Dangerous dream or practical scheme? The founders of modern anarchism and their visions for a stateless society.

Introduction

A stateless society, one where people are not subject to any form of external authority, is central to anarchist thought; as shown by linguistic and political definitions of the name itself. Woodcock explains that �[a] double Greek root is involved: the word archon, meaning a ruler, and the prefix an, meaning without; hence anarchy means the state of being without a ruler. By derivation, anarchism is the doctrine which contends that government is the source of most of our social troubles and that there are viable alternatives forms of voluntary organisation.� Goldman, meanwhile, describes anarchism as �The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.� Brown summarises anarchists� goal thus: they �oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.� The revolutionary element is highlighted by Faure�s statement that �[w]hoever denies authority and fights against it is an anarchist.� By this definition, many anarchists existed before Proudhon: he was, however, �the first man willingly to claim the title of anarchist�, previously employed as an insult. It was Bakunin, meanwhile, who took anarchism from a theory to a movement; a transition, Thomas says, �from a form of doctrine having some vague (�) appeal, mainly among some French Internationalists, to an anarchist movement having a considerable, and widespread appeal across national boundaries.� Their ideas will therefore form the basis of this essay. Avrich charts the beginning of anarchism in both Western Europe and Russia to the political, economic and social upheavals that accompanied industrialisation: the anarchists� reactions to this phenomenon, and their proposals for industrial organisation in a stateless society, are therefore a key focus in this essay.

The first section of this essay explains anarchists� objections to the state and authority in more detail: their rationale, in other words, for aiming for a stateless society. The second section takes the argument from �why� to �how�, examining Bakunin�s and Proudhon�s differing visions of the end of the state. The third section describes the type of society which would replace the state. The fourth and final section details the industrial organisation of such a society. The essay concludes with an evaluation of the anarchists� arguments.

Why a stateless society?

�To be governed,� Proudhon claims, �is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue�. Here is the crux of anarchists� rejection of the state and government: the idea that no-one has the right, wisdom or virtue to rule over others. Their rejection extends to any reform or revolution which aimed to retain or work through the state, even on a short-term basis, accepting neither the democratic state nor the Marxist �revolutionary government�, and calling to mind for Woodcock �Christ�s contention that one cannot cast out devils by Beelzebub.� The specific arguments of Bakunin and Proudhon will now be discussed.

In Statism and Anarchy, Bakunin argues that �[a] serious, strong state can have but one sound foundation � military and bureaucratic centralisation. Between a monarchy and the most democratic republic there is only one essential difference: in the former, the world of officialdom oppresses and robs the people for the greater profit of the privileged and propertied classes, as well as to line its own pockets, in the name of the monarch; in the latter, it oppresses and robs the people in the same way, for the benefit of the same classes and the same pockets, but in the name of the people�s will.� To him all states, governments and laws are oppressive, differing from one another in name rather than form. Changes to the existing structure will not therefore significantly alter conditions for those who are oppressed. Central to his argument is the assertion that those who are given any power will use it to gain more, the oppressed becoming oppressors in their turn. �If the proletariat is to become the new ruling class, it may be asked, then whom will it rule? There must yet be another proletariat which will be subject to this new rule, this new state.� The new state will therefore be as oppressive as the old one. �If there is a state�, he affirms, �then necessarily there is domination and consequently slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable � that is why we are enemies of the state.� In Church and State he perceives the state as �a vast shambles or an enormous graveyard in which (�) all the true aspirations and all the living forces of a country, generously and beatifically allow themselves to be buried.�

The idea of democratic state government �for the people� receives no more sympathy from Proudhon, whose experience of working within the system confirmed rather than quelled his objections. �As soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai�, he explains, �I ceased to be in touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative work, I entirely lost sight of the current of events.� His absorption into state politics temporarily distracted him from his aim of liberating the masses; an effect he believed was typical of those involved in government. This mirrors Bakunin�s prediction that Marx�s proposed revolutionary state would consist of �former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers and representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers� world from the heights of the state They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people.� Both anarchists therefore regard democratic representation, revolutionary government and all other �progressive� state-based systems as masks for the same repressive regime: as such, they aim for a stateless society.

