On Anarchism and Ultra Democracy-KIM IL SUNG

Ultra-democracy, no matter what specific forms it took, was an opportunist trend derived from petit bourgeois ideology. It was, in effect, an anarchic tendency which had nothing in common with the revolution­ary ideology of the working class.

Anarchism, a reflection of petit bourgeois ideology, derives from an extreme hatred for authority in general and a resistance to the political power of the bourgeoisie in particular. It attempted to introduce anarchic disorder and immoderate conduct into society, extolling ultra-democracy, radical freedom and self-indulgence.

Some radical ideologists, who represented the distress of the petit bourgeoisie, which was economically bankrupt and politically disenfran­chised under the pressures of capitalist mass production and the political dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, attempted to lead the masses in opposition to state power in general by alleging that the political power of the capitalist class should be overthrown by violence and anarchism established.

The so-called “theory of anarchism” of such ideologists as the French petit bourgeois, Proudhon, and Bakunin and Kropotkin in Russia, which found expression in an extreme hatred for political power and unreasonable demands for social equality, was a destructive ideological trend which made it impossible to rouse the working masses to the strug­gle against the repression of the capitalists, to safeguard the gains of the revolution and establish truly popular and democratic systems in those countries which had overthrown the dictatorship of the exploiting class; it was condemned by the impartial judgement of history.

Nevertheless, for some time this ideological trend gave the petit bourgeoisie illusions about ultra-democracy and unrestricted freedom and it spread to some extent to the regions and countries where capitalist industry had not been developed on a large scale and the petit bourgeois and peasant mentality remained dominant. This is the major reason why quite a few people thought that anarchism made certain contributions to the struggle against capitalism.

Some working-class parties enlisted anarchic forces in the struggle to overthrow the reactionary regime of the landlords and bourgeoisie. It is well-known that the Soviet government cooperated with Makhno and his clique, an anarchic collective in the Ukraine, during the Civil War.

In the early days, when ultra-democracy emerged in the guerrilla army, anarchism still existed as a political idea that served a certain social stratum, the petit bourgeoisie in particular, as an expression of their revolutionary character, and it inflicted tangible harm on the revolu­tionary theory and practice of the working class.

This does not mean, however, that the only form taken by ultra-democracy was anarchism. The activities of the revisionists who emerged in the international working class movement also had elements in common with ultra-democracy. Under the cloak of democracy, they promoted bourgeois liberalism, anarchism, immoderacy and disorder, and they gave rise to social confusion and self-indulgence. In the light of this experience, we cannot but conclude that there is an ideological community between extreme bourgeois democracy and anarchism.
from "With the Century"