To the third kind of opponents of the bolsheviks belong, finally, the anti-authoritarian socialists, the anarchists and the syndicalists. While the two first-mentioned are opponents of the revolution as such, this third kind are entirely revolutionary. And they are not adversaries of bolshevism in the same sense as the two former. They are rather opponents of bolshevik teachings, opponents of the bolshevik authoritarian world philosophy; they are philosophical opponents. They fight the bolsheviks on the intellectual field. While the reformist socialists are against the bolsheviks, because they went too far, the syndicalists and the anarchists take a negative position towards the bolsheviks, because for them they did not go far enough. They make the objection against the bolsheviks that their methods do not remove the foundations of the old world order of the state and capitalism radically enough, that they have made too great concessions to the spirit of authority, to the discretion of the state, and to the system of wage slavery, and that they in this manner have hindered the revolution in its further development. They reproach the bolsheviks that they have set up a new state and thus led the revolution into the wrong channels. They show the bolsheviks the inconsistency of their position, when they, on ftie one hand, maintain that the state is an institution of oppression and class rule, and that a free society only can exist without the state, but, on the other hand, concentrate all their power on making this class state as powerful as possible, as formidable as it ever was, and perfect it through the strongest kind of centralism. The revolutionary syndicalists and anarchists furthermore say that the bolsheviks through the establishment of this state and this centralism are not getting nearer to liberty but are getting further aivay from it. As opponents of the conquest of political power they make the objection to the bolsheviks that, through the conquest of political power, they have become power-seeking politicians and have pushed the more important side of socialism and communism in the back-ground. When they once struck out on the path leading to political power, they were compelled to it. From this follows suppression of the other socialist parties and tendencies, suppression of the right of free press and assembly, etc. They are also opponents of bolshevik methods of conquering political power, of centralism and of state socialism. But it is hardly necessary to state that they, like the bolsheviks, are bitter enemies of private property, capitalism, bourgeois democracy and any kind of a national assembly.
As will be easily understood, the capitalists and socialreformists are the strongest opponents and political adversaries of the bolsheviks. The anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists, on the other hand, are also opponents on principle of the bolshevik methods, but if the bolsheviks really honestly desire the destruction of the state, then they ought to approach them and the opposition might grow into a fighting alliance. As the matter now stands, the anarchists and the revolutionary syndicalists take a negative position towards the bolsheviks, when it is not downright hostile.