Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/432

406 and of crises. The anarchists, on the other hand, defend themselves by appealing to the (unanarchistic!) authority of Marx.

As a philosophic system, Marxism, with its materialism, positivism, and evolutionism, can hardly be distinguished in point of principle from anarchism; but Marxism contains a more notable element of historism. Anarchism is philosophical rather than historical, and the anarchist programs pay less attention to positive science.

Marxism is peculiarly characterised by its amoralism, which is dependent upon solomnism. Anarchism is moralistic.

Very few anarchists accept historical materialism in its strict Marxist form, Moreover, the anarchist philosophy of history differs from the Marxist, and the ultimate aim is differently conceived. The class struggle and its final abolition are for the anarchists mere means to an end, an end which lies quite beyond any class aims, an end which comprises the complete economic and mental enfranchisement of the individuality. The goal is, a condition where authority shall be unknown.

In respect of religion and metaphysics, both trends alike are atheistic and materialistic. Socialism is definitely determinist, anarchism undeterminist rather. For both systems the problem of necessity and free will is one of great importance.

F we are to define the relationship of Marx himself to anarchism, it is necessary to insist once again that Marx developed. The thought of Marx and Engels in the first phase differed from that in the second phase, and this applies especially to their outlook on revolutionism.

To put the matter briefly, the Marx of the Communist Manifesto and of the period that elapsed until the publication of the first volume of Capital, was more anarchistic than the later Marx. In the earlier phase, Marx was strongly revolutionary, and preached a more decisive astatism; his earlier writings contain stronger expressions against militarism, parliamentarism, and patriotism. It is doubtless open to dispute whether revolutionism is in fact stronger because it finds stronger and more emotional expression. But this much is certain, that in 1848 and for a great many years afterwards,