Solneman
(Kurt H. Zube)

First of all, anarchists have the following statements to make to the defenders of the so-called existing "order" who wish "no experiments," and especially to the defenders of "their" State.

We want nothing from you, except that you should leave us alone and interfere no longer in our affairs. Consequently we require that you recognize our equal-rights claim to the whole world, which we concede to you too, just as we do the right to air for breathing.

But you want something from us. As a matter of fact, you have quite a number of demands which we consider to be unfair and which you have so far realized with aggressive force. In this, you have not always been aware of your aggression; you have so far raised your claims partly in good faith because you believed in their "justification," and partly out of pure habit, with the not very ingenious "argument" that this is just how "it ought to be." Only a few theologians, moral philosophers, political scientists and sociologists have also tried to advance reasons. However, these "reasons" amounted only to embarrassing contradictions.

To the extent that these "reasons" are theological and that those concerned refer to "revelations" or to their inner convictions, we will oppose to them the many other "revelations" and inner convictions, especially our revelation and inner conviction that everything that contradicts the equal freedom of all comes from the devil and has to be sent back to hell. Moreover, it is our conviction that this principle results, as an inevitable alternative to the law of the jungle, from a will to reach an agreement - and, as we have demonstrated, we are not lacking in this good will.

As far as your "reasons" are ideological (i.e. by their very nature, unprovable assertions and demands), we deny (a) that those higher authorities to which you refer exist at all in any form other than fixed ideas, figments of the imagination, and abstractions in your heads, and (b) that (should these higher authorities really exist, which we are willing to concede as a possibility) you have been authorized by them as their interpreters and that your interpretation correctly represents the will of these higher authorities.

To you as well as the theologians (including all preachers of morality and teachers of ethics), the following applies: You have the burden of proof for your claims and demands against us. You are schizophrenic and contradictory in your thinking and actions - if you consider it "just" that before a court any unproven claims can be rejected out of hand (no matter how real they may be) but want to force upon us the recognition of your unprovable claims.

We do not intend to deprive anyone of you of your property without indemnification. We are not at all against property as such, but only against monopoly property. Our proposals to end its privileges are as much in your interests as in ours. Make better proposals, if you are able to do so - we will gladly consider them! In any case, according to our proposals, no one will any longer have a privileged claim to nature's gift of land and natural resources and everyone will have an equal share in its yield.

From his birth, everybody will receive a certain, though modest amount to secure his existence. Nature offers this to any of its creatures. He will receive it free of charge and quite independent of his services and earnings from these. Also, there will be neither unemployment nor exploitation of tenants, lease holders, or wage earners.

And now, for once, take a look at the world around you and you will finally understand how serious your situation is. During the last 30 years it has continuously and rapidly deteriorated. Only barely 20% of humanity can still enjoy the questionable so-called liberties of the Western democracies. It is becoming more and more evident that even these democracies cannot solve the problem of unemployment and numerous other problems of internal discord with their old methods. And on the outside there threatens not only the Soviet Union, with its continuously increasing sphere of influence and its rapidly expanding military superiority, but also many of those countries which were until now exploited and oppressed by you. They have learnt from your bad example, and so are now preparing, with energy and raw materials, to cut off your life line, or at least to put you under severe pressure.

This is your last chance! - You cannot complain about the monopolies and privileges of others as long as you want to maintain your own privileges. You cannot practice a double moral standard by wanting to restrict the freedom sphere of others in your favour and then complain when others attempt to enlarge theirs at your expense. There remains only an Either - Or. After conceptual confusions have been revealed and false foundations have been exposed, you must either openly declare yourself followers of the law of the jungle and of aggressive force, or, alternatively, strive - with all the consequences - for the only basis upon which (in mutuality, which Proudhon called the formula for justice) agreement is possible in the long run: the equal freedom of all.

This freedom is even in the interest of those who will now have to abandon their unjustified privileges, monopolies and oligopolies. For they will not only retain the value of their present possessions but will also save them from certain loss in the near future. For nobody should deceive himself: even if State communism and its allies do not militarily overpower us, the evolution towards State socialism is inevitable at least in all of Europe, provided present conditions continue. (Kissinger predicted this would already happen in the next ten years).

It will be a kind of State socialism different only in degree, but not in principle, from communism. One may perhaps still be allowed to criticize what happens, from some far corner and without getting any response, but one will not have the least influence on what happens.

