In modern Czech socio-political thinking the radical-anarchist element has been neglected thus far. After it vanished from the socio-political spectrum it did not suit even in retrospect any of the other orientations--including those most politically akin to it. Even less was it considered in the period in which only one socio-political orientation monopolized the socio-political field.

But how did it come about that radical Czech anarchism, from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century, was included in the scale of socio-political tendencies, then concealed, and finally vanished as a hope for radical emancipation? Are we faced with Orwell's or Bradbury's vision that what is not thought or written down does not exist?

What separates us from the efforts and thoughts of Czech anarchism is not impenetrable. Its ideas, their content and fate, are not merely a document from that stage of development of Czech society but reverberate with the present issue.

THE HISTORY OF THE CZECH ANARCHIST MOVEMENT

IN THE 19th-20th CENTURIES

In the material and ideological circumstances of the last third of the 19th century the ideological orientation of anarchism represented a specific intellectual and practical socio-political alternative in the Czech region. Inspired by the idea of radical emancipation, anarchism first arose in the European socialist movement of the 19th century from several representatives (P.J. Proudhom, M. Stirner, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, E. Reclus, E. Malatesta, among others) and became a distinctive social and political alternative within that movement. International cooperation in the International Workers' Association was finally determined by two crystallizing and opposing socio-political movements. These championed the emancipation of man and society: the path to freedom for the individual and the organization of future society, the one anti-authoritative and anarchistic, the other authoritative and Marxist-oriented. The central concept of the freedom of the individual, the social realization of anarchy, and the longed-for absence of authority (Herrschaftslosigkeit, Abwesenheit von Herrschaft) were the decisive and differentiating moments for the two alternatives, not only in ideological terms but also in the organizational forms of workers' associations.

In the Czech environment socialist thinking (as opposed to the European workers' movement) developed with a certain time-lag. This idea was formed through experience in the conflict between the authoritative direction of the socialist movement as a political party and the anti-authoritative direction on the basis of a trade union movement. It was not a finished, crystallized ideology, but rather was formed through a process of ideological identification and self-reflection.

The Polarization of the Radical Alternative on the Social Question

The first signs of Czech anarchist tendencies are found in the 1880s when socialist workers' movements were without a complete anarchist ideology, but only more or less elemental reactions to the problems of the workers. After its initial development in the 80s, it polarized ideologically over the question of the future of the movement. The differences between the moderate and radical elements finally led to a split. The "radical" standpoint came close to anarchism and provided a favorable ground for anarchism as a solution to the social question.

Gradually it became clear that the differing standpoints in the socialist movement concerned not only questions of tactics but also the content of emancipation, the manner of achieving it and ideas about the organization of future society. The "radicals" evolved differentiated standpoints: the elimination of the authority of the state, the central idea of a free society, and the struggle toward these ends by the revolutionary minorities and individuals. This led to the emergence of the anarchist movement from the related ideological stimuli and influences.

The future idea of a free society was to be the decisive moment in the emancipation struggle of the workers. This did not include the formation of a political party, party discipline and organization, parliamentarianism and the fight for a general right to vote, or the achievement of political power, even were that to be declared socialist.

In this elemental stage radicalism had corresponding elements in European movements. At the London Congress of Anarchists (1881) principles were formulated which were broadly welcomed by the Czech anarchists.⁽²⁾ These included as an accepted tactic individual terror. The anarchist principles were meant to be spread not only by words, but especially by deeds: "Die Propaganda durch die Tat" was emphasized in the radical anarchist press distributed from abroad.

The elemental radicalism especially among the Northern Bohemian workers (miners and other proletarian strata in Czech regions) represented fertile soil for the implementation of the radicalist tendencies represented by European anarchism. On the one hand, the anarchist propaganda of Johann Most⁽³⁾ found a reception in Austria at that time. On the other hand, there was further anarchist propaganda from abroad in the journals distributed in the 80s from London (Freiheit, Zukunft, Rebell), Budapest (Communist, Radikal), or through the body of Czech anarchists in the U.S.A. (Budoucnost [Future] from Chicago or Proletáian published in New York), and, finally, in the form of illegal papers and pamphlets with strongly formulated attacks.

Radicalism "enjoins the revolutionary party, the most immediate aim of which is destruction, i.e., to declare at a suitable time (apart from propaganda in word and letter) a social revolutionary deed as a practical means of action. The declaration must be followed by action."⁽⁴⁾

"Anti-authoritative" individual terror at this time was a distinctive criterion of anarchism as distinct from other socio-political ideas. From a negative attitude toward the social system there emerged the requirement to "disturb, damage or even directly eliminate" its representatives: "We vote for attempts at the political and active elimination of private ownership in the social field."⁽⁵⁾

The sector of the Czech workers' movement in the 80s was made up not only of moderates and radicals, but also of anarchists. Its "propaganda of action" (Propaganda der Tat), though in verbal rather than active form, was in keeping with the broader tendency of the European anarchist movement. "The revolutionary idea is, however, best broadcast by action", says the Chicago Budoucnost with regard to conditions in Austria.

Therefore, people must be shown that a quite insignificant little group of daring and devoted men can terrify the entire tyrannical regime to such an extent that the latter takes up the most nonsensical means against the people as a whole and thus becomes the true mother of the new revolutionary forces. . . . Against such villainy over the working people there is no other weapon than terror.⁽⁶⁾

During the 80s in the Czech regions the socialist movement recognized the ideological influences of European socialism, accepting and at the same time changing not only the theoretical, but also the practical forms of their promotion. This was the beginning of a process which continued in subsequent decades, the effects of which extend far beyond the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

What form did anarchism take in its beginnings in the 80s? It shaped itself on the basis of the social democratic movement (or some refinement thereof) and under the influence of the changes taking place in Europe. Initially, it polarized regarding the requirements, procedures and final aims of the movement. At first, from the radical extreme of this polarization, it gradually moved against the social-democratic split which, in any case, was bridged over in the course of a decade. In contrast to a party-organized procedure, the anarchist orientation adopted a radical view of the revolutionary struggle, unlimited by parties or association. This anti-authoritarian attitude was demonstrated through individual revolutionary struggle and propaganda.⁽⁷⁾

Rather then linking up its anti-authoritative attitude, activities or anti-étatism with any defined organizational form or hierarchy, anarchism opened the possibility for direct revolutionary terrorism by anti-authority oriented individuals or groups. It did not consider itself bound by the political means of struggle of the various parties, parliamentarianism or the requirements of political freedoms and rights with regard to authority: "It will hardly ever be possible by a legal path . . . to achieve anything really valuable."⁽⁸⁾ Here anti-étatism took the form of a simple non-historical elimination of the state, its institutions and representatives of its power. The expansion or improvement of the political institutions of the state and of political powers was not within this horizon. "If the society of the future is to be and to remain free, it must not force itself into forms which hitherto entailed the curse of non-freedom in the entire historical age of humanity. The main form of this type is the state. . . . Freedom is ensured only in a commune, not in the state."⁽⁹⁾

