|
| HELLO PEOPLE MY 14 BIRTHDAY IS COMEING UP IM INVITEING ALL OF YOU
PLEASE SHOW UP ITS FROM 5-9 AT MY HOUSE ADDRESS IS 8800 NORTH
HOLMES STREET ITS OFF NORTH OAK TRAFIC WAY THEIRS PIZZA MOUTAIN DEW
PEPSI AND COKE A 7 LAYER PIZZA A 7 LAYER CAKE FULL OF ICE CREAM BROWNIE
PUDDING AND ON THE TOP IS MORE PUDDING AND HEATH BARS CRUST IS COOKIE
THEIR WILL ALSO BE VIDEO GAME MUSIC ANIME MORE ANIME OH YA AND DID I
SAY ANIME ANYWAYS THEIRS A CRAP LOAD OF ANIME YOU GET MY POINT
AND THEIR IS TV AND MOVIE DRAWING WRIGHTING AND YOU CAN SLEEP UPSTAIRS
PLEASE PLESE COME I REALLY MISS THE CURCH GAND (JESSICA FROG AND MOLLY)
PLEASE GUYS I REALLY WANT YOU TO SHOW UP I MISS YOU MOLLYS ALREADY
COMING SO IS ZOE AND CAITLIN AND TOM HIS 2 DAUGHTERS JAMES MABEY CHIS
AND MARK WONT BE THEIR DONT WORRIE NEITHER WILL JOSH( HE IS WORSE THAN
MARK HE CREATED WHAT MARK IS BASICLY BUT HE IS STILL WORSE) IF YOU HAVE
LITTLE BROTHERS OR SISTERS THEIR WELCOME TO COME AND SO ARE DOGS THAT
ARE DOG FRIENDLY GOOD WITH KIDS AND CANT JUMP 4 1/2 FOOT FENCE PARENTS
CAN STAY IF THEY WANT EXAMPLE ZOES MOM ONE OF COOLEST MOTHERS IN THE
WORLD PLEASE PLEASE SHOW UP GIFTS ARNT NESSICARY AS LONG AS YOU SHOW UP
ITS BEING THEIR AND SHOWING THAT YOU CARE THAT COUNTS IF YOU CAN OR
CANT GO JUST CALL ME JESSICA YOU NEED TO START ANSWERING YOUR PHONE ITS
IMPOSSIBE TO GET A HOLD OF YOUSAME GOES FOR FROG AND ANOTHER THING CALL
ME MORE I CALL ALL YOU GUYS ALL THE TIME AND ITS ALMOST IMPOSSIBE TO
GET A HOLD OF YOU YOU KAN EVEN BRING KATIE TO HANDG OUT WITH THEIRS
GOING TO BE 7 LARGE 3 CHEESE STUFFT CRUST PIZZAS AND 2-3 BODDLES
OF MOUNTAIN DEW COKE AND PEPSI YOUR WELCOME TO BRING YOUR OWN MY
DAD MIGHT BE GRILLING SO THE PIZZA WONT HAVE MEAT (because some of you
a vegitarians or trying to be if you need help with it talk to my
brother keith my anarcho comrad will help you with it seeing that he
has been one for almost a year or more) ANY WAYS YOU CAN REACH ME AT
816 (468-8332) OR MY MOMS CELL 721-7811 OR MY DAD TRY TO STICK WITH ME
AND MY MOM THOUGHT HIS NUMBER IS 916-2336 AND MOLLY AND JESSICA DONOT
FIGHT I HATE SEEING YOU FIGHTING YOU ARE VERY BEST FRIENDS AND LOSEING
EACH OTHER OVER A BOY FRIEND OR IF YOU ARE GUY GIRL FRIEND I CARE
ABOUT YOU GUYS TO MUCH TO SEE THAT HAPPEN I LOVE YOU GUY BUNCHES (AS
FRIENDS OTHER WISE THAT WOULB BE WEIRD) HERE IS THE ANARCHO
FAQ... Introduction
"Proletarians of the world, look into the depths of your own beings,
seek out the truth and realise it yourselves: you will find it nowhere
else"
- Peter Arshinov
The History of the Makhnovist Movement
Welcome to our FAQ on anarchism
This FAQ was written by anarchists across the world in an attempt to
present anarchist ideas and theory to those interested in it. It is a
co-operative effort, produced by a (virtual) working group and it
exists to present a useful organising tool for anarchists on-line and,
hopefully, in the real world. It desires to present arguments on why
you should be an anarchist as well as refuting common arguments against
anarchism and other proposed solutions to the social problems we face.