How reasonable are such assumptions? It is difficult to challenge the arguments � particularly Bakunin�s � regarding revolutionary governments. Bakunin denied that the socialist state, as proposed by Marx, would wither away: he has, therefore, been credited with predicting the course events would take in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Goldman�s account of Stalinist Russia could be said to support his predictions: the Bolsheviks, she says, �suffered the popular forces to manifest themselves, the people carrying the Revolution into ever-widening channels. But as soon as the Communist Party felt itself sufficiently strong in the government saddle, it began to limit the scope of popular activity,� as the state �became the sole arbiter of all the needs of the social body.� One set of oppressors was therefore exchanged for another, arguably as Goldman�s predecessors had predicted. The claims of Bakunin and Proudhon are less convincing with regard to representative democracy: although subsequent anarchists � and communists � have undeniably regarded the democratic state as oppressive, there is no evidence; certainly none as conclusive as in the case of communism.

Establishing why a stateless society is desirable to anarchists leads to the question of how such a society should be achieved. This question � one on which Proudhon and Bakunin largely disagreed � will now be examined.

The end of the state

The most evident theoretical distinction between Bakunin and Proudhon is in their visions of the transition from state to an archos. While Proudhon trusted in a form of evolution, Bakunin was enthusiastic for violent revolution, a method regarded by Proudhon as counter-productive. This section examines their different proposed routes to anarchy.

Proudhon�s ideas in this field were similar in some ways to those of the English anarchist Godwin, who claimed that the perfectibility of human beings at a particular task suggested that they could also be perfected as humans. Proudhon�s concern, however, was with the perfectibility of society as well as individuals: what was needed was an �evolutionary transformation of the moral character and philosophy of all men.� Marshall explains this further: Proudhon, he suggests, �saw nature and society governed by laws of development and believed that if human beings lived in harmony with them they could become free. Freedom thus becomes a recognition of necessity: only if man knows his natural and social limits can he become free to realise his full potential.� In the same vein, Proudhon saw authority a society allowed one person to hold over another as �inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached,� and the duration of such authority as calculable from the desire for a scientific search for the truth. This is a natural progression, with society constantly changing and �becoming quite another thing than it was�, a process described by Hoffman as �a dialectic of historical stages.� Furthermore, Proudhon argues, �Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy�.� Anarchy was therefore inevitable as well as natural; as such, Proudhon envisioned authority disappearing as humanity developed to its full potential.

Bakunin, while adopting many of Proudhon�s ideas, rejected those outlined above in favour of immediate, violent revolution propagated by the lowest sections of society whose oppression was enough to create revolutionary spirit at any given time. The old order, he claimed, had to be destroyed �root and branch,� and it was this fervour which led Camus to claim that Bakunin �wanted total freedom, but he hoped to realise it through total destruction� of all aspects of the old society. In the words of his associate Guillaume, �[t]he character of the revolution must at first be negative, destructive. Instead of modifying certain institutions of the past, or adapting them to a new order, it will do way with them altogether. (�) At the same time, the Revolution has a positive goal, that the workers take possession of all capital and the tools of production.� The spontaneity of such a revolution led another close associate, Herzen, to remark on Bakunin�s tendency to mistake �the second month of pregnancy for the ninth�, an accusation that could never be levelled at Proudhon.

In 1848, Bakunin declared to the Congress for Peace and Freedom that �[u]niversal peace will be impossible so long as the present centralised states exist. We must desire their destruction� in order for a free, peaceful society to emerge. In the Congress, Woodcock says, �[Bakunin] developed the federalist viewpoint in an almost orthodoxly Proudhonian manner, but aroused considerable opposition because he could not resist a destructionist tone.� Here is the crux of the disagreement between the two anarchists: the �destructionist tone� goes against �orthodoxly Proudhonian� ideals. Their disagreement was by no means absolute. Proudhon would be likely, for example, to endorse Bakunin�s statement that �the people can be happy and free only when they create their own life�, which could almost have been lifted from his own works. He would, however, dispute Bakunin�s desire for a violent revolution which would immediately destroy the state in a more literal way than he himself intended. Hoffman states that �[w]hile Proudhon, like Marx, sought revolutionary change, he was sceptical about the process of revolution itself. Not only did he see no historical necessity for it ever to occur; he was afraid that violent revolution would not substantially advance the cause of justice, whatever new socio-political order it established.� Like Goldman, he saw the aftermath of the revolutions of his time as evidence that �revolution would become perverted into a travesty of its intended form.� Bakunin�s counter may have been that past revolutions had aimed to seize political power, whereas �[t]he true revolution� would not capture political power; it would be a social revolution, ridding the world of the state itself.� However, attractive as it has proved to generations of nihilists, Bakunin�s enthusiasm for violence and destruction is arguably a dubious basis for a peaceful society: the continuing existence of the state, meanwhile, does not � for better or worse � bear out Proudhon�s predicted evolutionary change.