The anarchist viewpoint became unequivocal:

Each state is the representative of the ruling class power. And just as there are people who believe in the possibility of a truly popular state, we, on the other hand, declare that we should avoid all misunderstandings and declare our program directly as follows: Absolute elimination of the state in all its forms.⁽¹⁰⁾

The changing platforms of the social-democratic and anarchist movements meant also contradictory approaches to the emancipation effort: on the one hand, being against competition between political parties and, on the other, directly stimulating the revolutionary action of individuals and groups. Individualism as the principle of emancipation is motivated by the idea of a "free society" of "free individuals" which should not be complicated by authoritatively organized forms of struggle through political parties. Rather, autonomous groups or their mutual federation were proclaimed in which the freedom of the individual would be preserved untouched. This is why

our groups must be truly independent. If a group is made up of adherents of anarchy, then the activity in this group must be in keeping with the principles of anarchism. An anarchist does not admit any other organization to be beneficial than one in which a member is not forced into anything. Anarchist agitation groups must be permeated with the spirit of true freedom. There must not be cultivated in them any authoritarianism; they must be an association of free men for the cause of free action to achieve freedom.⁽¹¹⁾

In the socialist movement this constituted a quantitatively smaller and persecuted part, which professed defiantly that "only in anarchy is there true justice and fraternity, is progress and civilization possible".⁽¹²⁾

The humble form of Czech anarchism in the 80s represented an experiment in radical emancipation, both regarding the path and the sense of liberation, namely, anarchy. "We want to make the working class independent as soon as possible, to liberate it from the present capitalist system".⁽¹³⁾ At the beginning it would not place on the individual even preliminary regulating conditions; its only appeal was for activity which would negate all subjects and forms of authority. This found its niche as a more or less anonymously articulated and accepted alternative in the socialist movement: the possibility of active radicalism oriented it in an anti-authoritative direction.

Independent Socialism, Its Sources and Its Polarization

In the 1890s the idea of anarchy became not only a radical orientation within the socialist movement, but an ideological trend based on the original personality of European anarchism and the conscious reception of its ideological stimuli.

In one form, anarchism had the characteristics of an independent socialism which not only expressed ideological and organizational independence from social democracy, but also concealed verbally provocative anarchist intentions. This combined parts of the elemental radicalism of the 80s and the programmed radicalism of the younger generation (radical working-class youth and young intellectuals) of the 90s for whom active individualism meant opposing the organized discipline of a political party. In this stage, Czech anarchism developed as a current in the relatively wider base of the radicalized socialist movement and the radicalized intelligentsia. This independent socialism was in a sense a practice-oriented alternative to the anarchist movement. It aimed at economic and social struggle and provided the ideological horizon for radical means in the everyday practical effort. From this basis there also emerged a program of individualism, anti-étatism and the postulates of complete freedom of the individual and the emancipation of society.

In a second form, mainly among the younger generation (members of the intelligentsia, artists, students, working-class youth), independent socialism became a politically, socially and culturally motivated radicalism which was consciously anarchistic. It presented itself to the world as a radically individualist ideology and proclaimed revolt against authoritarian state centralism and other aspects of the Austrian and Czech politics of the time (conservatism, clericalism, nationalism) and "official society" in general (S.K. Neumann). This concentrated on questions of individual creative freedom, literature, art, ethics, morality, etc. On the one hand, there was anarchism in terms of elemental individualistic forms seen through the lens of direct interests (especially in the areas of the already traditional anarchist influence of the Northern Bohemian miners and workers). This regarded itself as a radical, direct path to emancipation through direct economic struggle (economic terrorism, strikes, sabotage). It fought against clericalism and religion as having an ideological aim and sought the elimination of the authority of state, church, economic power and exploitation in order to achieve individual freedom in a free society of individuals.

On the other hand, anarchism as seen through the lens of individualism was a denial of both material and spiritual authority. This was represented in particular by two orientations among the younger generation of the 1890s. The first was the movement of working class youth (the workers' youth movement, Omladina) which originally emerged from the program of civil democracy and gradually overcame it in the direction of anarchism. The other was a student movement which through its radicalism and individualism was open both to the influences of German individualism and voluntarism and to French anarchism. This was gradually transformed from the individualistic concepts of Stirner and Mackay to the collective ideas of Bakunin and Kropotkin's communist anarchism.

As "independent socialism", it first formed a negative platform with regard to social democracy drawing together the radical oppositional currents of socialist thinking and the Czech workers' movement. In opposition to the social-democratic program, the radical anarchist standpoints were represented in the journal Omladina⁽¹⁴⁾ which proclaimed itself to be "in favor of radical socialism" (in 1891), criticized the Hainfeld program of social democracy, and supported the "progressive programme" of "complete freedom of the person". It favored the organization on a "federalist basis" and the understanding of human society as "the sum of single, independent, honorable and reasonable individuals".

To our aim, which is freedom or liberty, leads unification with the preservation of individuality, not an engulfing unification such as centralism, but a preserving unification or federation. We therefore prefer federation to centralization, we want autonomy and therefore are in favor of national organizations in the international association and of independent production cooperatives in the production community (Communism).⁽¹⁵⁾

The ideas presented by Omladina found wide acceptance among working-class youth and young intellectuals (not only in Prague, but also in other areas of the Czech region, especially in North Bohemia); it drew together the radical socialist movement and the student progressive movement. "This is also why the Omladina movement bears the seal of the anarchist spirit", wrote Komuna later.⁽¹⁶⁾

The socialist ideas promoted in the progressive movement were accepted through the prism of political radicalism: "Progressiveness from 1893 . . . had to be politically radical because it wanted something more than ordinary political trade".⁽¹⁷⁾ Thus the distance increased from the policy and ideology of Czech social democracy in which the younger generation saw "too little socialism and too much class envy and hatred".⁽¹⁸⁾ This was fertile soil for the mediation through German literature of individualist anarchism, especially that of Stirner. For the generation of the 90s, Nietzsche, with his individualism, subjectivism, voluntarism, attacks on the state, and atheism represented a symbol of revolt. He symbolized the negation and the destruction of existing values. For this generation he expressed the effort to promote freedom against bourgeois society.⁽¹⁹⁾

A strong role was played by the Moderní Revue (Modern Review) (from 1895) and Neumann's Nový kult (New Cult) (from 1897), through which the movement became acquainted with the European anarchists (not only Stirner and Bakunin, but also P. Kropotkin, J. Grave, E. Reclus, and others). Radical and somewhat elemental and abstract anarchism was already taking on clear ideological contours of its own. It not only proclaimed the emancipation of the individual, but projected it onto the general social level of the future free society as an intellectualized world-view.⁽²⁰⁾

Finally, the opposition from the originally "moderate" social democrats also turned in an anarchist orientation through Nový vk svobody (New Age of Freedom), (1892). V. Körber presented anarchism as a non-literary, non-doctrinaire individualism which in no way limits any other. "The individualist moment of anarchism teaches the anarchist to see in his ego the center and main matter of his life which raises him above morals, religion and altruism."⁽²¹⁾ This is summed up in the brochure, Ethical Anarchism (1895). Its prerequisite is a certain degree of

education of human nature which would not allow someone consciously to undertake something which would harm another, even though the one undertaking it would have the greatest personal benefit. Education is also the essential condition of the individualist ideal; therefore this ideal is what one might call the summit of the cultural development of human society.