As anarchist ideas seem so at odds with "common-sense" (such as "of
course we need a state and capitalism") we need to indicate why
anarchists think like they do. Unlike many political theories,
anarchism rejects flip answers and instead bases its ideas and ideals
in an in-depth analysis of society and humanity. In order to do both
anarchism and the reader justice we have summarised our arguments as
much as possible without making them simplistic. We know that it is a
lengthy document and may put off the casual observer but its length is
unavoidable.
Readers may consider our use of extensive quoting as being an example
of a "quotation [being] a handy thing to have about, saving one the
trouble of thinking for oneself." (A.A. Milne) This is not the case of
course. We have included extensive quotations by many anarchist figures
for three reasons. Firstly, to indicate that we are not making up our
claims of what certain anarchists thought or argued for. Secondly, and
most importantly, it allows us to link the past voices of anarchism
with its present adherents. And lastly, the quotes are used for their
ability to convey ideas succinctly rather than as an appeal to
"authority."
In addition, many quotes are used in order to allow readers to
investigate the ideas of those quoted and to summarise facts and so
save space. For example, a quote by Noam Chomsky on the development of
capitalism by state protection ensures that we base our arguments on
facts without having to present all the arguments, facts and references
Chomsky uses. Interested readers can read the cited text if they desire
to discover more.
We should also indicate the history of this FAQ. It was started in 1995
when a group of anarchists got together in order to write an FAQ
refuting Libertarian Capitalist claims of being anarchists. Those who
were involved in this project had spent many an hour on-line refuting
claims by these people that capitalism and anarchism could go together.
Finally, a group of net-activists decided the best thing was to produce
an FAQ explaining why anarchism hates capitalism and why "anarcho"
capitalists are not anarchists.
However, after the suggestion of Mike Huben (who maintains the
"Critiques of Libertarianism" web-page) it was decided that a
pro-Anarchist FAQ would be a better idea than an
anti-"anarcho"-capitalist one. So the Anarchist FAQ was born. It still
bears some of the signs of its past-history. For example it gives the
likes of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and so on, far too much space
outside of Section F - they really are not that important. However, as
they present extreme examples of everyday capitalist ideology and
assumptions, they do have their uses - they state clearly the
authoritarian implications of capitalist ideology which its more
moderate supporters try to hide or minimise.
We think that we have produced a useful on-line resource for anarchists
and other anti-capitalists to use. Perhaps, in light of this, we should
dedicate this anarchist FAQ to the many on-line "libertarian"
capitalists who, because of their inane arguments, prompted us to start
this work. Then again, that would give them too much credit. Outside
the net they are irrelevant and on the net they are just annoying. As
you may guess, sections F and G contain the bulk of this early
anti-Libertarian FAQ and are included purely to refute the claim that
an anarchist can be a supporter of capitalism that is relatively common
on the net (in the real world this would not be required as almost all
anarchists think that "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron and that its
supporters are not part of the anarchist movement).
So, while coming from a very specific reason, the FAQ has expanded into
more than we originally imagined. It has become a general introduction
about anarchism, its ideas and history. Because anarchism recognises
that there are no easy answers and that freedom must be based on
individual responsibility the FAQ is quite in-depth. As it also
challenges a lot of assumptions, we have had to cover alot of ground.
We also admit that some of the "frequently asked questions" we have
included are more frequently asked than others. This is due to the need
to include relevant arguments and facts which otherwise may not have
been included.