By way of contrast, transformation of the present condition into one of non-domination, which can be achieved rapidly as well as painlessly, would create circumstances offering the greatest protection against the communist menace, not only by depriving it of any grounds for criticism but also because its repercussions upon circumstances under State communism would be as certain as they would be far-reaching. There such a revolution can no longer happen without an impulse from abroad. Here it is still possible, but certainly not for long.

With all this one has to remember that the aim is to abolish the mischief of privileged action spheres at the expense of the restricted freedom of others (i.e. to abolish aggressive trespassing over the border of the equal freedom of all) - and so to eliminate any kind of exploitation and oppression too. The aim is not at all to reverse the situation by oppressing or exploiting anyone, not even the previous exploiters and oppressors. The principle of the equal freedom of all applies to them in the same way as to everyone.

And who could dare to justify or defend unequal freedom and aggression?

 

LIBERALS AND SOCIAL REFORMERS (^)

To the liberals and social reformers, the anarchists have the following statement to make.

Original liberalism was right insofar as it defended the principle of competition (which well agrees, by the way, with the elimination of competition on a voluntary basis as long as there is no attempt to establish an oligopoly or market domination) and rejected State intervention.

It overlooked the fact, however, that competition has so far never been truly free but enchained by numerous privileges and monopolies. "Free competition" between a weakling and a man of superior strength evidently works in favour of the latter.

The original "night-watchman State" was already an evil as such, not only because it primarily protected privileges and monopolies but also because, like organized crime, it forced its services, unasked for, upon others and one-sidedly determined its reward. Then it became the most dangerous aggressor, by developing into a super-monopolist and an alleged "welfare State" which wants to make people "happy" even against their will by means of general tutelage and aggressive force.

Liberals and social reformers have to decide today either for or against aggressive force. It makes no sense to attempt to patch up its flagrant defects. If liberals want to practice seriously what their name indicates, then they must not only defend " Freiheitlichkeit " (limited liberty or "law and order") whatever they mean by this, or some limited "liberties," but must defend the freedom, which is whole and undivided and cannot be anything other than the equal freedom of all.

To doubt or deny any one of the particular liberties which in sum make up this freedom, means to doubt and deny this freedom. Even if someone merely declares that aggressive force and unequal freedom against the will of those concerned is "necessary" in only one respect, he opens gate and door to any aggression, any infringement of the equal freedom of all. This has to be stated especially for those who claim a more or less reluctant monopoly for the special panacea they believe in or who want to utilize the State for its realization, especially' 'free economists'' of the Silvo Gesell type and "Ergocrats."

It is, for example, characteristic of a "yes, but..." type of liberalism that the FDP (the Liberal Party in West Germany) actually defends the right of free choice - but only between military service and alternative service. Thus it considers service to the State an indubitable "basic duty towards the community." Here they try to transfer not only the emotional value of the "community concept," whose proper core is voluntarism, to the opposite concept of a compulsory association, but twaddle about one of those allegedly "given duties," which were invented by people addicted to domination or obsessed with fixed ideas in order to justify their aggressions towards others. These addicts and obsessed people benefit from the fact that many of those manipulated by education and continuous propaganda have become accustomed to believe in such or similar "duties."

Anarchists recognize only voluntarily undertaken duties, and they have voluntarily undertaken the obligation to respect the equal freedom of any other person, in the same way as they want to see their own freedom respected. All imposed "duties" are violation of the equal freedom of all and are thus aggressive force!

Whoever advocates "social reforms" and means by this reforms other than those leading in the direction of the equal freedom of all and the complete abolition of all privileges and monopolies, including the monopoly character of the State, is aware neither of the real cause of existing evils nor of effective ways to remove them. He should, therefore, finally come to terms with the observations and proposals of the anarchists.

 

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (^)

Lenin complained in 1922 that Marx did not write a single word on how he had conceived socialist economic management. From this, one can conclude that Lenin carried out his own revolution without any detailed plan, and only with the aim of conquering the power of the State. Thus it is high time to ask some questions of all Marxists, whether communists or State socialists.

Do you at least now have a quite concrete and uniform idea on what life under communism or even only under socialism will be like? Or do you confine yourself just to striving for positions in the State or the Party, from which you could then dictate in accordance with your personal ideas, and oppress all those who think differently?