This is also an argument against the principle of parliamentarianism, because "free will and reason are the most precious gift of nature; it is a sin to give up these gifts, to entrust them to others, or to allow another to husband them." The achievement of such individualism would then guarantee a society of free individuals: "individualism would also act in an educational, civilizing manner and through its influence . . . would convince everyone that other people have the same rights as they do."⁽²²⁾ Finally, "education and awareness are the basic condition for the acquisition of freedom," writes Körber, "but education and awareness are the defenders of these freedoms."⁽²³⁾ Though this finally turned into collectivistically oriented anarchism, it continued to be an important source for the first half of the 90s.

The Idea of Individualism and Its Consequences

The concept of independence not only differed from the centralism of the social-democratic movement, but it was also an attempt at a positive definition of the "principle of the greatest possible independence". This was in contrast to

a certain programmed precision, it is the proclamation of progressive development because it's capable of implementing this within itself, without a set of doctrines. It was constantly evolutionary in its views and it principles, which were constantly becoming more complete and more certain. Independence . . . is not centralist but leads to individualism; . . . it does not recognize rules and programs like the centralists. . . . Therefore, it does not demand that its supporters should blindly accept as true everything coming from some center, being well aware that such leadership makes people of whatever part into unthinking machines, dependent on their leaders in their reason, judgment and actions.⁽²⁴⁾

The idea of independence is, then, not an authoritative program or world-view, but the prerequisite of one's practical self-confidence.

It is necessary that every individual should not only understand individual independence, but also that this should become the main factor of his life, otherwise, he . . . would remain a supporter of centralism and that authoritarianism of the leaders who ascribe to themselves infallibility, which is the basis of authoritarianism. The people who do not have the self-confidence for action support authority: not being independent they support centralism which deprives them of their self-confidence and results in governing from above!⁽²⁵⁾

Hence, the accent is upon the individual:

[A]narchism in individualism is the supreme emancipation of man; it is higher in its freedom than collectivist socialism which must have executive power so that the minority is forced to obey the majority. Anarchism requires that everything should take place with the consent of everybody, that there should be no forcing of requirements here because in such an association everything is controlled without a government: that is anarchy.⁽²⁶⁾

The fear of domination led to a distancing from "collectivist socialism" and "state socialism" and grew into a positive accent on the freedom of the individual as a starting-point for the resolution of the social question. "We are far closer to the individual man than to society or the structure of society and wish to work for the development of each individual," the journal Volný Duch (Free Spirit) declared of its policy. The emphasis is placed on the role of the "individual against despotism of any kind" and on full personal freedom "to do everything which the laws of Nature permit"--with the Kantian proviso: "Not to do anything to another which would not please him and, on the contrary, to do to him what I myself would like others to do to me; this is the basis of true freedom."⁽²⁷⁾

Anarchism "desires for man full individual freedom. . . . It does not want the state, law, morals or executive power (government) to watch over the keeping of these regulations, but wishes morality to grow from reasoned recognition that one is fulfilling an obligation beneficial to oneself and others." This conflicts not only with traditional forms of social organization, but also with the ideals of "authoritarian socialism" since "Individualism is an effort to overturn all prior customs and states of society. The custom of allowing oneself to be represented, the recognition of authority, must necessarily hinder the individual principle." Consistently this individualism takes on a radical form: "Individuals of independent spirit, self-confident in nature, break up the existing herd instinct and exclude authoritarianism. They are natures in themselves . . . above the masses who allow themselves to be led and chased according to the wishes of the authorities."⁽²⁸⁾ This

evokes the self-confidence of the individual . . . so that in this way individuals, according to their reasoned awareness, might live their life. . . . [E]ach individual can join any social organization or association which will best be in keeping with his efforts, or it is also possible to form a new association so that the members might more easily implement self-government according to their views.⁽²⁹⁾

This radicalism is simultaneously also a methodological individualism, lacking historical continuity in its intention. Its extension to the historically unfounded future necessarily introduces a moment of illusoriness and utopianism, for a future without historical foundation remains a field of chance and speculation. From the negation of existing authorities, it moves to the expected future forms of achieved freedom of the individual and social emancipation. This is derived first and foremost from negation of the present, and paradoxically, in this sense, its ideal is closer than the steps of its realization. The missing links to the future are indicated simply as "encouraging the individual to action" or by the conditional: "If only the capitalists did not have power, you would then see what you would do."

Economic independence is the first requirement of anarchism: to eliminate the exploitation of man by man. Exploitation is eliminated by: the voluntary capitulation of banking, which is freedom in contracting the means of exchange, . . . the giving up of credit, . . . the giving up of markets, . . . i.e., the freedom of free exchange of agreed values from hand to hand, from country to country; the giving up of lands and soil, i.e., the freedom to take over soil for personal use, as long as they were not taken from others for this purpose; or, if I am to sum up all these requirements, the exploitation of man is made impossible by the freedom of work.⁽³⁰⁾

Any integrating social activity, whether negotiation or decision-making, became a form of rejected authority. "Individualism knows only the personal freedom of intellectual development and logical judgment." Each individual should have complete freedom to come to recognize his own needs through his own judgment; individualism is negated by even the slightest suggestion of supervision by another.

If individualists discover that it is necessary in the social aspect to have the cooperation of several individuals in order to achieve that which one person could not achieve, then certainly their cognition will also arrive at the consideration of effective means. It cannot be thought that this would restrict the personal freedom of the individual if a second, third or more persons used the same means or used them jointly for the achievement of a recognized need.

The result of such an individualist attitude is realized only on the basis of general consensus:

If such recognition comes to general opinion, there is no need to fear that the matter will not be successful. There will be no need for orders and prohibitions to pursue any other kind of action . . . for the organization of independent persons will have no need for regulations, formulas and formalities as we see in all the political and social parties. They will need clear knowledge of the basic principles of the struggle of the proletariat. Without magnificent slogans, the independent man rallies to a firm, uncompromising and loyal organization, and in this lies the guarantee of success.⁽³¹⁾

Organization does take the form of a general consensus, but is limited by the "struggle of the proletariat" or the "class benefit of the people".⁽³²⁾

The consequences of methodological individualism led in the end to ideological paradoxes. On the one hand, there were emphasized the "ideals of human self-determinism", "the idea of anarchy"; on the other hand, any philosophical concepts whatsoever are rejected as authoritative dogmas. Although "we do not recognize the need or benefit of . . . seeking in history the ideological connection of our efforts",⁽³³⁾ there is allowed at the same time a conscious ideological continuity with the ideas of J.J. Rousseau's Social Contract and M. Stirner's The Individual and His Property.

