syndicalist Sorel that violence is the revolutionary whirlwind that energises ‘sluggish
hearts’ (Hoffman, 1995: 126).
The problem of abolishing the state and authority seems to us to inevitably lead
to the resort to violence; the perpetuation of the state in a new form; and a legacy
of division and mistrust. But how are people to free themselves when they are
oppressed? Oppression arises when a person is deprived of material and social
resources and lacks esteem: how is this emancipation to be secured without
organisation? Marshall argues that anarchists only reject authoritarian organisation,
but it could be argued that all organisation requires some hierarchy and leadership- the very political qualities that anarchists reject (Hoffman, 1995: 124).
Miller cites the sad reflections of Emma Goldman as she compares the weaknesses
of Russian anarchists when set against the organisational strengths of the Bolsheviks.
The work of the anarchists, she remarks, ‘would have been of infinitely greater
value had they been better organized’ (Miller, 1974: 97–8), but she fails to ask
herself whether these weaknesses were a product of anarchist theory itself. What
are anarchists to do if the masses fail to rise in revolt? Two responses are possible.
Either anarchists simply wait (as Godwin seems to argue) until the spirit of rational
enlightenment takes root in the minds of the masses, or (as in Bakunin’s case) the
people need a helping hand. He advocates, as we have seen, an ‘invisible dictatorship’
which seems to flagrantly contradict anarchist ideals.
Certainly, it is difficult to see how anarchists can combine revolutionary
effectiveness without resort to force, given the fact that politics in terms of
organisation, representation, leadership and compromise are ruled out in terms of
the theory adopted. This is a problem not only for left-wing anarchists, but it also
afflicts anarcho-capitalists who see the market as a source of freedom, but have the
problem (among others!) of tackling those who have vested interests in perpetuating
concentrations of state power. Rothbard notes that anarchists have to contemplate
‘the extremely difficult course of a revolution against a power with all the guns in
its hands’ (Hoffman, 1995: 124).
Despite Marshall’s argument that the civil war in Spain demonstrated the
strengths and not the weaknesses of anarchist theory, it is difficult not to see that
event pointing to the fact that anarchists in practice can only operate in contradiction
to their own theory. Those who see anarchism as having a built-in propensity to
violence, whatever the pacifist claims of some of its adherents, are right. The theory
cannot be understood without seeing a contradiction between ends and means.
Anarchism and the new social movements
Anarchism continues to be influential, with adherents like Herbert Read stressing
the relevance of anarchism to the struggle for peace, secularism, a respect for art
and the democratising of education. Comfort argues the case for sexual freedom,
while Paul Goodman, before his death in 1972, influenced many who took part in
the counterculture movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The relevance of anarchism
to green movements and a concern about the deterioration of the urban and rural
environment has been memorably stressed in the work of Murray Bookchin. Nature,Chapter 11 Anarchism 249