We are sure that many anarchists will not agree 100% with what we have
written in the FAQ. That is to be expected in a movement based upon
individual freedom and critical thought. However, we are sure that most
anarchists will agree with most of what we present and respect those
parts with which they do disagree with as genuine expressions of
anarchist ideas and ideals. The anarchist movement is marked by
wide-spread disagreement and argument about various aspects of
anarchist ideas and how to apply them (but also, we must add, a
wide-spread tolerance of differing viewpoints and a willingness to work
together in spite of minor disagreements). We have attempted to reflect
this in the FAQ and hope we have done a good job in presenting the
ideas of all the anarchist tendencies we discuss.
We have no desire to write in stone what anarchism is and is not.
Instead the FAQ is a starting point for people to read and learn for
themselves about anarchism and translate that learning into direct
action and self-activity. By so doing, we make anarchism a living
theory, a product of individual and social self-activity. Only by
applying our ideas in practice can we find their strengths and
limitations and so develop anarchist theory in new directions and in
light of new experiences. We hope that the FAQ both reflects and aids
this process of self-activity and self-education.
We are sure that there are many issues that the FAQ does not address.
If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and
answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not
our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims
to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand
with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible. If you want
to get involved with the FAQ then contact us. Similarly, if others
(particularly anarchists) want to distribute all or part of it then
feel free. It is a resource for the movement. For this reason we have
"copylefted" the FAQ (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html for
details). By so doing we ensure that the FAQ remains a free product,
available for use by all.
One last point. Language has changed a lot over the years and this
applies to anarchist thinkers too. The use of the term "man" to refer
to humanity is one such change. Needless to say, in today's world such
usage is inappropriate as it effectively ignores half the human race.
For this reason the FAQ has tried to be gender neutral. However, this
awareness is relatively recent and many anarchists (even the female
ones like Emma Goldman) used the term "man" to refer to humanity as a
whole. When we are quoting past comrades who use "man" in this way, it
obviously means humanity as a whole rather than the male sex. Where
possible, we add "woman", "women", "her" and so on but if this would
result in making the quote unreadable, we have left it as it stands. We
hope this makes our position clear.
So we hope that this FAQ entertains you and makes you think. Hopefully
it will produce a few more anarchists and speed up the creation of an
anarchist society. If all else fails, we have enjoyed ourselves
creating the FAQ and have shown anarchism to be a viable, coherent
political idea.
We dedicate this work to the millions of anarchists, living and dead,
who tried and are trying to create a better world. The FAQ was
officially released on July 19th, 1996 for that reason - to celebrate
the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and the heroism of the Spanish anarchist
movement. We hope that our work here helps make the world a freer place.
The following self-proclaimed anarchists are (mostly) responsible for this FAQ:
Iain McKay (main contributor and editor)
Gary Elkin
Dave Neal
Ed Boraas
We would like to thank the following for their contributions and feedback:
Andrew Flood
Mike Ballard
Francois Coquet
Jamal Hannah
Mike Huben
Greg Alt
Chuck Munson
Pauline McCormack
Nestor McNab
and our comrades on the anarchy, oneunion and organise! mailing lists.
Section A - What is Anarchism?
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1)
social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty,
homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse,
social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration
of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2)
destruction of the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex
forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," mainstream
media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable,
each having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on
a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however,
this "orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question
are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are
clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological
Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above.
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these
crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the
principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major
institutions of all "civilised" societies, whether capitalist or
"communist." Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact that all
of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, i.e.
organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal
structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies,
political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It then
goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in such
hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture.
In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will present the
anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its negative effects
in greater detail.
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of
modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is
much more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free
society. Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist
question" as follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how
to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with
all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities."
[Red Emma Speaks, pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a
society in which the potential for each individual is realised but not
at the expense of others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision
a society in which, instead of being controlled "from the top down"
through hierarchical structures of centralised power, the affairs of
humanity will, to quote Benjamin Tucker, "be managed by individuals or
voluntary associations." [Anarchist Reader, p. 149] While later
sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe anarchism's
positive proposals for organising society in this way, "from the bottom
up," some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in
the earlier sections. The positive core of anarchism can even be seen
in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social
question as Marxism and right-wing "libertarianism" (sections F and H,
respectively).
