history as class struggle, the capitalist struggled with the feudalists and in turn the proletariat must struggle against the capitalist. But anarchism goes beyond class struggle. The medieval social organization was contested and defeated by the bourgeois social organization and in turn the proletariat since their social organization is much more advanced than bourgeois organization will also be contested.
The bourgeois organization will decay and the proletariat organization will thrive. Marxists are under the impression that communism can be achieved by class rule, while anarchists claim rightfully that communism can be achieved by social organization implemented by the working class. When the proletariat organize with their communal economics, distribution and production, social anarchist organization is at its peak and it will contest with the weakened bourgeois organization that relies on anarchy of production and it will be destroyed by a far better organization. Such a social organization can only access its full potential without the interference of the state. The state is an interference that replaces social organization with coercive rule and authority. Social organization cannot be at it’s strongest in a Marxist Leninist system, this is why Marxism will never achieve communism in its current state. Only anarchism that abolished the state and relies solely on the strength of social organization to combat bourgeois organization can achieve communism social organization. We may quote Kropotkin on this notion of organization.
“The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. … The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.” — Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin 1902
This quotation does not merely illustrate the decay of the unsociable species, but also the decay of the less sociable class, for instance the bourgeois class being less sociable than the working class is doomed to decay, while the working class is most prosperous and most open to progess. Marx was too much of a darwinist to acknowledge this fact, and focused too much on ‘‘struggle’’ rather than sociability. This is the downfall of marxism, because it is fighting a competitve game against the greatest competitors of mankind (Aka the capitalist), and in a competitve game, the proletariat will always lose. The greatest weapon of the unsociable species is ‘‘competition’’, and the capitalist in a game of competition will always come out on top. Marx also endows the proletariat with competitive characteristics, again this is merely the vulgar ‘‘Bourgeoisification of the proletariat’’. Why would the Marxists focus on a weak aspect of the proletariat when the proletariat have a much better weapon? — Because they are wholly ignorant about sociability and they are petit-bourgeois thinkers. The greatest weapon in the hands of the proletariat is social organization, this doesn’t mean that proletariat cannot struggle but it merely means that primarily sociability is the highest aspect of the revolution, while class struggle is merely secondary.
The problem anarchists have is not historical materialism, but rather the way Marxists view history as one monistic historical line with one thesis, one antithesis and one synthesis. History is much complex than a singular movement, history is the movement of billions of agents, all with their possible outcomes. When the Marxist speaks of the ‘‘French History’’ — he’s treating it as one history but this begs the question: ‘‘How can there be one French history when the French people number in the million?’’ — How can you treat class proletarian history when the proletariat in the world number in the billions? Anarchists do not merely see history as class struggle — we treat class struggle as a secondary aspect, instead for the anarchist history is pluralistic, it is not merely one history, but it is your history, her history an many other histories — ‘‘The history of every individual’’
History is not set in stone, like the oracle of Delphi-Marx suggests in his many books. There might be a future on this earth where communism is achieved, and another future where the human race becomes extinct by nuclear annihilation before communism is achieved. The future cannot be yet know, the past is dust and bones, the only sure thing we can know is our present.
The fudamental problem within marxism is that in the analysis of history as a singular notion, a teleological goal of communism is established. Therefore, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all pretending to be doing History’s singular will in enacting their policies. The secondary problem within marxist analysis of history is that they somehow believe the past still exists within the present materially, this is why they believe in a transitionary step they call ‘‘Socialism’’ which is a bridge between capitalism and communism. The Anarchists also believes in a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism, we still believe in ‘‘socialism’’ but the way we understand socialism is drastically different from the socialism understood by the marxist.
For the anarchist, socialism is a stage of the development of social organization, at first the anarchists organize in order to overthrow the bourgeois state, and in so doing they achieve a stateless society, they have so to speak ‘‘Do away with the past of the bourgeois state’’. However… just because the anarchists abolished the state, doesn’t mean that anarcho-communism is achieved, the class divide is still a real thing, counter-revolutionary action is still a threat, commodity production has not been done away with, some people still harbour bourgeois tendencies from their past, money also isn’t abolished. In the primary stage of anarchism, the only thing that has been done away with, is the bourgeois state. The socialist phase for the anarchist is a phase of practice, mutual aid, strong social organization development — These are the three tools that are used in order to do away with commodity production, money, bourgeois tendencies and to abolish the remaining class enemies. This is also a time, when the proletariat who for long have been oppressed get used to their new anarchist system and new way of life, they are educated in anarchist political thought in order to steel them from bourgeois traditional thinking. Development is not a linear bridge, but rather like ripples in a pool of water, which expands from the inner circle to a larger outer circle — even though the inner circle is not directly connected to the outer circle, but instead as circular parallel lines. We understand history more like ‘‘Waves of light’’ or ‘‘Ripples in a water’’ rather than a linear bridge that connects physically one point in history to another. When ripples momentarily intersect, this merely means that one point in history interacts with another, thus creating an entirerly new ripple that may or may not interact with other ripples. A bridge leads from one physical location to another physical location, but what marxist are trying to connect is the decayed non-existant past, with the yet to form non-existant future, meanwhile understanding history as ripples, one can see how the first ripple slowly dies out, giving rise to a larger ripple and so on so forth.
