This attitude Marx preserved in essentials throughout his life.Accordingly, it is not to be wondered at that his followers, so far as regards their immediate aims, have in the main become out-and-out StateSocialists.On the other hand, the Syndicalists, who accept from Marx the doctrine of the class war, which they regard as what is really vital in his teaching, reject the State with abhorrence and wish to abolish it wholly, in which respect they are at one with the Anarchists.The Guild Socialists, though some persons in this country regard them as extremists, really represent the English love of compromise.The Syndicalist arguments as to the dangers inherent in the power of the State have made them dissatisfied with the old State Socialism, but they are unable to accept the Anarchist view that society can dispense altogether with a central authority.Accordingly they propose that there should be two co-equal instruments of Government in a community, the one geographical, representing the consumers, and essentially the continuation of the democratic State; the other representing the producers, organized, not geographically, but in guilds, after the manner of industrial unionism.These two author- ities will deal with different classes of questions.Guild Socialists do not regard the industrial authority as forming part of the State, for they contend that it is the essence of the State to be geographical; but the industrial authority will resemble the present State in the fact that it will have coercive powers, and that its decrees will be enforced, when necessary.It is to be suspected that Syndicalists also, much as they object to the existing State, would not object to coercion of individuals in an industry by the Trade Union in that industry.Government within the Trade Union would probably be quite as strict as State government is now.In saying this we are assuming that the theoretical Anarchism of Syndicalist leaders would not survive accession to power, but I am afraid experience shows that this is not a very hazardous assumption.
Among all these different views, the one which raises the deepest issue is the Anarchist contention that all coercion by the community is unnecessary.Like most of the things that Anarchists say, there is much more to be urged in support of this view than most people would suppose at first sight.Kropotkin, who is its ablest exponent, points out how much has been achieved already by the method of free agreement.He does not wish to abolish government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish is the system by which a decision is en- forced uponthose who oppose it.[48] The whole system of representative government and majority rule is to him a bad thing.[49] He points to such instances as the agreements among the different railway systems of the Continent for the running of through expresses and for co-operation generally.He points out that in such cases the different companies or authorities concerned each appoint a delegate, and that the delegates suggest a basis of agreement, which has to be subsequently ratified by each of the bodies ap- pointing them.The assembly of delegates has no coercive power whatever, and a majority can do nothing against a recalcitrant minority.Yet this has not prevented the conclusion of very elaborate systems of agreements.By such methods, so Anarchists contend, the USEFUL functions of government can be carried out without any coercion.They maintain that the usefulness of agreement is so patent as to make co-operation certain if once the predatory motives associated with the present system of private property were removed.
[48] ``On the other hand, the STATE has also been confused with GOVERNMENT.As there can be no State without government, it has been sometimes said that it is the absence of government, and not the abolition of the State, that should be the aim.
``It seems to me, however, that State and government represent two ideas of a different kind.The State idea implies quite another idea to that of government.It not only includes the existence of a power placed above society, but also a territorial concentration and a concentration of many functions of the life of society in the hands of a few or even of all.It implies new relations among the members of society.
``This characteristic distinction, which perhaps escapes notice at first sight, appears clearly when the origin of the State is studied.'' Kropotkin,``The State.'' p.4.
[49] Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to Court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public questions.But, to see in it the government of the future Socialist society, is to commit a gross error.Each economical phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of the present economical life--privateproperty-- without a corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization.Life already shows in which direction the change will be made.Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as attributes of the State.'' Kropotkin, ``Anarchist Communism,'' pp.28-29.
Attractive as this view is, I cannot resist the conclusion that it results from impatience and represents the attempt to find a short-cut toward the ideal which all humane people desire.