Really, why haven't you introduced communism yet, to demonstrate its advantages, seeing that in so many countries you have for one (if not two) generations already had the whole power of the State and all the means of production at your disposal?

And do you really consider the principles of the Communist Manifesto to be so attractive that you can win friends and not merely subjects with them?

You really have - as your manifesto called it -turned the proletariat into the ruling class (n.b. ruling class), equating, however, the proletariat with your party in this, and you have taken all capital from the bourgeoisie by means of "despotic interference" with property and have centralized all means of production in the hands of the State. Your softer gradualist State-socialist comrades have, in a legal way, either in preparation or as a final step, already transferred into State property only a part of the means of production, but on the other hand they have made almost all of life's activities dependent upon licences and intervention by the State, and this by a multitude of laws whose total effects are almost incomprehensible.

This has happened, to a large extent, under the influence of State socialist ideas even in the "capitalist" States.

Your showpiece - "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly," which Marx, quite correctly, recommended as the most effective means of preparing for communism - already exists in all States, including "capitalist" ones which are, therefore, sitting quite unawares on a time bomb.

The anarchists, on the other hand, see - and they can prove this as a fact - the most devastating of all monopolies is a monopoly of money and credit. According to them, it is the most terrible means of exploiting and oppressing people. Consequently, they make the abolition of this monopoly one of their main aims.

The Communist Manifesto names, as its first measure, the expropriation of landed property and the use of land rent for State expenditures, whereas the anarchists do not intend any "despotic interventions" and want to pass on to each individual, without exception, the land rent collected (i.e. the money from the lease of land which is then freely accessible for everybody, to every individual, equally and without exception). This would not happen if the land rent were used by the State. Then everyone would be placed under tutelage - quite unnecessarily.

We largely agree with your criticism of "monopoly capitalism," but not with your means of overcoming it. Please, do at lest explain to us what would remain of this monopoly capitalism once we eliminated the land oligopoly in the way proposed and transformed all monopoly enterprises, as well as those which dominate the market, into Open Productive Associations, and once we abolished all other remaining monopolies and privileges. How and by what could anyone then still be exploited and oppressed? - especially seeing that the main oppressor and main monopolist, the State, would then have disappeared! The people delivered from capitalistic domination would combine against its return in their own interest, in autonomous protective and social communities. Or what objections do you have against these?

We would like to hear all this, because up to now - if at all - you have only dealt with distorted images of an alleged "anarchism" whose "refutation" was easy but which had nothing in common with real anarchism.

Above all, consider this: Discounting the liquidation period for the State the transition to a condition of non-domination does not need as long a period as you believe necessary for the transition from a socialist to a communist society. It can, in principle, be carried out from one day to the next, especially where the State power itself promotes it. And, immediately afterwards, the first voluntary groups could begin with the formation of communistic societies.

Of course, this must be preceded by a revolution in the minds: confused concepts must be disentangled, and one must begin with facts instead of proceeding from ideologies.

Then there is no need for a progressive tax, as demanded by the Communist Manifesto, although the members of autonomous protective and socialist communities would be free to approve such a tax for themselves. In a society without domination, in which incomes rely on work and no longer originate from monopolies and privileges, a progressive tax is without any justification.

The same applies to the abolition of inheritance. Within communist groups which intend to produce according to ability and to consume according to need, this would be useless anyhow. But a communist economy presupposes a high degree of responsibility and true common spirit among participants - which neither is naturally given to all human beings nor can it be taught (nor does it function where it is enforced). In a society freed of oppression, exploitation and domination there must therefore, be property in the form of one's own products and in the form of those of others exchanged for one's own. If one may deal with it as one pleases and even give it away, then there is no reason why one should not leave it to one's relatives or other people after death. The transformation into Open Productive Associations will see to it that no monopoly or market-dominating enterprise can result from this.

The Communist Manifesto also suggests the confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. In a society without domination, however, only those would have a reason to emigrate who want to dominate others. Even these people should be held responsible with their property only insofar as one can prove that they have caused concrete damage. Whoever merely wants to be dominated himself, can achieve this by joining a corresponding autonomous protective and social community ... as long as it pleases him.

