There is yet a third argument, most assuredly a very important argument, even more important in reality. If we use peaceful means to attain the goal of communism, when will we finally achieve it? Let us assume that a century will be required, a century marked by the unceasing groans of the proletariat. What position shall we adopt in the face of this situation? The proletariat is many times more numerous than the bourgeoisie; if we assume that the proletariat constitutes two-thirds of humanity, then one billion of the earth’s one billion five hundred million inhabitants are proletarians (I fear that the figure is even higher), who during this century will be cruelly exploited by the remaining third of capitalists. How can we bear this? Furthermore, since the proletariat has already become conscious of the fact that it too should possess wealth, and of the fact that its sufferings are unnecessary, the proletarians are discontented, and a demand for communism has arisen and has already become a fact. This fact confronts us, we cannot make it disappear; when we become conscious of it we wish to act. This is why, in my opinion, the Russian revolution, as well as the radical communists in every country, will daily grow more powerful and numerous and more tightly organized. This is the natural result. This is the third argument…..
There is a further point pertaining to my doubts about anarchism. My argument pertains not merely to the impossibility of a society without power or organization. I should like to mention only the difficulties in the way of the establishment of such form of society and of its final attainment…. For all the reasons just stated, my present viewpoint on absolute liberalism, anarchism, and even democracy is that these things are fine in theory, but not feasible in practice….
Tag: Anarchism
Protected: AITA?
Yes, there is the book “1984” in Xinjiang bookstore
Hi, everyone,
I visited Xinjiang recently. Before I went, I asked my followers what they would like me to see for them, and one of them wanted me to check whether there is the book of “1984” by George Orwell in Xinjiang’s bookstores and libraries.
Ironic, considering that the CIA and Britain’s FCDO used the snitch Orwell’s works in their cultural war against Communism.
Related:
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (PDF)
Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism
Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism
There is no need to belabour the point that Social Democracy has nothing in common with those bought-and-paid-for moralists who, in response to any terrorist act, make solemn declarations about the ‘absolute value’ of human life. These are the same people who, on other occasions, in the name of other absolute values—for example, the nation’s honour or the monarch’s prestige—are ready to shove millions of people into the hell of war. Today their national hero is the minister who gives the sacred right of private property; and tomorrow, when the desperate hand of the unemployed workers is clenched into a fist or picks upon a weapon, they will start in with all sorts of nonsense about the inadmissibility of violence in any form.
On Authority
A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.
Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.
Review of Emma Goldman’s “My Disillusionment in Russia” (and Berkman’s “The Bolshevik Myth”)
Almeda Sperry to Emma Goldman, 1912
Almeda Sperry to Emma Goldman, 1912, by Jonathan Ned Katz
These letters suggest that some kind of active sexual relationship did occur between the two women. There is also no doubt about the character and intensity of Sperry’s feelings, so strongly and unambiguously expressed. The letters indicate that Goldman returned Sperry’s affection, though with less passion and desperate need than Sperry felt.
In one undated, and atypically puritanical statement, Sperry tells Goldman:
Never mind about not feeling as I do. I find restraint to be purifying. Realization is hell for it is satisfying and degenerating.
In another undated letter Sperry writes to Goldman:
God how I dream of you! You say that you would like to have me near you always if you were a man, or if you felt as I do. Dearest, I would not if I could. I would soon die…. the thought of distance adds to my terrible pain–so pleasurable. I want no calm friendships. The thoughts of annihilation used to appeal to me. Today they do not. …
The letters do suggest that Goldman in her personal relations with Sperry had come close to that tabooed homosexual activity which she early and publicly defended in lectures, to the chagrin of even her unconventional anarchist comrades. The writings of Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Almeda Sperry suggest that at least some American anarchists were, at an early date, more than usually tolerant and open-minded about homosexuality.
Related:
Read More »China Has Billionaires: Introduction
[2008] When the Left Was Right
The ghosts of 1968 are haunting Barack Obama, which is tremendously unfair, I say as his coeval, given that our cohort spent the Chicago Democratic Convention sticking baseball cards in our bicycle spokes rather than pelting Mayor Daley’s finest with porcine epithets. But guilt by association is ironclad in these days when American political discourse is controlled by hall monitors and tattletales. Obama’s friendship—acquaintance?—with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn is about to get extended play as the Republicans contrast Obama’s Weatherfriends with their nominee’s stint in the Hanoi Hilton.
When the Left Was Right
Imperialism and Socialism in Italy, 1915
First published in the journal Kommunist in 1915.
Read for free online: Imperialism and Socialism in Italy
Vladimir Lenin – Imperialism and Socialism in Italy, 1915
You must be logged in to post a comment.