As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "[l]ike all great ideas,
anarchism is pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are
at their best when they are living free of authority, deciding things
among themselves rather than being ordered about." [Anarchy: A Graphic
Guide, p. vii] Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore
social freedom, anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that
repress people:
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free
society of all political and social coercive institutions which stand
in the way of the development of a free humanity." [Rudolf Rocker,
Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 9]
As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.
Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an
ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you
have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of
ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and
flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes
and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of
"fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring
reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by
definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny
and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a
Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in
question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all
will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in
the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of
some ruling elite. Or, as Michael Bakunin puts it:
"Until now all human history has been only a
perpetual and bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in
honour of some pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state,
national honour, historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty,
public welfare." [God and the State, p. 59]
Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of
some dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or
her ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living
to bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The
living should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis
of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of
rules and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for
ourselves.
In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you
the "correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about
what anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its
modern forms and why we are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to
provoke thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new
ideology, then sorry, anarchism is not for you.
While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not
"reasonable" people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what the
"experts" and "authorities" tell them is true, and so they will always
remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:
"[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his
own truth, when he speaks and acts from his deepest convictions. Then,
whatever the situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say
and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring shame upon himself or his
causes." [quoted in Albert Meltzer, I couldn't Paint Golden Angels, p.
2]
What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is
the power of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to
accept what others tell you, but to think and act for yourself!
One last point: to state the obvious, this is not the final word on
anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written
here, but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All
we wish to do is indicate the basic ideas of anarchism and give our
analysis of certain topics based on how we understand and apply these
ideas. We are sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the
core ideas we present, even if they may disagree with our application
of them here and there.
A.1 What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the
absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property ,
p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to
create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as
equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control -
be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the
individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of
a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and
nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power.
Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for
society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical
forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of
Individualism, p. 106]
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most
misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used
to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists
desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel.
For example, in countries which have considered government by one
person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have
been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion.
Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will
obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot
work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to
chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:
"since it was thought that government was necessary
and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion,
it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of
government, should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]
Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so
people will see that government and other hierarchical social
relationships are both harmful and unnecessary:
"Change opinion, convince the public that government
is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word
anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean
for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of
all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp. 16]
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all. As
well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" idea
of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism and
anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political and
social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the
radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all
the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently
we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and
persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters
of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]
Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola
Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and
were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927.
So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders and
distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist
media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the
distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and
Marxists). Hopefully once we are finished you will understand why those
in power have spent so much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one
idea which can effectively ensure liberty for all and end all systems
based on a few having power over the many.
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not,"
"the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning
"a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or,
as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning
"contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]
While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean
"having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen,
the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no
government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally,
"without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have
continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that
anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the
power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150]
For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is
generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead
of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:
"Anarchism can be understood as the generic social
and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty,
domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution.
. . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if]
government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of
anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]
For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or
anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why?
Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies
authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy,
anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient
definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to
all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. In the
words of Brian Morris:
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and
essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all
forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and
domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist
Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the
state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists
also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of
anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive
institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary
associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]
Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development
-- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin
did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which
was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from
their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against
any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin
spoke of this when he attacked "official" authority but defended
"natural influence," and also when he said:
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to
oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess
power." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271]
As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the
'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of
anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root
of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'"
[Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement]
We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not
limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian
economic and social relationships as well as political ones,
particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour.
This can be seen from Proudhon's argument that "Capital . . . in the
political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of
capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the
theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in
various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of
them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the
Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in
practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for
oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its
will and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of
Anarchism, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism as
it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour" and,
therefore, "that his [or her] inclination and judgement are
subordinated to the will of a master." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50] Forty
years earlier Bakunin made the same point when he argued that under the
current system "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given
time" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187]
Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means
opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In
Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society .
. . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and
the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the
tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op.
Cit., p. 158] For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt
against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills"
could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the
oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was
that anarchism was born." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 19]
Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a
misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the
anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the
writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of
anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had
this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always
challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been
equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the
state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]
And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do
anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create
a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In
other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the
top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a
society without rulers.
