some superior force. Their
rights were not defined, and there was such chaos in the entire
situation that, in the end, the whole question had to be left to
Parliament. It was only after the action of the Convention, June 11,
1793, that the rights of ownership were defined. It was only then, as
Kropotkin says, that "everyone had a right to the land. It was a
complete revolution."[51] That the greatest of living anarchists should
be forced to pay this tribute to the action of Parliament is in itself
an assurance. For masses in the time of revolution to grab whatever
they desire is, after all, to constitute what Jaures calls a fictitious
ownership. Some legality is needed to establish possession and a sense
of security, and, up to the present, only the political institutions of
society have been able to do that. For this precise reason every social
struggle and class struggle of the past has been a political struggle.

There remains but one other fundamental question, which must be briefly
examined. The syndicalists do not go back to Owen as the founder of
their philosophy. They constantly reiterate the claim that they alone
to-day are Marxists and that it is given to them to keep "pure and
undefiled" the theories of that giant mind. They base their claim on the
ground of Marx's economic interpretation of history and especially upon
his oft-repeated doctrine that upon the economic structure of society
rises the juridical and political superstructure. They maintain that the
political institutions are merely the reflex of economic conditions.
Alter the economic basis of society, and the political structure must
adjust itself to the new conditions. As a result of this truly Marxian
reasoning, they assert that the revolutionary movement must pursue
solely economic aims and disregard totally the existing and, to their
minds, superfluous political relations. They accuse the socialists of a
contradiction. Claiming to be Marxists and basing their program upon the
economic interpretation of history, the socialists waste their energies
in trying to modify the results instead of obliterating the causes.
Political institutions are parasitical. Why, therefore, ignore economic
foundations and waste effort remodeling the parasitical superstructure?
There _is_ a contradiction here, but not on the part of the socialists.
Proudhon was entirely consistent when he asked: "Can we not administer
our goods, keep our accounts, arrange our differe