Whatever the doubts regarding both Bakunin�s and Proudhon�s methods for achieving a stateless society, they do not necessarily devalue their proposals for the society itself. These will now be examined.

Replacing the state

Bakunin makes the following proviso in the appendix to Statism and Anarchy: �[t]o avoid misunderstanding, we feel it necessary to remark that what we call the people�s ideal has nothing to do with those political and social constructs, formulas, and theories which bourgeois scholars or semi-scholars devise at their leisure, in isolation from popular life, and graciously offer to the ignorant crowd as the necessary form of their future organisation.� In the light of such a statement, it is to be expected that few concrete proposals for a future society are forthcoming: to some extent, therefore, this section is based on speculation. What Bakunin and Proudhon did provide, however, was a set of guidelines for how a stateless society would function, and these will be examined. For Bakunin, society would be based on equality; for Proudhon the key was voluntary agreement, in which equality was a component. Neither principle, they would argue, can be applied fully anywhere other than a stateless society. Both � and indeed the majority of anarchists � envisioned a society arranged around a federation of small, autonomous communes operating on these principles. These aspects of the stateless society are discussed in this section. A further aspect of their theory, possibly the most clearly defined, was the replacement of government with industrial organisation, and this will be discussed separately in the next section.

�Man�, Bakunin asserts, �is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all. The freedom of each is therefore realisable only in the equality of all. The realisation of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.� Slavery, as has been seen, was regarded by Bakunin as inevitable under any form of government: it therefore follows that government negates equality and freedom. The conditions set in his Revolutionary Catechism for �the practical realisation of freedom� include �Abolition of classes, ranks, and privileges; absolute equality of political rights for all men and women; universal suffrage.� (Max Nettlau, in an editor�s note, points out that this will occur �Not in the state, but in the units of the new society.�) Equality, Bakunin argues, will be the result of the removal of hierarchy, reflecting Weick�s claim that anarchism �expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination and hierarchical division�. As such, equality is not only a desired result of the abolition of the state, but also a necessary principle for the resulting society. Proudhon expresses a similar sentiment, listing �[t]he equality of fortunes� among the principles essential to stateless society and incompatible with any system base on authority and hierarchy. Some factors negate the insistence on equality. Firstly, in both visions the industrious would be rewarded more than the lazy. However, this can be justified on the grounds that the existing hierarchical system was �parasitic�, while the new one would remove this element. As Bakunin points out, �[e]conomic and social equality means the equalisation of personal wealth, but not by restricting what a man may acquire by his own skill, productive energy and thrift.� A less acceptable � not least to today�s anarchists � discrepancy is the sexism displayed by Proudhon and the racism of both he and Bakunin. Proudhon would refer to �badly born and bastard races� and regarded women as having no role in public life; Bakunin, while arguing for equality for women, was undeniably anti-Semitic. However, these were common opinions of their times, and do not necessarily compromise the overall theory of opposition to authority.

Societal anarchists, particularly Proudhon, assert that the new society should be based on a network of voluntary agreements between individuals and between communes. Proudhon, who named his theory �mutualism�, regarded society as �a system of free forces balancing each other; a system in which all individuals are guaranteed the same rights provided they perform the same duties, one in which they will receive the same benefits in return for the same services rendered.� The agreements would take place between equals, on equal terms, as opposed to the exploitation of one individual or group by another; the principle of equality, as discussed above, is therefore a crucial factor. Such exchanges would ensure, Proudhon argued, that everyone who contributed to society had access to the essentials of life. The system would �take the form of contracts in which the parties would undertake mutual obligations and reciprocal guarantees for exchanging goods of equal value.� Free contract and voluntary agreement, Proudhon believed, equalled �the negation of authority� and was as such the key to social organisation in a stateless society. There is an element of impracticality in such an idea: if contracts were voluntary, critics may ask, then what incentive would either individuals or communes have to abide by them? The answer lies in the mutual respect anarchists believe would exist in a non-hierarchical society of equals. Accepting the argument therefore depends to some extent on a belief in human nature. However, supporters would argue that the majority of contracts made within the existing system are abided by without intervention from an outside authority. Proudhon has also argued that people would become less self-seeking once they were freed from authoritarian relationships of hierarchy. It is likely that mutualism would function more effectively in some contexts than others: the framework generally accepted by anarchists will now be discussed.