While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I, Noam
Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free
society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal
-- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in
community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be,
should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean
workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities,
interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to
organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society
would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers,
governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on
free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom
up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this
society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as
they can.
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of
socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of
exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of
private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta,
Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]
Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a
society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies.
Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable
form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual
liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality
as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is
privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery
and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]
The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without
equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty
is impossible and a justification for slavery.
While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist
anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details),
there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them
-- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words
of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists "on
the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man."
[cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140] All
anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as
exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them
just as much as they oppose government and the State.
More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link"
within anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and
domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human
individual." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 108] For anarchists, a
person cannot be free if they are subject to state or capitalist
authority. As Voltairine de Cleyre summarised:
"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a
society in which the needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and
in which the opportunities for complete development of mind and body
shall be the heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust
organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally
be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will insure to
each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master to whom he [or
she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her] product, which will
guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means of production.
. . Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the discontented; out of
the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the consciously dissatisfied .
. . Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the
desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing
warfare against capitalism and the State." [Anarchy! An Anthology of
Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 23-4]
So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this,
"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must,
and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in
common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the
ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things
where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and]
that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of
government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to
an-archy" [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]
Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques
current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential
new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the
current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty,
equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2.
Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his
pre-anarchist days) pointed out, "the urge to destroy is a creative
urge." One cannot build a better society without understanding what is
wrong with the present one.
However, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means
of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in
struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other
words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs
of people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To
quote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:
"Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is
concrete, democratic and egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and
remains -- a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their
oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of
state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism,
which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of
the few at the expense of the rest.
"Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life.
Philosophically, it aims for the maximum accord between the individual,
society and nature. Practically, it aims for us to organise and live
our lives in such a way as to make politicians, governments, states and
their officials superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually
respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive
relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means
of production and distribution are held in common.
"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract
principles and theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware
that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle
lasts forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to
struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be . . .
"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and
progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will
to resist every form of injustice. In general terms, this means
challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive
authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is
that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost,
and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then
ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives
in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and
fairly.
"Anarchists do not stand aside from popular
struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute
practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest
possible levels of both individual self-development and of group
solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning
voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making
processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination
in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and
places." [My Granny made me an Anarchist, pp. 162-3]
Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of
our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or
politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to
become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate
interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by doing
this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.
It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice
everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take
action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation,
fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and
bosses, the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to
strengthen these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full
fruition. As we discuss in section J, anarchists apply their ideas in
many ways within capitalism in order to change it for the better until
such time as we get rid of it completely. Section I discusses what we
aim to replace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of
"anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive
and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are
"free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and
"libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism,
libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As
Vanzetti put it:
"After all we are socialists as the
social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are
all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and
all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian;
they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no
State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The
Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]
But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers
possess both political power and the means of producing and
distributing goods.
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which
believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the
producers possess both political power and the means of producing and
distributing goods.
(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political
sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these
definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market"
capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries,
obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for
socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to
pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many
people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a
contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists
are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of
"socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in
order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other
words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful
possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the
term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the
1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary
anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement
Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term
"libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French
anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of
Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by
anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used
in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid
the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind
(Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire --
The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then,
particularly outside America, it has always been associated with
anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the
USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which
had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The
US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since
the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the
term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the
expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that
party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in
Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism
(as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.
As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist
system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say,
state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for
anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in
Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no
socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists,
socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of
culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free
initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a
dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought
and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin
Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]
Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists
are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our
ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term
'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the
specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a
straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This
movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist
movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by
those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people
as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with
entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should
"restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the
free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we
will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is
because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see
sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work
together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of
their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen
will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things
shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the
terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism p. 32
and p. 34]
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms
which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism,
Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --,
slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is
dominating the world just now).
Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like
Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so
because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and
Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide,
generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of
Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with
the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in
Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should
be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of
Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon.
[The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was
originally defined to include "all those who believed in the
individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta,
"Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal
of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is
shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist
banner.