ANARCHISM AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY

The Manifesto of Czech Anarchists⁽³⁴⁾

The recognition of anarchist ideas, the confrontation of opinions, together with the acquisition of practical experience from their own movement as independent socialists in the first half of the 90s, found an ideological culmination in the Manifesto of Czech Anarchists of 1896. This constituted an independent alternative to the other emancipation concepts and efforts in the socialist movement, especially social democracy. Its orientation espoused an unequivocally negative standpoint with regard to social-democratic principles and practices. From this position many of the ideas of the Manifesto were formulated, such as the rejection of the political organization of the proletariat ("We are convinced that the political organization of the proletariat in the state will not lead the proletariat out of its humiliating economic dependence on capitalism and out of the repulsive slavery in which it is situated today with regard to government and state authority"); the rejection of the existing practical activity of social democracy ("The political actions of the social-democratic party arouse useless and harmful illusions concerning the possibility of achieving the class emancipation of the proletariat through the application and enforcement of political rights"), and the consequent rejection of social-democratic political activity. This rejection was motivated not only by opposition to existing forms of parliamentarianism, the self-determination of the individual and the preservation of his uniquely revolutionary spirit. It was based as well on the view that

in enforcing the general right to vote we see the blunting of the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat leading to blind dependence on infertile parliamentarianism, as well as the preparation . . . of the social-state efforts of social democracy. We reject the struggle for achievement of the right to vote as an unsuitable means, wiping out the individuality, self-confidence, and independence of individuals.

The political actions of social democracy threaten to deprive the proletariat of all individual freedom by the fact that they are trying to change the idea of the socialist collective state set up against the authority of the present state and capitalism. In the present conditions this would bring economic, political and cultural dependence and lead to a humiliating dependence of the individual upon the socialist state.

An intermediate link, which not only would not oppose the anarchistic idea of organization, but actually would represent its prospect, is the trade union. In the trade unions we shall try to lose sight of the narrow-minded efforts at agreement between capital and labor . . . and to introduce the principle of the complete dissociation of labor from capital. It will be an effort for independent leadership of production and for changes on the part of the working class. We welcome the trade union movement as strengthening class solidarity.

Individualism is implemented as a starting point and as a motivation and practical effort "to achieve the emergence of a strong, uncompromising character, the independence of the individual, so as to limit the possibility of dependence on authority, the cause of which is the intellectual weakness of the suppressed." This echo of Nietzsche's influence goes beyond individual revolt to radical social emancipation: "We are working for the liberation of the people, the liberation of all human individuals so that the results of their labor, material and cultural wealth should benefit only their lives. . . . [W]e are working to change the present social order, as the only means to introduce social equality and freedom."

The goal is not only the individualistic negation of private ownership, but a positive idea of anarchy with a social intent: "We are in favor of a free grouping according to free inclination in free associations for the purpose of achieving more easily the implementation of intentions and requirements for which the strength of the individual is not enough, or where special advantages, moral and material, arise for individuals from this grouping." Because governments and the state are one of the most important factors which make for the exploitation of the disinherited by the rich. "we recognize the need to change these (by) . . . implementation of the principles of self-government and thus to achieve complete anarchy." "Neither nations nor individuals [should] vanish in this." This is termed a revolution (first of all an "intellectual revolution" and only later a "material revolution"), but it avoids forms of individual terrorist propaganda or action: "Revolution should arise from need and not from mere naked violence".

The 1896 Manifesto of Czech Anarchism was, on the one hand, meant as the transformation of a not always clearly delineated socialism into an unequivocal declaration of anarchism "as an independent current with its own distinct principles". Thus, to a certain extent it concludes the period of independent socialism (first half of the 90s). On the other hand, it represents the first step towards overcoming the limitations of individualism, thereby opening a wider basis not only for further ideas from European anarchism, but also for a wider social reception. At the same time, however, the Manifesto was not a matter of promoting intellectualism (as had been, for example, the literary anarchism of the early years, and later, the New Cult from 1897). Rather, this individualism was the implication of the basic idea of the emancipation and self-determination of the individual.

The Double Emphasis of Emancipation

In the second half of the 90s and later at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries the economic and ideological platform was expanded, deepened and challenged. Each "extreme" in the anarchist cause emphasized one aspect of its ideology, thereby creating mutually complementary forms, such as practical versus more ideological anarchism.

According to the nature of each, there was emphasized the social or organizational aspect of the practical movement. On the one hand, the chasm between it and social democracy deepened because "anarchism called for complete personal freedom and the removal of the state", whereas social democracy emphasized the economic rather than the political struggle: "Anarchism is the only people's party; not only do they want freedom from intellectual and physical slavery, but they work towards this not only with words, but also, wherever they can, with deeds."⁽³⁵⁾

On the other hand, it was a popular orientation with emphasis upon the emancipation of the individual from the restrictions of the social conditions and the intellectual atmosphere. This orientation was close to the intellectual and literary/artistic movement from which it emerged first and foremost.

Our self-confidence was lit up by a marvelous idea. It was once again necessary to discover the significance and value of man as an individual, to clean up the concept of freedom, to re-evaluate the socialized spirit; this gave us the strength to build individual freedoms in that cathedral, Anarchy! . . . The ranks of its army are filled from all the spheres of society with those who believe in themselves and in the future, and who have the will and the strength.⁽³⁶⁾

This popular form emerged first and foremost from the expression of the radicalism of creative individuals and secondarily from the attitudes of revolt planned in a general, abstract and social context. "Society will only become entirely healthy, strong and free," writes Neumann, "when the equal freedom of every person in society is guaranteed." This is the basis of the new individualist system, on this lies the sum total of all social and moral findings based on the requirement of individual freedom, which in sum is called Anarchy."⁽³⁷⁾

Both orientations preserved their specific nature as complementary organizational forms of the movement. However, they cooperated and were manifest as different points of view, emphases or standpoints in the single reality of Czech anarchism. Because of this, their efforts tended to coalesce.