The demand for "centralization of transport in the hands of the State" should be dropped, since State enterprises cannot operate more cheaply than private ones, if they do not first steal the funds necessary for this. Where transport enterprises already are public or take the form of monopoly or market dominating enterprises, they must be transformed into Open Productive Associations subject to everyone's control and also to cooperative participation.

There is no need for a "common plan" from an authoritarian central office to "increase national enterprises, means of production, and cultivation, and to improve land." Once all restrictions upon production fall which today reduce it to a small percentage of what is possible, once workers finally receive the full return for their labour (including all that can be produced with the best means of production), and once no State can any longer forcefully take away the lion's share of this - then various productive enterprises will produce, in their own interest and with enthusiasm, whatever promises to be salable according to turnover statistics and according to effective demand (the latter then also being unrestricted). Naturally, within communistic groups (of volunteers) any planning is up to them. In the centralized "planned" economy, however, due to unavoidable planning mistakes, goods for which there is no demand are produced, while other things that are urgently needed remain in short supply. This happens because the "planners" are far away from the production as well as the sales front and do not know their requirements at all and have to judge instead according to schedules. To this must be added that they have no personal interest in the results and no real responsibility. Essential planning on the other hand, takes place in individual enterprises, as the most important continuous task of entrepreneurs or managers. It adapts itself to reality and to rapidly changing situations. It is all the more careful since any fault in planning is soon painfully felt by those concerned through the results. Here, also, anarchists open the way for reason and increased productivity.

"Equal, compulsory work for everyone; the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture": These terms correctly show reality in the "workers' paradise," where some people have to command and the others have to obey, and where proletarians lose even those modest liberties which monopoly capitalism has left them, while their standard of living sinks far below that of working people under monopoly capitalism. And who exerts force in this context? The new class of self-appointed alleged caretakers of the interests of the proletariat, i.e. an abstraction, but not one embracing all individual proletarians, who in practice have no say and are only objects of total manipulation.

Anarchists, in contrast to this, offer the individual workman a free choice among the most suitable jobs in the Open Productive Associations, with the maximum earnings possible in accordance with the best technological developments. They also assure that everyone can work independently with those who want to work for a fixed wage and will obtain the best possible money. For this, they can renounce any compulsion.

The "combination of agriculture and industry, striving for the gradual elimination of the contrast between city and country" sounds quite acceptable - if one did not know what is meant: namely, collectivization which turns free personalities into totally dependent people. They are worse off than serfs were under the most wicked feudal masters. At least they could flee from one master to a more lenient one, while here dependency leaves no way out.

In the Communist Manifesto's "public and free education for all children," communism's likeness to fascism, which one loves to deny, is again expressed without restraint, since this means that children are totally withdrawn from their parents' influence and drilled, from the earliest age in the dominating ideology, in order to become watchers and informers against their own parents. The "free-of-charge" aspect is only a deception, since the State can only take the necessary funds out of the pockets of working people. Anarchists, however, leave it up to parents, and above all, to the children themselves, as soon as they are able to make decisions, which learning system they want to choose - within or without an autonomous protective and social community. When there is no compulsory authority but merely authority based on achievement and inspiring example, competition sees to it that the best performance leads to success - not loyalty, fanaticism and servility to whatever class rules in the name of a dogma, stifles all criticism of its actions, and manipulates its elections - since its secret police eliminates even the beginnings of any opposition and an immense propaganda machinery hinders free decision-making.

From such a dictatorship and such State totalitarianism the Communist Manifesto expects the "disappearance of class distinction." It thus confuses economic distinctions (i.e. income differentials) with political distinctions (i.e. power differentials) simply by overlooking the distinction between rulers and ruled which constitutes the actual difference between classes. And then the Communist Manifesto becomes completely nebulous and confused in viewing the future. It simply asserts that public power (i.e. the State) will lose its political character and that, by means of the nationalization of the means of production (which leads to the total domination of the individual) the proletariat will end its own domination as a class. Apart from the fact that "the proletariat" cannot rule itself, neither as an abstraction nor as the real total of all individual proletarians, and that, in practice, only its self-appointed or (with the grossest manipulation) elected functionaries exercise this rule (domination) in the name of the proletariat and also over it, one can only reply to the above: Credo quia absurdum (I believe in it because it is absurd).

Thus, first of all, communist society is a State in its most characteristic, comprehensive, and severe form (a dictatorship); and then, all at once, it is no longer a State or dictatorship at all but pure joy and happiness, as in the Christian paradise - and without a revolution abolishing the new class of functionaries. One obviously expects them to eliminate themselves and their own domination as well.

