But disregarding the fact that the council idea always has risen to the surface in revolutionary times, the anti-authoritarian socialists, anarchists and syndicalists were the ones who stood nearest to the council idea. Only an ignorant person could take the notion to deny that this is so. This springs from the antiauthoritarian world conception of the doctrines mentioned. The anarchists have always proclaimed the formula: Peasant, to you belongs the land; factory worker, to you belongs the factory; miner, to you belongs the mine. The syndicalists made it their aim, not to conquer political power — for that purpose no councils were necessary — but to take possession of the economic power, the land, the factories, the mines, the means of transportation, etc., through the workers who are there employed. In order to carry this out, the workers and the peasants must manage these establishments. But not all can do this at once; for this purpose they must elect trustees in the factory, on the countryestate, in the mines, and so on. And there we have the council idea. The workers in the factories elect factory councils; in the country, peasant councils; and for regulating the affairs in the community, community councils. Thus we see, in fact, that the socialist labor movement — which from the beginning renounced parliamentarian representation and for the realization of socialism and communist anarchism chose the direct road through the workers — was the most qualified, yes, we may even say, the only carrier of the council idea. If in the present revolutionary times even others, besides anarchists and syndicalists, are in favor of the direct way, the direct action, such as bolsheviks and communists, then they can also, of course, claim to represent the council idea to the same extent as they uphold the direct method. But it is necessary to remind the "November socialists," wh< before and during the war were for the largest part social patriots and who now pose as "the only representatives of the council system," of the priority of the anarchists and the syndicalists, in order to bridle their imagination a little. The Spanish anarchists have really for decades propagated the council idea, so that it is possible to even point out concrete examples.
It has also been shown that the soviet or council idea is no\ a newly invented patent of the Russian bolsheviks, but that 11 emerged from the Russian revolution and was represented by all revolutionaries, not only the bolsheviks, but also the left socialrevolutionaries, the anarchists, the syndicalists arid the maximalists. When the October revolution broke out and the workers elected their councils (in Russian: Soviets), there were elected to the Kronstadt soviet 105 maximalists, 95 bolsheviks, 76 social revolutionaries, and 12 anarchists. But the latter had, according to a statement of the maximalist leader, a great influence. In most cities the workers and the peasants elected Soviets, and the bolsheviks were by no> means always in the majority.
Originally the soviet formation was quite spontaneous. Later a system was created out of this sudden movement which then was anchored in the constitution. In Germany the anchoring of the council system in the constitution meant the annihilation of the free councils. But in Germany the bourgeois constitution with Parliament and "Reichstag'; was retained. In Russia the revolutionary workers (not the bolsheviks alone but all the revolutionary workers) had the power to dissolve the constituent assembly (by us called the national assembly) and to lay the soviet system, not only as an ornament in the basket of the bourgeois parliamentarian constitution, but made it the sole foundation for the building of the whole new state structure. The constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic is, as the name indicates, exclusively a soviet constitution. The decisions providing for a soviet constitution were adopted on July 10, 1918, by an All-Russian Soviet Congress.