In the future no use should be made of descriptions of individualism or communism, but only of the ideas and principles of anarchism, which is the sole objective. Individualism is the intellectual/philosophical side, free communism is the economic base. Both trends have the same basic principle and therefore neither of them should be suppressed or pilloried.⁽³⁸⁾

The ideological and practical base of the anarchist movement was expanded. The original emphasis upon programmed individualism was overtaken by forms of collectivist, communist or syndicalist orientation of the anarchist movement. Their introduction did not signify the liquidation of one emphasis by another, but an enrichment of the spectrum of views: (a) from an emphasis defined as "anarchy" to a broader social viewpoint: "whether worker or student, wealthy or proletarian,"⁽³⁹⁾ their interest included the orientation of anarchism; and (b) from individual freedom to a broader practical movement: "Coming out in search of fellow-fighters . . . we consider it our prime responsibility to put the skills of the intelligentsia at the service of the independent workers' movement";⁽⁴⁰⁾ and (c) from an original intellectualist attitude to a working-class movement: "Our times demand more urgently that the intelligentsia should stand firmly alongside the working class."⁽⁴¹⁾

The move from an ideological emphasis to a practical one led finally to a program: "[T]he aware and uncompromising worker is one of the bravest pioneers of anarchism and . . . is still the most important base of the Czech anarchist movement."⁽⁴²⁾ The idea of an organization of free, independent, but often isolated groups was also transformed so that the movement found a common base in the federative association of trade unions. It is "for them to be a school for the future, for them to be able to take over the reins not only of all production, but also of consumption as capitalism ceases to play a necessary part."⁽⁴³⁾ In spite of their converging ideological standpoints, the two orientations retained their specific nature and organizational form. On the one hand, there came into being the Czech Anarchist Federation (1904) as a "free association of workers in the Czech anarchist movement." It wanted to spread the idea of anarchism through agitation among the working class and the intelligentsia.⁽⁴⁴⁾ On the other hand, there was the syndically oriented organization of the Czech Federation of All Trade Unions (1904) with a tendency to expand its organizational base on the principle of the political neutrality of the trade unions.

The Idea of Emancipation and the Elimination of Authority

To what extent was the anarchistic ideal of emancipation fulfilled; what was the objective of the anarchist effort; who was its subject and what was the content or aim of its effort; and finally, how was its future shaped?

The Objective of Anarchistic Emancipation. The objective of anarchistic activity was defined negatively as the rejection of existing historically developed social systems; their values; their social, economic and spiritual hierarchical structure; and their determining principle of authority which culminates in the authority of state power, private ownership, militarism, clericalism and religion.

"You are the object of exploitation not only by capitalists, but to a greater extent by the state"⁽⁴⁵⁾

: "[C]apitalism, the Church and militarism are a trefoil which works for the preservation of bad social conditions."⁽⁴⁶⁾ The subject of authority in its concrete form was gradually identified, first of all, as the state and its institutions, and more basically, as capitalism as both the basis of their authority and their historical culmination thus far. The manifestations and functions of authority were also identified in the forms of existing political parties. Hence, it was more than useless to hope to achieve the emancipation of society with the aid of parliament, and an illusion that the general right to vote could be a step on that direction. Thus, the rejection of parliamentarianism was unequivocal.⁽⁴⁷⁾

The rigorous anti-parliamentarianism narrowed the social and political orientation of the movement because it did not allow sufficient differentiation among the concrete historical forms of existing ruling systems. It simplified itself into an all-inclusive rigorous radicalism. In place of parliamentarianism as "indirect action" in the struggle with capitalism, anarchism advocated "direct struggle with the capitalists" through such various forms of "direct action" as boycotts, sabotage, strikes and general strikes.

Another manifestation of authority is the military which "protects the government, throttles nations, disputes freedom and introduces slavery."⁽⁴⁸⁾ In the context of the anarchist ideal of the emancipation of man, the embodiment of the violence committed by the state or central authority is its military organization whose power, range and results weigh upon the individual and society as a whole.⁽⁴⁹⁾ Military power was the expression of the brutal denial of individual freedom. This form of authority became increasingly palpable at the beginning of this century, and from the anarchist view-point justified their opposition.⁽⁵⁰⁾ Anarchist anti-militarism was more than a mere advocacy of the elimination of authority; it was an expression of a concrete historical experience in which the individual, associations of individuals and national or state units were confronted by the central authority in a direct material and spiritual form. Through militarism the authoritative system was implemented against the individual, denying his autonomy and degrading his longed-for unlimited freedom to the status of a mere object of manipulation.⁽⁵¹⁾ As a principle which deforms and destroys the individuality of man, it is the opposite of his emancipation.⁽⁵²⁾

The elimination of authority as the constitutive element of anarchism, in turn, motivates its anti-étatism. "We are opponents of the principle of the universal mastery of others by those who have political power--the principle which is embodied in the organic form of the state system."⁽⁵³⁾ The basis of this anti-étatism is abstract, unconditioned individuality, with a view to the emancipation of man.⁽⁵⁴⁾

The historical antagonism between the individual or community of individuals and the power of the state is the criterion of the overall negative attitude of anarchism towards the various forms of power structure: "The state! Everywhere you come up against its monstrosity in social and individual life, . . . we feel its influence in all cases of our existence as men."⁽⁵⁵⁾ For anarchism it is pointless to differentiate between the forms of implementation of power, which in any case is very difficult. On the socio-political level it is always dangerous when an original ideal becomes a doctrine. Authority took the form of the determining element in political parties where it intermingled with their internal structure. Thus it represented the potential threat not only of old state or military power, but also of newly developed authority. Authority also has spiritual power after the dominant religious world-views which act as with the authority of God. In the hierarchy of spiritual values the ideal picture of the free individual remains secondary as a conditional subject under authority.

The Subject of Emancipation. The projected picture of the emancipated subject (the free individual or the community of free individuals) and the main agent of the negation of authority were brought more closely together in the concrete forms of the radical movement.

Antagonism to authority took on an abstract form, or rather that of the original ideal of free and unlimited individuality according to which man was "created by nature for freedom"--as opposed to history in which there appear "the forms of suppression of the free human person."⁽⁵⁶⁾ Thus, emphasis upon the liberation of the individual led as far as "emancipation of the individual from society."⁽⁵⁷⁾ This simplified historicism--understanding liberation as the elimination of the historically occurring forms of authority--took on a non-historical character outside of time in the form of a "decision from". "Man is born free and all people come into the world in the same way. This is also why he can only agree with a social system if he feels comfortable in it. He can do away with it immediately if he does not find it to his liking."⁽⁵⁸⁾ The abstract idea of the emancipation of the individual (or of free association of free individuals) as the central idea and viewpoint of the anarchistic orientation took on the concrete conditions and modalities of the Czech anarchist movement in two ways.

On the one hand, there was a practical emphasis responding to the concrete needs, especially of the Czech anarchist working class. On the other hand, the originally ideological intellectual emphasis of Czech anarchism corresponded to a more abstract and ideal form of the emancipated subject as a free individual. This looked at the requirement of the emancipation of man through the lens of his uniqueness and creative freedom, i.e., through the lens of individualism.⁽⁵⁹⁾ Here the individualism of the Nietzschean revolt is projected onto a social base and takes the form of an anarchistic orientation in which is emphasized "freedom and the right to freedom of those who know how to be free".⁽⁶⁰⁾

From this individualistic intention of Czech anarchism, there emerged a "new individualist system": "Society will be completely healthy, strong and free only when each of its members, every individual, will be healthy, strong and free. This is the basis of the new individualist system. . . . The sum total of all social and moral findings . . . [is] known as Anarchy."⁽⁶¹⁾ Here the free individual is not only the ideal as an intention for the future, but also an imperative for revolt against present conditions.