How ill-founded this hope is has been shown in more than half a century of communist practice in the Soviet Union and in more than a quarter of a century in other "peoples' democracies." The dominating functionaries have indeed largely "eliminated" themselves, and those still surviving accuse each other of deviationism from the true faith and of treason against the proletariat, and then arm themselves to the teeth not only against the "class enemy" but - in their own way of expressing things - against the ruling proletariat (representatively, through its local functionaries) in other countries.

Like a gift from heaven - according to the communist doctrine - the State will suddenly be replaced by an "association, in which the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all." But is this possible in any way other than by realizing the principle of the equal freedom of all?

While the Communist Manifesto remains completely silent about the concrete details of this condition, the anarchists offer a realistic image with every detail. They show the points in which the future will differ from the present. They do not begin with abstractions either - those screens behind which specific persons always want to hide their selfish intentions - but, instead, with the specific mortal individual. This individual shall no longer bow before any allegedly "superior" laws and "ought" rules, nor subordinate himself to domination by any group, but shall share all of life's goods with any other individual with whom he has fully equal rights and under full respect for his equal freedom. In this wish, the anarchists also agree with everyone who rejects the law of the jungle and chooses understanding with others. But the decision for this inevitably leads to the principle of the equal freedom of all.

The communists have no reasonable argument against social order without domination, since within its framework it can include a communist economic system also (as explained above) and since, with the elimination of all privileges and monopolies, it also eliminates any exploitation. Moreover - avoiding any deviations or even wrong paths - it leads to the final goal which is recognized but only dreamed of by the communists.

Thus, with what argument do the State-communists want to force all anarchists under the yoke of their concepts?

 

A NECESSARY DISTINCTION (^)

So far only real anarchism has been discussed, the one anarchism bearing this name correctly, since it has consistently chosen non-domination (i.e. the equal freedom of all individuals) as its goal as well as the path leading to it.

It should be superfluous to mention - but, unfortunately, is not - that it has nothing to do with terrorists, aggressive violators, or advocates of chaos. Besides such types, who are called "anarchists" only in conscious falsification, there are also certain types whom one might call unhappy lovers of anarchism. They greatly value being called anarchists and give themselves the name, though at least some of their statements and actions are in serious contradiction to anarchism. About them one could say: Heaven preserve anarchism from such friends. Against its enemies it can help itself.

This is not directed against so-called communist anarchism or anarchistic communism, since among its followers there are now, fortunately, a growing number of consistent anarchists who want to realize their communist economic system only on a strictly voluntary basis and do not intend in any way to hinder the followers of individualist economic relationships.

Unfortunately, there are also a considerable number of people among them who, on a human (social) level are often very sympathetic types, with a strong feeling for community, but who, partly with questionable philosophical arguments and partly because they disregard Shaw's warning ("Do not do unto others, as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same"), want to make impossible any individualistic use of means of production, since they want to confiscate all of them and transform them into collectivist property. They consider the collective or even the communist economic system to be the "only true" form of anarchism, and so prove that they are not consistent anarchists, even though, apart from this, they represent some anarchistic claims.

Anarchism is not confined, either, to the rejection of compulsory association in the State. It rejects any grouping which claims, as such, a privilege over any individuals and for itself an excessive freedom of action with a corresponding restriction of the liberty of others. Captives of today's way of thinking, many of them are not even conscious of being defenders of the State principle of aggressive force - by making claims which they are accustomed to consider self- evident, although they really are nothing of the sort.

This is often made worse by the absence of established knowledge. When criticising existing conditions, often quite one-sided Marxist thoughts are accepted. Then the causes of economic exploitation are sought in the wrong place, while the drawing of distinctions, that open up quite important new insights and new avenues is felt to be "not radical enough" and irreconcilable with one's own prejudices.

When, moreover, their own point of view is seen unshakably and fanatically as "the only true way," when any discussion with people who think otherwise is refused, and when their attitude towards dissenters is at best limited to hostile silence, then the people concerned already demonstrate how far they are from the tolerant spirit and basic principles of anarchism.

Moreover, they speak a lot about solidarity and require it from others. But when they are asked to prove their faith in a general voluntary solidarity of all immediately, by putting all their present income into a common pot, together with like-minded people, in order to distribute this amount either per head or according to ''need," then they advance the most varied excuses, which altogether avoid the core of the matter.

It was a historical disaster that in Europe (in the United States things were different from the beginning) it was not the first true anarchists who met with the greatest response, but rather those who in a usually quite thoughtless way, represented what they called anarchism. Naturally, the opponents of anarchism immediately attacked these pronouncements, and all the mistakes, contradictions and confusion in their thoughts were ascribed to anarchism as such, in order to discredit it thoroughly.

One has to judge e.g. Bakunin and Kropotkin within the political, social, and economic conditions prevailing in their times in order to understand how they could envision a way out of them only through armed insurrection and "expropriation" - not in favour of the State but against it. But their ideas were so carelessly thought out and so over-optimistic regarding the concrete effects and form of the new order, that the State communists found it easy to demonstrate the illusory aspects in their teachings.

The historical merit of the ingenious Bakunin - a firebrand as well as a muddlehead - is to have recognized and fought Marx's error concerning the State. This remains incontestable. But his remark: "The delight in destruction is at the same time a creative joy!" and especially a number of concrete proposals in this direction, have done endless harm to real anarchism, and their effects can be felt even today. This is not even to speak of his irresponsible "Catechism for Revolution," which one afterwards tried to ascribe to Nechaev but which was, at least temporarily, approved by Bakunin. In it such a marked ideological and anti-anarchistic obsession is shown that it can possibly be excused only with Bakunin's own confession: "A basic evil in my nature has always been a love for the fantastic and the unusual, for unprecedented adventures, and for undertakings which open up a limitless horizon and whose end nobody can predict." Quite sympathetic as a human being and meritorious in many respects he was (at least since he only preached the senseless but never practiced it), but he was never a representative of "classical" anarchism.

One could perhaps consider Kropotkin as such. He is venerable as a scholar as well as a human being, and he left behind significant works of moral philosophy as well as of natural science, containing a wealth of truly anarchistic thought. However, they are disturbed by his one-sided partiality for communist ways of thinking, his lack of economic knowledge, and the dependency of his insights on the living conditions of his own times. If one were to proclaim him a classical representative of anarchism, one would risk creating a one-sided image of anarchistic goals and methods among those whose "conversion" is desired. More people would be frightened away than would be attracted, at least under today's conditions.

Therefore, our demarcation should be correctly understood not as a rejection of Bakunin and Kropotkin, who still deserve respect and even admiration for the positive aspects of their pioneering performance. Instead, we merely wish to discriminate against whatever in their teachings has been overtaken by subsequent developments or was in error, mostly pardonable and well-intended error.

We also consider it inexpedient, as well as objectively unfounded, to present as proof for the practicability of anarchism the short interlude in Spain which was improvised in the resistant against Franco's coup by groups standing close to anarchism but composed mainly of syndicalists who called themselves anarchists. Under the circumstances conditioned by war, no consistent anarchism could develop at all, and the improvisation so much mixed truly anarchistic aspects with non or even anti-anarchistic ones that this period does not offer a suitable model but rather re-enforces existing prejudices and misunderstandings.

We are glad about any and even about part-agreement with consistent anarchism and consider even our most determined opponents not as enemies but as people who are probably only subject to misunderstanding or are insufficiently enlightened. On the other hand, we do not consider ourselves guardians of the "holy grail" - of what we represent as consistent anarchism. For its scientific-critical attitude makes it quite self-evident that we are always prepared to let others show us where we may have been mistaken, though, please, we want to be proven wrong if we are wrong. All of our publications contain a corresponding appeal.

This tolerant as well as conciliatory attitude can, in our opinion, be very well combined with that tenacity with which we oppose any confusion of concepts. Merely part-agreement with consistent anarchism does not suffice to turn those concerned into its representatives. One does not regard those as vegetarians, either, who eat meat only occasionally, e.g. on Sundays, but only those who eat none consistently. As little as the agreement of an anarchist with a communist or a fascist on the fact that 2 times 2 makes 4 turns their thoughts into anarchistic ones, as little can some anarchistic or anarchistic-sounding ideas make an anarchist out of someone who, apart from these, upholds convictions or commits deeds which are decisively anti-anarchistic.

Distinction from this latter type is absolutely necessary for the successful propaganda of consistent anarchism.