Anarchists (was Re: Québec )

Les Schaffer schaffer at
Mon Apr 23 14:47:29 MDT 2001

[ from Nestor ]

En relación a Re: Québec , el 23 Apr 01, a las 21:28, Gary MacLennan

> Comrades,
> I have read Jared and Paul on this with some respect and
> interest. As Marxist revolutionaries all three of us of course shed
> no tears over the property of All three of us are aware of Marx's
> admiration for the Russian anarchist so-called terrorists. None of
> us then would even dream of lending comfort to the capitalist filth
> by criticising the anarchists in the terms that the bourgeoise use.

Some considerations:

Personally, I don't care a shit for bourgeois property. Nor do I shun
from street violence (my party, in the end, was in more senses than
one a byproduct of massive street violence in Argentina, late
60s). However,

(a) I obviously understand that Marx admired the Russian Anarchists of
the late 19th. Century. I also admire the brave and exemplary
Argentinean Anarchists of the 10s and 20s, and if I ever get to power
one of the first things I will do is to propose a change in the name
of Ramón Falcón street in Buenos Aires (a murderous Police Chief of
the 1910s) for that of Simón Radowitzky (the Jewish Ukrainian
Anarchist who killed Falcón with a bomb). An example of revolutionary
honesty and courage can also be found among the Spanish Anarchists,
particularly those in Catalonia. All this is true.

But a few violent demonstrators, providing media with fodder galore,
are NOT the Russian anarchists that Marx admired, nor any of the
Anarchist tendencies I mentioned (leaving lots in the bag) above.

The Russian Anarchists were an expression of the Russian peasantry, a
concrete and true political force, who had deep roots in a material
class, that of the individualist Russian peasant. They formed the
essential core of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the famous SRs who
were the first allies of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and afterwards led the
Kronstadt rebellion. Argentinean anarchists were also an expression of
a semi-petty bourgeois foreign proletariat, as well as of the rural
masses (many gauchos were _at the same time_ Anarchists and members of
the Radical Party by the 1915-1925 decade). What to say on Catalonian
Anarchists that has not been explained already?

These were actual political forces with verifiable classes behind
them, or at least constituting the substractum from which their ideas
welled out. What is that substractum in ultra-capitalist,
ultra-imperialist, North America today? I believe that it is naive to
equate both phenomena.

But, of course, I can be wrong, I may be missing something from my
distant observatory. Perhaps the new conditions of production in the
Age of Electronics have generated a new layer of cyber-craftsmen? I
don't think so, and on the contrary I think that the proletarians in
USA and Canada have never been more rigidly tied to collective
production. But who knows, life is so full of surprises...

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list