Only later in the context of the ideological emphasis of Czech anarchism is the subject of one's own emancipation identified also as a subject of social change. This derived from the effort to bridge the "interest of the individual" and the "interest of society", because both "their interests and their benefits should be smoothed out and brought into agreement."⁽⁶²⁾

Both the practical and the ideological emphases were in keeping with the different orientations of their credo. The practical orientation was mainly an effort to win over directly all "suppressed" and "exploited" workers as potential participants in the battle against existing authoritative conditions: the "fight against capitalism", "the defense against thousands of enemies",⁽⁶³⁾ the discovery of a common base for joint action in the movement.⁽⁶⁴⁾ This emphasis was aimed mainly at the immediate present.

The ideological orientation devoted attention to the individual as an ideal. This limited individual freedom and revolt to the principles of the ethical programme built on the basis of individual freedom,"⁽⁶⁵⁾ "We are revolutionaries mainly in ethics." Hence, the revolt was aimed at the future.⁽⁶⁶⁾ The emphasis was upon finding a wider social base, overcoming programmed individualistic isolation⁽⁶⁷⁾ and the wider practical movement of the "independent working class".⁽⁶⁸⁾ In contrast, for the practical orientation the focus was upon the direct requirements of the movement.

ANARCHISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY

Mediation Between Authority and Its Negation

The two emphases in the movement were moving closer together and found a common denominator in the idea of anarchic revolutionary social change: "overturning existing conditions so that the desired order could arise immediately from their ruins."⁽⁶⁹⁾ The idea of "direct action" implied a range of direct economic measures (as opposed to the indirect parliamentary struggle of the political parties) culminating in a general strike whose nature underlined the importance and extent of social change. "To the anarchist the general strike means more than just a weapon in the struggle against capitalism and the bourgeoisie; it means a social revolution itself or the exchange of the capitalist system for a system of equal and general justice and freedom."⁽⁷⁰⁾ Mediation between the existing authority of past and present and the future without authority which is being striven for (Herrschaftslosigkeit, Abwesenheit von Herrschaft) suffers from both extremes. Either it is exhausted by short-sighted radical strikes⁽⁷¹⁾ emphasizing immediate solidarity with the everyday trade-union struggle and results in "neutral trade unions" without the anarchistic ideal, or, on the contrary, the idea of revolution suffers from the illusion of non-historical direct social change.⁽⁷²⁾

In the ideological orientation of Czech anarchism with an emphasis on the individual, radical negation meant first and foremost rejection of existing forms and authorities with regard to the idea of freedom "which should in any case be the natural state of the individual."⁽⁷³⁾ This orientation originally was happier with a description of the existing antagonisms, and lacked a more realistic practical form for future emancipation. It was expressed more by decisive rejection and the projection of intention, than by concrete resistance.⁽⁷⁴⁾

However, with the gradual drawing-together of practical programs, radical rejection took the form of revolt, and the orientation towards a broader social basis focused more tightly upon the practical side of the anarchist movement. Through this, both orientations arrived at the same conclusion, namely, that the requirement of the elimination of authority is expressed in terms of the "oppressed classes", and can be intensified⁽⁷⁵⁾ through the confrontation of the "ruling terrorism" by the "defensive terrorism of the oppressed and exploited classes and estates." This turns into "revolutionary terrorism".⁽⁷⁶⁾

This union of the two orientations of Czech anarchism found an expression and starting point in a common agreement on the tactic of "direct action" with the help of which "the basis of contemporary social injustice would be undermined by . . . economic terrorism . . . not only against the individual capitalist, but against a whole section of society."⁽⁷⁷⁾ This is expressed also in the effort to expand the social basis of the anarchist movement to the trade union movement, which exceeded the former limited framework of anarchist groups or only anarchist trade unions.

Thus, antagonism against society which formerly had emphasized freedom as the natural state of the individual and the preservation of its individual form, acquired in both orientations the dimension of social anatagonism: the struggle of "class against class".⁽⁷⁸⁾ In this way anarchist radicalism found its own path to its concretization of freedom versus authority in the social categories of class warfare.

Our struggle is a class struggle and aims at the expropriation of capitalists by social revolution. The bourgeois class of capitalists with all its institutions [is] the most serious obstacle preventing the preparation of humanity to accept a new organization of production and allocation of products.⁽⁷⁹⁾

Naturally, the role of anarchists as the bearers of the idea and its promoters is not dissolved in the broad mass of "neutral trade unions"⁽⁸⁰⁾ or in the anonymous mass of the class. The role of the anarchists is to incite initiatives by revolutionary minorities which are to promote these ideals on behalf of the masses--"the silent majority".⁽⁸¹⁾

Thus, from the level of individual revolt and the rejection of authority, anarchism moved to the level of social categories in which social revolution represents the appropriate "middle term" to emancipation. This, however, was but a conditional and practical undertaking; it left a vague oscillation between the efforts of a free, but limited, association of the bearers of the idea ("the initiative-taking revolutionary minority") as the active principle of social emancipation and the potential for an engagement of the masses ("the indifferent majority"). This oscillation shows in another form the difference between the two emphases in Czech anarchism: between the almost ideologically indifferent neutralism of the trade union masses, on the one hand, leading to syndicalist economism and reform, and, on the other hand, the ideological revolutionizing initiative with the masses as a base. This was reflected particularly in the stagnation and limitation of the socio-political activity of the movement and the abandonment of the notion of the all-powerful general economic strike as an act of social revolution directly removing the capitalist state.

The Debate: To Be or Not To Be a Party

In the younger generation of Czech anarchism there arose a fresh attempt at practical activity, bridging the gap between the idea of a minority and the potential masses as a base. This included not only an effort to transform the movement into a special political party different from the traditional political parties, but also a criticism of this effort. This conflict between "basic causes" or principles and "practical causes" or the requirements of the historical situation called for a compromise.

In 1914, on the one hand, there was the idea that anarchy must be regulated by practical reasons, by which the anarchist principles came to be superseded by the attempt to establish a party (the Party of Czech Anarchist Communists), albeit "completely different from the organization of other political parties" (B. Vrbenský). On the other hand, there was a defense of "basic causes" or principles against practical ones, because "a party is a non-anarchist formation": to the degree "the majority dictates . . . the minority loses its rights and the majority becomes naturally dictatorial and therefore authoritarian." Because "political activity is merely trading and compromising with existing conditions, a party cannot promote autonomy; for its nature is to be centralistic. Hence, for the anarchist movement to strive to constitute a party means "to reject the moral principle of anarchist solidarity and replace it with the discipline and formation of fanatic dogmatists." Because every party "is centralist, we are for a more free autonomous federation formation" (M. Kácha).⁽⁸²⁾

Both standpoints were confronted not only by actual questions of ideology, but also by the attempt to project Czech anarchism in a broader context of political and social life by introducing their ideological platform in the form of a political party. This was seen, of course, as just the "practical reasons" or compromise for which Vrbenský's proposal was striving and which Kácha's criticism considered unacceptable.

A proposal was submitted for coordinating the Czech anarchist movement under the "common name of the Party of Czech Anarchist Communists" with a joint program. The aim was formulated as anarchistic communism,

or the organization of society without state formation where the economic basis would be agricultural communes in the countryside and organized units of other fields of useful human work with a political basis in social agreements between the most varied fields. All property in this new society . . . should belong to society; there would be no room here for private ownership in any form.