For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits
of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter
Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for
example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual
employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the
property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains
. . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of
profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all
workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus,
in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital,
true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own
and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed,
those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the
producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist
circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct
workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by
the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).
Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as
well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern
themselves during the production process nor have control over the
product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal
freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by
anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of
Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that
anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation
stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the
workman. . . will be simply the employee of the
proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the
first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his
dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing
organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not
hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an
ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain
related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . .
castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and
democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]
Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the
wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman,
What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the
anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) --
called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced capitalism as a
system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and
profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market
society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour
by capital would cease, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural
wage, its entire product." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p.
85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free
exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For
Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true
free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure
that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring
the latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section G
for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had
nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks,"
which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such
as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.
So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a
specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist
Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):
"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is
a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of
Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian,
state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is
either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces
over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they
decrease they are anarchistic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is
Not]
Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists,
but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's
comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The
anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the
exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the
anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings.
[Anarchism, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used
almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact --
"every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily
an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided
into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or
middle-class anarchists." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket
Martyrs, p. 81]
So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues
-- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market
would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that
capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an
anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not
wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of
external wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and
such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of
real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued
that the trade union was "the exemplification of gaining freedom by
association" and that "[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more
the slave of his employer than he is with it." [Different Phases of the
Labour Question]
However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism"
almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists
have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All
anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,'
then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of
the greatest enemies of socialism." [Marxism, Anarchism, and
Alternative Futures, p. 779]
Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism,
social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail
Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that
would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's
state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of
Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of
state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were
among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik
regime in Russia.
Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with
some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker
accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his
labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily
influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a
brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as
state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement
holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the
anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton
Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far
from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the
anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to
Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian
Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose
ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of equals.
Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands
in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e.
state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many
people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free
association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and
communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state
capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver,
and the State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist
Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most people
think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as
Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great
Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter Kropotkin,
The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist objection to
the identification of Marxism, "central planning" and State
Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in section H.
It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce
confusion, most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is
taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the
rise of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some
pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that
is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and
logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is
something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a
fuller discuss of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see section
F).
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?
Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the The
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by
participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see
Section A.5.4). They point out that:
"The class struggle created by the enslavement of
workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression,
to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social
system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its
replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under
self-management.
"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract
reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct
struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities
of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality,
aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period
of the life and struggle of the working masses.
"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin,
Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having
discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their
thought and knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16]
Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass
movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority,
both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from
1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has
traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants."
[Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]
Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for
freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in
everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each time
it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived
its origin from the teachings of life itself." [Evolution and
Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, "the proof" of his
mutualist ideas lay in the "current practice, revolutionary practice"
of "those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been
formed in Paris and Lyon . . . [show that the] organisation of credit
and organisation of labour amount to one and the same." [No Gods, No
Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was
"close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and
the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable
convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was
able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the
example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he
championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such
workers." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of
French Republican Socialism, p. 164]
Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead
a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to
play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory
towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on
their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of
working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and
exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:
"There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as
such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed
aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been
worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an
intellectal ideas. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and
writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and
peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a
leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois
historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies
on bourgeois leadership." [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]
In Kropotkin's eyes, "Anarchism had its origins in the same creative,
constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past
all the social institutions of mankind -- and in the revolts . . .
against the representatives of force, external to these social
institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used
them for their own advantage." More recently, "Anarchy was brought
forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth
to Socialism in general." Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism,
"lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also
against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State."
All anarchist writers did was to "work out a general expression of
[anarchism's] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of
its teachings" derived from the experiences of working class people in
struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in
general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]
However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have
existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared
himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory,
was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged at the end of
the eighteenth century . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of
overthrowing both Capital and the State." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p.
4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies.
Kropotkin argued, for example, that "from all times there have been
Anarchists and Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and
elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous
societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some
degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised
this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the
creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:
"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and
women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them
acquire personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the
primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and
finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to
resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those
strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who
endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Anarchism, pp.