�The basic unit of all political organisation in each country�, Bakunin asserts, �must be the completely autonomous commune.� Such communes � usually small and composed of equally autonomous individuals � are accepted by the majority of anarchists as the basis for a stateless society. Unlike the local work units utilised by communist regimes, these would � like the process which led to their formation � be organised from the bottom up rather than the top down. Organisation within them would be based on �the fact of direct collaboration and consultation between the people most intimately involved in a phase of living� rather than on laws and targets imposed from above. The end of the state would by necessity mean the decentralisation of society: this, Proudhon believed, would �resist the tendency of power to accumulate more power�, as overall authority could not be vested in a single body. The autonomous communes which replaced the centralised state could form federations, but these would come about through free contracts of equal exchange. This would ensure the exchange of products and enable the sharing of the means of production. There are, however, contradictions in the vision. Bakunin refers to majority voting within the communes, to a �co-ordinating association� for each country and to �provincial parliaments�. Although he does not believe these would hold authority in the traditional sense, his objection to revolutionary governments could also be deployed here since it is difficult to visualise how such institutions could be formed without providing opportunities for representatives to claim power. The defence provided is that bottom-up organisation, from the grass-roots in today�s parlance, would guard against this. In the favour of the proposed arrangement, it can be argued that the division of a country into smaller units would be the only viable way for society to function with no overall authority.

Overall, how practical is the anarchist vision for a stateless society? As guiding principles for a society, equality and free exchange appear desirable, although the issue remains of whether contracts would be adhered to without a legal framework to enforce them. The commune system, as noted above, would be more viable as the basis for a stateless society than the creation of such a society � and subsequent maintenance of order � on a national scale. Therefore, if a society without authority was possible, this framework is arguably the most likely to make it so. Neither Bakunin nor Proudhon set much store by providing concrete details for the future society. This could be taken by critics to suggest that they were unprepared for their ideas to be realised. However, it can also be viewed in a positive light. Bakunin points out that �[i]t is impossible to determine a concrete, universal, and obligatory norm for the internal development and political organisation of every nation� [to do so] would smother the richness and spontaneity of life which flourishes only in infinite diversity and, what is more, contradict the most fundamental principles of freedom.� In this light, the lack of prescription can be seen as an ability to adapt to circumstances in a way communism, for example, could not.

In his description of how society would function without authority structures, Proudhon declares that �[i]t is industrial organisation that we will put in the place of government�. The industrial organisation of a stateless society is therefore crucial to its functioning, and will now be discussed.

Industrial organisation of a stateless society

As mentioned in the introduction, the upheavals of industrialisation formed a backdrop for much nineteenth-century anarchist thought. Although industry as it was coming to exist was regarded as exploitative, industry in a new, non-exploitative form was considered the ideal basis for a society without government. Industrial organisation, Proudhon argued, would take the place of government; free contracts between individuals, industrial associations and communes would replace laws; industrial associations would take the place of standing armies, and economic centralisation that of political centralisation. Bakunin, meanwhile, supported the replacement of the state with �the organisation of productive forces and economic services.� Industry, in the stateless society, would create a unity not enforced by outside authority: �You,� Proudhon asserts, �who cannot conceive of unity without a whole apparatus of legislators, prosecutors, custom house officers, policemen, you have never known what real unity is!�

Industrial organisation, like social and political organisation, would be based around the small, autonomous commune and � as suggested above � the free contract. Anarchists were as hostile to large-scale industry as to any other form of centralised power or hierarchy. Bakunin, Avrich says, �was not only an enemy of capitalism like Marx, but an intransigent opponent of any concentration of industrial might, whether in private hands or public�; this last the distinguishing factor between anarchist and communist industrial organisation. Like Proudhon, Bakunin had high hopes for the impact of the new system: �The decentralised, libertarian society of the future, with its loose federation of workers� cooperatives and agricultural communes (purged of their ancient patriarchal authoritarianism), would accomplish a total reconstruction of social values and a regeneration of humanity.�

Common ownership of the means of production is the preferred option to replace centralisation in industry. �The land, and all natural resources,� Bakunin claims, �are the common property of everyone, but will be used only by those who cultivate it by their own labour.� A similar principle applied to machinery and other means of production. Collectively owned resources � owned by the entire population, rather than on their behalf by the state � would be managed by the association of workers which laboured on them. Use rights, however, would not be exclusive. Proudhon recognised the social nature of factory production, and argued that, as such, society should be organised as a system of exchange between industrial associations, according to the principles of mutualism. The use of machinery and other resources would therefore occur on a mutual exchange basis. Such a system would, anarchists hoped, rule out the �parasitic� ownership of and profit from factories and farms by non-labouring capitalists. By making clear that the means of production would be managed by the producers, Bakunin extends to industrial organisation the condition placed on equality which required that those who labour receive a greater share of available resources than those who are idle. To Proudhon, this was an average rather than a complete equality: he believed that �The industrious should be awarded proportionately more than the lazy, but differences in rewards should never become great enough to produce the wide extremes of wealth and power which [he] attacked in the name of equality.� Therefore, as well as being the basis for and main unifying force within society, industry was also the sole means by which people were distinguished from one another. This raises the question of who is able to allocate resources, on the basis of labour or any other factor, given that this could be said to constitute some form of authority. The solution may be to have the entire community make collective decisions about matters such as this, reaching a final decision by consensus. However, aside from the practicality issue, there is a risk that those who do not wish to labour would influence the decision to their benefit, unless prevented from doing so by the respect for others by which Proudhon intended the society to be guided.

Within the factory or agricultural commune, while division of labour would occur according to skills and preferences, the anarchist anti-hierarchical principle would still be observed. The difference in status between �manual� and �intellectual� labour was one which Bakunin was particularly keen to abolish, along with the monopolisation of the management of production by particular individuals. He argues that �The monopoly of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production, on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the owners and their managers.� In the society he envisions, therefore, no one individual or group would own the factory, and administrators would be workers like any others with no extra power or authority. The practicality of workers� self-management, he points out, had already been demonstrated by the co-operative workers� associations, in which workers �[chose] administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same pay�, and were able to �efficiently control and operate industry.� The same phenomenon is arguably evident in workers co-operatives today. This is, therefore, arguably the most viable aspect of the anarchist vision. It does not, however, depend on the removal of the state, given that the successful co-operatives then and now operated under a state system.

The element of industrial organisation is arguably the most clearly defined area of Bakunin�s and Proudhon�s proposals for a stateless society. This reflects the climate of the times in which they were writing: although they formulated their ideas at different times, Avrich points out that �[i]n Russia, at the turn of the century, as in Western Europe several decades earlier, it was the arrival of the industrial revolution and the social dislocation it produced that called a militant anarchist movement into being.� Therefore, despite the differences in time and arguably in political climate, Proudhon and Bakunin were faced with similar stages of industrialisation. Another factor is the importance of industrial organisation to the stateless society: it would, the anarchists argued, replace government as a source of unity, order and social cohesion, and as such form the basis of society. It is therefore necessary to define the form of industrial organisation more clearly than any other aspect of the new society, particularly as this area would otherwise be the most subject to misinterpretation.

There are several, potentially contradictory points with which this section can be concluded. It could be argued, firstly, that the practicality of the ideas outlined above depended on whether the stateless society itself was feasible. However, it can be argued just as convincingly that industrial organisation is the factor which improves the feasibility of the stateless society, providing as it does the first suggestion of a concrete alternative to state government. The criticisms of this aspect of Bakunin�s and Proudhon�s proposals are less difficult to dispute than those relating to social organisation. The ideas of equality and free exchange are arguably more convincing when applied to something resembling a concrete structure than when they are still to some extent abstract principles. However, the central issue in this discussion is the feasibility of the stateless society itself, and this will now be discussed.