The proposal formulated the political tactics of the proposed party with reference to M. Bakunin on two points: 1) a general economic strike, and 2) basic anti-militarism (even against the People's Militia). "With these two truly socialist tactical means, we acclaim and implement a true social policy aimed, on the one hand, against state organizations and, on the other hand, against the components of present states: capitalism and the bourgeoisie."

In the proposal there is also formulated a nationality program "completely synthesized with the anarchist politico-economic aim . . . against state organizations and therefore also against Austria . . . [W]e are in favor of the principle of nationalization for present and future political national action. This means that individual national bodies living in Austria should join together as independent national units. It is therefore necessary for us to work for the political and economic freedom of our nation."

However, in the proposal the basic anti-parliamentarian attitude is also preserved. The anarchist party "recognizes only the tactic of direct action, not legislative tactics: legislative tactics are indirect and hinder the progress of humanity." The economic program is based on the idea of the "organization of the nation according to the principle of the anarchist communism or socialization of all objects of production and consumption, of absolutely all property and the elimination of the wage system." The idea of the emancipation of society as the primary intent is pursued "by evolutionary means, i.e., by a revolution in thinking, the winning over of people for the ideas of a `general economic strike' and of consistent anti-militarism." The consequence of this idea, however, leads straight to practical results: "evolution must necessarily become revolution." This was to be expressed basically in the form of an "original" political party.

However, from the opponents' viewpoint, the vagueness and basic unacceptability of a path emerging from changing conditions and based on compromise made it necessary to point out that a mere change in name would not make the movement any stronger, and to warn of the dangerous precedent of adapting a principle "to a tactic which was, perhaps, the result of a change of circumstances."

Thus, the opposing emphases continued to accompany the movement of Czech anarchism: on the one hand, the practical, flexible attitude which adapts to circumstances and wants to revive the traditional idea, to bring it up to date and to modernize it; on the other hand, an emphasis upon the protection of principles, the justification and continuance of the anarchist ideal of anti-authoritative emancipation as a "current of thought" and "moral alliance". "Anarchy is a wide emotional and ideological current which cannot be enclosed within the narrow framework of a party" (Kácha). Hence, what according to Vrbenský should have been combined in the new quality of a viable anarchist party was considered by Kácha to be incompatible if it were to remain anarchist in its ideological quality.

The emphasis upon the national question in Vrbenský's proposal meant a loss of the traditional idea of anarchist internationalism. Submission of a modernization proposal for the revival of the ideal of anarchism meant not only repeating the ideology of Czech anarchism of the pre-war years, but also dissatisfaction with its limited extent and therefore also an effort to find the next step for the anarchist movement. Thus, the extensive criticism of the proposal and the resultant discussion constituted fruitful self-reflection and revival. The direct practical result of the conflict was the acceptance of Vrbenský's proposal.⁽⁸³⁾ The revival of the movement, however, could not take place due to the circumstances of the then imminent World War I. Hence, the standpoints in the conflict did not settle down in a new form, but remained unsettled.

The conflict between the two standpoints foretold a modernization of the movement which resulted in the first compromise at least on what was foreseen as a provisional basis. The traditional ideological anarchist idea of "moral alliance" and unlimited freedom of the individual was no longer sufficient for the mobilization of the movement; a retreat from principles for "practical" reasons and an attempt to establish the movement as an effective modern political force threatened to undermine the foundation of anarchism. Thus a compromise ensued, aimed at further transforming the movement for practical reasons at the cost of anarchistic principles. This was the case in both spheres of anarchist influence. Thus, in the Czech Federation of All-Trade Unions, the North Bohemian anarchist working class promoted syndicalist economic reformation. The ideologically accented revolutionism of the Federation of Czech Anarcho-Communists turned into a political party. Anarchism underwent a transformation of the existing ideas of emancipation under the pressure of historical circumstances.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT

AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IDEA

The idea and the expectation of direct revolutionary changes at the end of the World War led to a situation which pulled even anarchism into the wake of the revolutionary events of the day. This meant taking some steps which made the former anarchism impossible and necessitated further correction of the anarchist platform. The fury of the War, the revolution in Russia and the post-War revolutionary wave in Europe, promoted an authoritative approach contrary to the former anarchist ideals of the emancipation of the individual, a non-authoritative path for society, and elimination of authority.

The immediate revolutionary reality and anarchist revolutionary impatience corrected anarchist expectations to such an extent that the anarchists themselves were willing to allow--albeit apparently temporarily--the authority of the state to be the connecting link to its emancipation, i.e., "transition through the socialist state seems to be essential."⁽⁸⁴⁾ This correction was a fundamental moment in the anarchist ideal of freedom: revolution had become so dominant a concern of the anarchists that they were willing to identify their own idea of emancipation with such completely contradictory forms as those used in Russia during the war.⁽⁸⁵⁾

Only from the perspective of historical distance is it obvious that those realities which then were seen as "correcting somewhat the opinions of Kropotkin" led to a "correction" of the basis of anarchism which finally put into doubt its essential nature. The pre-War ideological confrontation finally resulted in an open revision of anarchism itself. The ideological orientation of Czech anarchism led to compromise within its own framework, to attempts at reconciliation with, and acceptance of, authoritative forms of Leninist communism. For anarchism this meant in reality a choice between anarchism or Leninist communism. In the post-War period, the ideological (and also the practical) situation resulted in the supporters of Czech anarchism (at first only in part) "finally reconciling themselves with forms which had very little in common with the old ideas and ideology," S. K. Neumann declares euphemistically. In other words, they accepted the concepts of power and state authority, allegedly as a means to the practical achievement of liberty.⁽⁸⁶⁾

Thus, in contrast to the original stance which had emphasized distance from the "rigid dogmas of state Marxist socialism," there followed an effort to introduce Czech socialism "from the ideas of the socialists--Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc.--whose moral ideas are far closer to ours."⁽⁸⁷⁾ At the same time and almost paradoxically, under the clear influence of the accepted revolutionary reality it allowed the "proletarian policy or the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat to become a means to socialist freedom, equality and fraternity.⁽⁸⁸⁾

The original pre-War conflict of principle and practice foreshadowed the compromises of the overall liberation from authority. This idea was confronted in historical reality by problems first of practical adaption and later of implementation in terms of conditional authoritative emancipation.

Here a turning-point was reached as had been suspected and expressed in Kácha's warning against the path of compromise and retreat from principles. Whereas originally historical reality was to be seized and controlled by the subject of emancipation, now, on the contrary, pressing historical reality (revolution) becomes dominant. The turning-point meant that the strength of the originally unconditional intention of the anarchist idea of emancipation and freedom in the end became conditioned and relativized by the strength of the historical circumstances which suggested a quite opposite alternative, namely, authority as a special form of emancipation.