These ripples of water need to survive the surface of tension in the water that attempts to dampen their effort, if it succeeds in doing this, it will becoming a constant eternal wave because of a steady proletarian wind leading it in the right direction and it shall crash over and over again underneath a cliff, and none will be able to stop it.
This anarchist-socialist phase is a gradual ripple, and will slowly lead us to the anarcho-communist stage, the final stage when communism is achieved. Needless to say that each anarchist community will have its own history, its own little ripples with their own intensities and velocities. Thus, History is not set into stone, but rather carved out by political action in the present.
For the Marxist however, socialism is literally a metaphysical idealistic ghostly bridge connecting both the past and the future, that is the reason why the socialist state in marxism has many bourgeois features with the only difference of it being led by the proletariat (The bourgeoisification of the proletariat) — A hideous abomination.
This metaphysical bridge of the marxists is non-existant and it serves to connect the decayed past which no longer exists, but only exists as a concept, and connects the present with the future that doesn’t even exist yet. I refer you to our beginning when we established that the past decays into nothigness and the material history is transferred into idealist history.) Therefore this makes this metaphysical bridge connect the dots between the idealist history, the material present, and the idealist future which hasn’t formed.
The Marxist does not do away with the past, but carries the past to the present in order to construct the future. While the anarchist cuts the ties to the past, to the bourgeois state, and only concerns himself with the present problems, and from the present he carves out his future.
There is yet another problem or question to history? ‘‘What makes history?’’ — To answer this question we must first understand the difference between assumptions and facts. One can make that one knows his wife’s history — afterall you may have lived many years with your wife and can claim to know her historical past together, however you cannot know all about her history because there was a time when a wife was a child, when she wasn’t yet married to her husband. The only individual who can truly proclaim to know the wife’s history in its totality is the wife herself, any other person who pretends to know her history, is merely making assumptions, which may be true or false. The history of an object can only be known through the being-in-itself, the red apple can know its own history, since it was born and it knows how it will end, but the eater of the apple only knows part of the apple’s history, just as the farmer knows part of that apple’s history. Therefore when Karl Marx , Hegel and the other philosophers are speaking about ‘‘history’’ — they are merely making assumptions which will be false. After all Marx as a being is not within history, but only part of history. If Marx did not experience history in its entirerty, he cannot have knowledge about the history of mankind. The only knowledge of history which Marx can be sure about is his own history as a human being from beginning to end, any scholar who claims to have ‘‘Known’’ Marx is a fool.
Two things are therefore established: Outside the individual level, no history can be known, only assumptions. No one can speak of history of mankind and civilization and claim to have knowledge of them, because in order to do so, you would have to first experience mankind and all of civilizations as being-in-themselves, which is an impossible feat. The only knowledge of history which we can be certain of, is our own individual history as human beings. I know my history, you know your history, she knows her history.
To sum up: Knowledge of history is gathered through experience of the thing-in-itself, since man is capable of only experiencing himself and experience others through himself, he cannot experience the ‘‘other’’ as things-in-themselves. Since one cannot experience the other, no knowledge is gathered about the ‘‘other’’, therefore no knowledge, implies no knowledge of history, therefore the individual resorts to making assumptions through himself about the other — assumptions that are false most of the time. It is immoral to put onself in one’s shoe, because it is merely the other way round; you are putting them in your shoe, experiencing them through your shoe.
Now that we have answered somewhat the question of ‘‘What is history and how is it made?’’ — Let us answer a secondary question, ‘‘What is a historical peroid, and where does every historical peroid plan to take us?’’ or otherwise, ‘‘What is the end goal of history?’’ or whether there is such a goal in the first place?
Every age has its own beginning and its own end, independent from the ages of the past of course there is a time, when both the past and the present seem to intermix, for instance, when the Victorian period seemed to have mixed with modernism around the 1890–1900 period. It is interesting to note however, that historical objects from the Victorian period where not solely belonged in this period, but also survived through the modernist period. Even Roman artifacts that survived the passage of time today, make part of many histories, including the present moment, but eventually their material history will end when the object itself meets its end. To claim that history has no end, is to transcendentalize history, to immortalize history and transform history into a God (And even though Marx considered himself a materialist, he does this idealist mistake) of immortalizing and transform history into a transcendental object which doesn’t obey the laws of physics and disobeys time itself. History ends not because mankind has achieved full awareness of themselves like Hegel proposes, nor does history end because humanity has been emancipated from the class system like Marx proposes, History always ends whether we like it or not with the death of the object, the death of class implies only the historical end of classes. In order for history to end in its totality, the entire universe must be destroyed and become nothingness, only once everything is destroyed, will history end in its totality. For Marx, history is moving towards communism, when in reality history always moves to its own annihilation and its death — it moves into nothingness and in this nothingness, nothing is more to me than myself, my material history becomes important above all. When Marx claims that communism is the end of history or rather the goal of history, he has not accounted for, that even communism will eventually die as an object and become idealist history. If Marx claims that ‘‘History has no end’’ — then he is immortalizing history, if Marx claims that ‘‘Communism is the end of history’’ — then he’s doing the same thing, and instead of immortalizing history, he’s immortalizing communism in the same way, transcendentalizing communism beyond the bounds of materialism, time, the laws of physics, and giving it immortal qualities. In both cases, Marx is making an idealist assertion despite claiming to be a materialist. History therefore is not leading us to communism, it is leading us towards nothing. Through this nothing, it is possible to create new histories, this I call the ‘‘creative nothing’’ in histories. If communism is the end of history, then there is nothing else which mankind can freely create, if nothingness is the end of history, then through that nothingness, one can create another history freely. We are free and histories (Always in the plural) are determined by our choices. As Anarchists we are less interested in the history of mankind and more interested with the individual’s history as he unites with others voluntarily to fulfill himself, as Stirner would have put it,
‘‘ That the individual is of himself a world’s history, and possesses his property in the rest of the world’s history, goes beyond what is Christian.’’
From an anarchist point of view, there are many histories, we make our own history through free choices, as Emma Goldman claims,
‘‘People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.’’
Or when she claims,
‘‘The true lovers of liberty will have no more to do with it. Instead, they believe with Stirner that man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.’’
For Kropotkin on the same note, histories are defined by the social organization and the evolution of the human race that is taking place, that allows humans to find better means for social organization, and therefore the social organization of the new age is in struggle with the old social organization. Social organizations are a secondary aspect in history, much like class struggle, they appear and reappear within historical peroids, but they die and are replaced, on the otherhand both social organization and class struggle rely on the principle of mutual aid, because if mutual aid did not exist, neither can social organization. ‘‘What has mutual aid accomplished in history?’’ asks the Marxist-Leninist in a sarcastic tone. To this question I answer, ‘‘Everything’’, even the vanguard party exists because of mutual aid and without it any social organization on this planet, whether anarchist, a leninist party or unions, would not have been possible.Mutual aid is something that doesn’t die with histories, because so as long as life exists in all histories, so will mutual aid, on the other hand the class struggle of the French revolution needed to die along with its history, only for a new class struggle to be born centuries later in Russia.
It is the process of birth and death that has no end, but it’s result which is ‘‘history’’ encloses upon itself in every historical period and dies. Material History is born and it dies; this process has no ending in so far as the universe allows this process to continuously take place, if the universe is destroyed into nothingness, then truly, it is during that time, that history can truly be transcended and it is at that time, that this non-ending process of generating histories has died completely. The history of the object survives in so long as the object survives. If the object decays or dies, so does its material history also die. So, it is untrue that ‘’History has no end’’ — History is nothing but an ‘’End’’ — history is all about ending into nothingness.
 (K. Marx, German Ideology, 1845.)
 (K. Marx, Engels, ‘‘The Communist Manifesto’’ , 1848.)
 (K. Marx, Letter from Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, 1846)
 (Frederick Engels, ‘‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’’, 1880–1892)
 (Emma Goldman, ‘‘Anarchism and other essays’’, 1920)
 (Max Stirner, ‘‘The Ego and its own’’, 1844)
 (Peter Kropotkin, ‘‘Mutual aid, A factor of evolution ’’, 1902)