The authors disapprove of the theoretical split within the women's movement. They point out that behind the fruitless controversy of the "subsistence-oriented" and "wage-work-oriented" directions there is a complex and paradoxical social situation of women to which no such one-sided views can do justice.

The anarchist author discusses the basic thesis of anarchism that the management of society and order do not necessitate a separate power. He quotes examples from various aspects of social life and history to illustrate that both in revolutionary times and in the organisation of everyday life, elements of (anarchist) self-organisation are present which have proved to be more successful that other principles of organisation.

The author analyses the emergence of what is called the "left wing opposition" in the Soviet Union. He states that the "leftists" who made a series of political mistakes did not have a lot of chances against the Stalinists which he traces back to the acceptance of the one party system and the fact that the mass basis which still existed during the revolution slowly diminished and melted away from behind the "pioneer guard" of the revolution as a result of the meagre conditions.

The article is based on the hypothesis that the right and left wings always organize themselves around the contradiction of property and freedom. The author expounds the idea that neither of these two extremes is suitable for becoming a principle of organising society, thus he argues in support of the validity of guidance by the centre. He joins the "pendulum" theory followed by many, which says that if politics swings in one direction for a long time, then social balance (which in the author's view is the balance of property and freedom) can only be restored if it then swings back in the other direction. The article is followed by some remarks of the Editor.