Introduction to Political Theory

not bothering with politics (Marshall, 1993: 441). The general strike is seen as the

best weapon for ushering in the new order. Syndicates should take on social

functions as the germ of the stateless, socialist society. But not all anarchists agreed

with syndicalism. Emma Goldman feared that syndicalism trampled upon the rights

of the individual by accepting a principle of majority rule, while the Italian Malatesta

saw syndicalism simply as one of many means to achieve anarchist ends (Marshall,

1993: 444).

The contrast between Kropotkin (1842–1921) and Bakunin is striking indeed.

Although they were both Russian and both influenced by Marx’s critique of

capitalism, Kropotkin had great respect for science and was an accomplished

geographer. Kropotkin espoused the ideal of a federal and decentralised society with

the land and factories owned by the producers. He was sympathetic to syndicalism

and argued that the great gains in the past had been made by the force of popular

revolution, not through ‘an evolution created by an elite’ (Marshall, 1993: 317).

Anarchism must proceed with the method of the natural scientists. Mutual aid

was far more important to the evolution of the species than mutual struggle. The

species that cooperates the most, is most likely to survive. Humans are by nature

social and moral, and the greatest individual development comes through practising

the ‘highest communist sociability’. The socialist notion of a ‘people’s state’ – here

Kropotkin agreed with Bakunin – is ‘as great a danger to liberty as any form of

autocracy’ (Marshall, 1993: 321–6). Whereas Bukunin saw distribution as linked

to the performance of work, Kropotkin also stressed need: production and

distribution are integrated in communal enterprises so as to meet the physical and

cultural needs of all (Vincent, 1995: 133).

Kropotkin was offered a cabinet position (which he turned down) in the

Provisional Government of Kerensky after the overthrow of Tsarism in 1917, and

was bitterly critical both of the Bolshevik Revolution (he sent letters to Lenin in

vain) and the tactics adopted after the revolution. Kropotkin called himself a

communist anarchist; Bakunin preferred to see himself as a collectivist, while

Proudhon regarded himself as a mutualist, but all were critical of capitalism, and

all saw anarchism as a solution to the kind of inequality generated by a capitalist

society.

Republican Spain and the anarchist experience

The Spanish Republic has become a valuable historical laboratory for trying to

understand anarchism because this is the only example in the twentieth century in

which anarchism succeeded in constructing a new society, at least in particular

regions and for a few years. As Thomas comments, ‘the Spanish Anarchists are the

only Anarchists in European history to have made any mark upon events’ (1965:

279).

The liberal tradition was weak in Spain. During the nineteenth century the

Church and the army had intervened to prevent or paralyse a liberal constitution

and this had strengthened the widespread scepticism towards conventional political

processes. Anarchist strength centred in Barcelona in the north where it was

reinforced by separatist sentiments among the Catalans (and took the form of

Chapter 11 Anarchism 245