Conclusion

As suggested by the roots of the terms �anarchy� and �anarchism�, the stateless society is a central theme of anarchist thought. Proudhon was the first self-proclaimed anarchist, giving political legitimacy to a formerly pejorative expression; Bakunin, meanwhile, has been credited with creating an anarchist movement. Anarchists regard all forms of government as oppressive: Proudhon used his experience to argue that a government was by necessity out of touch with the masses, while Bakunin insisted that domination and slavery were inherent in the concept of the state. The two differ on how the state will come to an end, with Proudhon favouring a form of evolutionary change and Bakunin preferring spontaneous, violent revolution. Both claim that the resulting stateless society will be arranged around the small-scale autonomous commune, based on freely made agreements and guided by the principle of equality. The autonomy of the communes is an alternative to the centralised hierarchy of the state system, and would result from the decentralisation of society. It has been argued that the principles of equality and voluntary contract would be difficult to maintain: however, if they are to be maintained, then the framework the anarchists suggest would make this more probable. The commune system is also arguably the only means by which society could operate successfully without authority. A more definite framework for the stateless society is suggested by the claim that industrial organisation � co-operative and non-hierarchical in its nature � would replace government as the means for maintaining unity and order. Industry, like society as a whole, would be decentralised, owned by everyone rather than being centred in either private or state hands. The means of production, be it land or factory machinery, would however be managed by those who laboured on them. To some extent the practicality of anarchist industrial organisation depends on the viability of the stateless society as a whole: however, it can also be argued that the feasibility of such a society is increased by the addition of a genuine replacement for government. Industrial organisation is the only aspect of the stateless society about which either Bakunin or Proudhon go into any great detail; usefully, since this is for them the basis of society. The lack of detail in other areas, while potentially suggesting deficiencies in their argument, may also allow for adaptation to circumstances which would not be possible if � as with communism � every detail was already prescribed.

References Avrich, Paul (1967) The Russian Anarchists New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Avrich, Paul (1988) Anarchist Portraits Princeton University Press

Bakunin, Oeuvres II, 39 quoted Avrich (1967) p25

Bakunin, Michael �On Workers� Self-Management of Industry and Equal Remuneration� in Dolgoff Bakunin on Anarchism pp423-425

Bakunin, Michael Statism and Anarchy trans, ed and intro M. Shatz (1994) Cambridge University Press

Bakunin, Michael (1910) �Church and State� (excerpt) in Woodcock, AR pp81-88

Bakunin, �Revolutionary Catechism� (reproduced in various anthologies)

Brown, L. Susan quoted in �Anarchist FAQs� on http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA1.html accessed 17/03/2002

Camus, Albert (1951) L�Homme Revolte Paris: Gallimard 1974 p194 quoted Marshall (1993)

Dolgoff, Sam (1980) Bakunin on Anarchism Quebec: Black Rose Books

Edwards, Stewart (1969) �Editor�s Introduction� in Proudhon, Selected Writings

Faure, Sebastien �Anarchy-Anarchist� from his 19th century Encyclopedie Anarchiste , Woodcock AR p62

Goldman, Emma (1979) �Anarchism: What It Really Stands For� in A. K. Shulman (ed.) Red Emma Speaks London: Wildwood House pp47-63

Goldman, Emma (1979) �Afterword to �My Disillusionment in Russia�� in Shulman, Red Emma Speaks pp337-358

Guillaume, J. (1876) �On Building the New Social Order� in S. Dolgoff (1980) Bakunin on Anarchism Quebec: Black Rose Books pp356-379

Hoffman, R. L. (1972) Revolutionary Justice: The Social and Political Thought of P.-J. Proudhon University of Illinois Press

Marshall, Peter (1993) Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism London: Fontana

Passmore, J. (1970) The Perfectibility of Man London: Duckworth pp.11-12

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph General Idea of the Revolution quoted Peter Marshall (1993) Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism London: Fontana p246

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840) �The Birth of Anarchy � the Death of Property� in Woodcock AR pp.65-72 (quote from p67) (BADP)

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840s) �Mutualism� in P.-J. Proudhon Selected Writings ed. S. Edwards (1969) London: Macmillan pp56-70

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1849) �Parliamentary Isolation� in Woodcock AR pp110-111

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1851) �The Old Society � and the New� in Woodcock AR pp290-296

Thomas, Paul (1980) Karl Marx and the Anarchists London: Routledge

Weick, David Reinventing Anarchy quoted in �Anarchist FAQs� on http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA1.html accessed 17/03/2002

Woodcock, George (1977) Anarchism London: Pelican p9

Woodcock, George (1986) �Anarchism: A Historical Introduction� in G. Woodcock (ed.) The Anarchist Reader London: Fontana Press pp11-56 (Woodcock, AR)

Rights reserved E. Harding 2003 Solidarida home

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws