In July 1936, General Franco’s coup d’état was defeated through a revolutionary uprising of the working class, and the anarchists emerged as the leading force. However, their programme and perspectives proved impotent in the face of events. They betrayed the revolution several times and, partly due to their mistakes, the Spanish proletariat was crushed. Fascism went on to establish a four-decade dictatorship. It is the duty of all thinking anarchists to analyse events in Spain critically and draw all the necessary conclusions.

Marxists and anarchists share many of the same objectives in common: fighting oppression, smashing the bourgeois state, creating a society without class exploitation and so on. However, there are also important differences in our ideas and methods, particularly related to the nature of power in general, and of state power in particular.

How can we reach the masses? This question has been at the center of revolutionary debate since the birth of the socialist movement. Revolutions are preceded by preparatory periods of ferment and debate, clarification of ideas, perspectives, and tasks, and shaking off the inertia of the previous epoch of stability and passivity. In these periods, there is a growing sense that society is at an impasse, while at the same time, history is accelerating and great events are coming. This pushes broader layers of society into political activity, and there is a thirst for ideas that can explain the crisis of the system and the way to transform it.

Today we publish the fourth and final part of Alan Woods' series: 'Marxism or anarchism? - An open letter to thinking anarchists'. The open letter is a response to an article by 'Black Flag' (an anarchist group in Brazil). Click here to jump straight to the fourth part

The debate between Marxism and Anarchism is more than a century old. It is no accident that when the class struggle again boils to the surface this debate is revived. This collection of classic and contemporary writings helps to clarify the Marxist perspective on Anarchist theory and practice, and the need for a revolutionary party. Its publication marks an important step forward in the theoretical arming of a new generation of class fighters - in preparation for the momentous struggles ahead.

The present period is the most stormy and convulsive period in history. Globalization now manifests itself as a global crisis of capitalism. Given the depth of the crisis and the worsening conditions, things are developing very quickly. The stage is set for a general revival of the class struggle, and in fact, this process has already begun.

What distinguishes Marxism from Anarchism? Why two theories, by what are they distinguished from each other, what are their relative merits, and which of the two theories, or which combination of their ideas, is the best tool for fighting capitalism and the bourgeois state? Such a process of questioning is necessary for any revolutionary, as an attempt to grasp and conquer revolutionary theory.

It is fashionable to portray Marxism as the source of authoritarianism. This accusation is raised repeatedly by anarchists, reformists and all kinds of opportunists. Bakunin was one of the more famous exponents of such accusations. But the truth is concrete and the historical facts reveal that those same elements who raise a hue and cry about authoritarianism are themselves the worst bureaucrats and authoritarians... where they manage to rule the roost.

The discipline that is imposed on the worker through the capitalist system — through wage labour, through the division of labour and the development of manufacturing — is the very same discipline that the workers turn against the bosses through organisation into trade unions and political parties of labour.  Therefore what effect does the theory and practice of Anarchism have in the attempts by the workers to forge fighting organisations? In a recent meeting of Socialist Appeal supporters in London, Alan Woods answers this question, focusing on the clashes between Marx and Bakunin in the First International, on the role of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Democratic

We publish a talk by Alan Woods on the Marxist's attitude to individual terrorism, given at the Socialist Appeal day school in London late last year. Of particular relevance following the assasination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan recently, socialism must oppose acts of indiviual terrorism - 'liberals with bombs' - because of the reactionary role they play in the labour movement.

Many superficial explanations have been given for the conflict between Marx and Bakunin, between Marxism and Anarchism. Some commentators have resorted to personality flaws to account for the conflict. A more promising line of explanation of their intractable differences, however, lies in an investigation into the profoundly divergent philosophical frameworks that served as the points of departure for their respective political analyses. As will be shown below, their foundational concepts are so incompatible that even their points of agreement are rendered more illusory than substantive.

As the old Soviet archives are opened up and studied, more material is being made available about what happened in Russia immediately after the revolution. Myths have been created about events like the Kronstadt “rebellion”, the peasant revolts, the anarchists, etc. The new material available confirms what Lenin and Trotsky explained about  these events. In spite of all attempts to slander the Bolsheviks, the truth is always concrete.

The recent anti-capitalist demonstrations have brought together many different groups protesting against the destruction of the environment, racism, the exploitation of the third world, and also many ordinary young people protesting at the state of things in general. This article debates the anarchist ideas of some of the groups organising these protests.

Ever since it was born, Marxism has had to wage a continual war to free itself of ultraleftism and opportunism. Marx and Engels waged a stubborn struggle against the ultraleft Bakunin. And the whole history of Bolshevism was a history of sharp ideological battles. Lenin was obliged more than once to combat ultraleft tendencies within the ranks of Bolshevism – for example after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, when he found himself in a minority in the leadership on the question of the need to participate in elections to a rigged tsarist parliament and work in the trade unions and other legal and semi-legal organizations.

In May 1919 Lenin met Kropotkin in the Kremlin. Lenin admired Kropotkin, especially for his book The Great French Revolution, but the conversation revealed how the anarchist leader was more interested in this or that cooperative being set up and had lost the general picture of where the revolution was going.