The radicalism of anarchism, inclining and leading to revolutionary impatience, provided fertile soil for the internal tension between the unlimited emancipation of the individual and society, on the one hand, and a hasty and direct revolutionary realization, on the other. This tension was fed simultaneously by two circumstances: the minority status of the idealists and the basis for the shift. The strength of this tension undermined the radical "direct path" and made possible an apparently temporary shift in means. However, not only did these not correspond to the anarchist's goal, they were in direct opposition thereto. Nevertheless, the expected provisional character of this change enabled this difference to be bridged under the themes: "The dictatorship of the proletariat can be a means to socialist freedom, fraternity and equality" and "The new order can be begun only by communist dictatorship".⁽⁸⁹⁾

The changes in values of the Russian Revolution strengthened revolutionary impatience and class conflict between the interests of the property-owning class and the productive workers (although somewhat "correcting the opinions of Kropotkin"). Nevertheless, they promised to fulfill expectations by revolutionary "actions and acts". Those pre-War "practical causes" of Vrbenský's efforts to transform the movement into a political party which began with the Federation of Czech Anarchist Communists were implemented at the expense of basic anarchist principles.

The ideological situation of Czech anarchism exposed their ideas to the historical realities: "It was not easy for anarchists to accustom themselves to the new situation when the socialist revolution, for which they all longed, appeared in forms which they all condemned." In this confrontation, the anarchist idea of a free society, of "free-thinking communism", was modified by the conditioned, mediated idea of revolutionary action: "the present time, as a period of revolutionary action after a long period of ideological development, brought to the surface opinions whose strength was manifested in the tactics which this development evoked and sanctified": the ideological situation was aptly titled "Grey Theories and Dead Principles".⁽⁹⁰⁾

Such "corrections" were justified by: the "experiences of war and Soviet Russia", the "epoch-making event of the present historical five-year period--the Russian Revolution", the "proletarian policy or the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat", the "results of the vital, clear and essential progress of the Russian Revolution which overcame all scruples" and "actions and acts", so that "at least something of true socialism would gradually be realized " which "appeared to be essential because forced by life and struggle". "We cannot deny the rights of reality" which are proceeding towards the socialist state. The emphasis on the "education of the crowds to a certain form of authoritarian socialism was opposite to the end and cast doubt on the aim itself. Through the "revolutionary revival of socialism and the basic success of the Russian Communist Revolution . . . reality finally conquered dreams, facts conquered illusions. Reality overcame us: the time for action had come, the time of the socialist revolution."

The provisory character of this confrontation in the anarcho-communist view was reflected as the "intention to find conciliation between authoritarian (state socialist) communism and free-thinking (anarchist) communism."⁽⁹¹⁾ Of course, this attempt at conciliation was in reality only one-sided, as was clear right from the beginning. "Even if our free-thinking feeling shied away from this as much as possible, we cannot deny the rights of reality."⁽⁹²⁾ Coming to terms with existing historical reality as seen through the lens of radicalism meant the acceptance of revolutionary events and the suspension of those ideals which, not corresponding to it, appeared as unrealizable, "beautiful dreams", and even as "grey theories and dead principles". The change culminated in "authoritarian" communism: "the new order can begin only with communist dictatorship . . . the proletarian socialist state will be an essential stage on the path to socialist society."⁽⁹³⁾

The original conflict of "principle" and "practice" in Czech anarchism after the World War took on the form of a confrontation of ideas with historical reality and finally exceeded the original basis of anarchism as an ideology of emancipation and the freedom of man. In the final stage, this conflict changed into surrender to practical needs and the suspension of the former principles as being "[U]topian dreams and scientific theories", a "beautiful social dream of a future paradise, God's Kingdom on Earth", the "anarchist's ideal of freedom, justice and mutual aid which will remain the longed-for picture of the future over the ages of human development".⁽⁹⁴⁾

"Practical needs" had undermined the original purposes. Motivated by the radicalism of revolutionary impatience and the euphoria of the revolutionary nature of the times these needs became the basis and the prism of the acceptance of the revolutionary events: "the birth of the Third Internationale and everything which preceded and followed it--the Russian Revolution, the establishment and successes of the Soviet Republic, the revival of revolutionary socialism in the theses of Bolshevik, Spartakovian and other types of communism, all these caused great turmoil and stress in the minds of anarchist communists." This view of revolutionary events became the decisive corrective of anarchist ideas.

At the same time, in this view it was not a matter of the mere factual reality of historical events, but of seeing reality through the anarchist radicalism of the revolutionary commitment. Events acquired their significance as a correction and actually as the self-destruction of anarchist ideology: nevertheless, "it was not easy for anarchists to come to terms with the new situation where the socialist revolution which they had all longed for appeared in forms which they all condemned." Indeed, "it was born from the womb of the hated Marxism, arrived with an uncompromising dictatorship, considerably confused all suspected and true freedoms, introduced intrusive discipline, etc." Thus, radicalism managed to suppress the basic anarchist ideas and helped the acceptance of their opposite: "the crises in the minds of these anarchists sharpened until in the end reality was victorious over dreams, facts over illusions. Today the majority of anarchists are in the camp of the Third Internationale, which is communist." The original idea of anarchy was thus degraded to the point of fundamental correction and denial. "Those who were interested mainly not in the letter of the theory of socialist ideas, but in facts and actions, in some gradual realization of true socialism, those who placed greater store by deeds than words, finally became reconciled with the forms which, although they did not correspond to the old ideas and ideology, nevertheless appeared to be essential because forced by life and struggle."⁽⁹⁵⁾ In the end, revolutionary reality became the basis of the destruction of the anarchist ideal.⁽⁹⁶⁾

The radicalist intention of Czech anarchism--even before its later neglect in the spectrum of socio-political trends and its final silencing by the monolithic trend of the ruling socio-political intention--went through a stage of self-correction of its ideas. This correction was so basic that it became the denial of its own specific nature and identity. The very core of the supporters of Czech anarchist ideas finally sought their goal of emancipating man and society through strongly authoritarian means, accepting hitherto totally contradictory principles and forms, and through what was at first only temporary provisional "delay". Finally, the transformation or abandonment of anarchist ideals in exchange for their Leninist denial which militantly rejected anarchism⁽⁹⁷⁾ made it all the easier for the ideas of anarchism to be neglected later and more easily silenced in a simplifying retrospective critical reflection.

In historical retrospect, the original ideological development of the Czech anarchists did not remain open-ended, but at a certain stage of the movement suspended its anti-authoritative idea of emancipation for a revolutionary authoritative and authoritarian form which was seen as a special form of social emancipation.

This suspension of the idea of emancipation, or its actual destruction under the force of historical reality, was not merely an historical statement but, in retrospect, was deeply symptomatic. The transformation of the movement at the cost of its own destruction of its ideas not only throws doubt on the movement, but over a longer perspective tells us much about the importance of ideas and of intellectual consistency. In the present situation of change in Czech society this question arises once again in relation to our traditions and their meaning.

Institute of Philosophy

Czech Academy of Sciences

Prague, Czech Republic