158-9]
Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which
modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular
organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an
outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few
-- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village
community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely
federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and
many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit.,
p. 159]
Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working
class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern
state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in
action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North
America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands
of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed.
Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in
every major revolution -- the New England Town Meetings during the
American Revolution, the Parisian 'Sections' during the French
Revolution, the workers' councils and factory committees during the
Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin's
The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism
is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society
with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate
anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without
authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).
In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against
oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's
experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and
an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This
struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic
anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism
and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of
working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against
oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal
individuals.
A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands for in practice and what ideals drive it:
The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.
As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on
liberty, desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider
individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that
individuality does not exist in a vacuum but is a social phenomenon.
Outside of society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other
people in order to develop, expand, and grow.
Moreover, between individual and social development there is a
reciprocal effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a
particular society, while at the same time they help shape and change
aspects of that society (as well as themselves and other individuals)
by their actions and thoughts. A society not based on free individuals,
their hopes, dreams and ideas would be hollow and dead. Thus, "the
making of a human being. . . is a collective process, a process in
which both community and the individual participate." [Murray Bookchin,
The Modern Crisis, p. 79] Consequently, any political theory which
bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.
In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent,
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three
principles: liberty, equality and solidarity. These principles are
shared by all anarchists. Thus we find, the communist-anarchist Peter
Kropotkin talking about a revolution inspired by "the beautiful words,
Liberty, Equality and Solidarity." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 128]
Individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker wrote of a similar vision,
arguing that anarchism "insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism,
Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality,
and Solidarity." [Instead of a Book, p. 363] All three principles are
interdependent.
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence,
creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the
chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and
develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and
personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the
society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be
based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote
Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it,
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of
association" [The End of Anarchism?, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2
-- Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?).
If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality,
then equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be
no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled
with gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a
society only a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are
relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without
equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose
one's master (boss), as under capitalism. Moreover, even the elite
under such conditions are not really free, because they must live in a
stunted society made ugly and barren by the tyranny and alienation of
the majority. And since individuality develops to the fullest only with
the widest contact with other free individuals, members of the elite
are restricted in the possibilities for their own development by the
scarcity of free individuals with whom to interact. (See also section
A.2.5 -- Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But
without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing
classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In
such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be
dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged
individualism" is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with
those on the bottom resenting those above them and those on the top
fearing those below them. Under such conditions, there can be no
society-wide solidarity, but only a partial form of solidarity within
classes whose interests are opposed, which weakens society as a whole.
(See also section A.2.6 -- Why is solidarity important to anarchists?)
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:
"we are all egoists, we all seek our own
satisfaction. But the anarchist finds his greatest satisfaction in
struggling for the good of all, for the achievement of a society in
which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers, and among healthy,
intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is adaptable, who
is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the labour of
slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [Errico Malatesta: His
Life and Ideas, p. 23]
For anarchists, real wealth is other people and the planet on which we
live. Or, in the words of Emma Goldman, it "consists in things of
utility and beauty, in things which help to create strong, beautiful
bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in . . . [Our] goal is the
freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual .
. . Such free display of human energy being possible only under
complete individual and social freedom," in other words "social
equality." [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 67-8]
Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are
idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society.
Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to
material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people
actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a materialist
theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction
and individuals' mental activity (see Michael Bakunin's God and the
State for the classic discussion of materialism versus idealism).
This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human
beings, not some deity or other transcendental principle, since
"[n]othing ever arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is
men [sic] who do the arranging, and they do it according to their
attitudes and understanding of things." [Alexander Berkman, What is
Anarchism?, p. 185]
Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the
ability of people to act and transform their lives based on what they
consider to be right. In other words, liberty.
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?
As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without
(hierarchical) authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in
the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skillful, or
wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to
force others to follow their recommendations (see section B.1 for more
on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is
anti-authoritarianism.
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words,
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."
[The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of
the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus
destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal
autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to
exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social
breakdown.
In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it
positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their
liberty and individuality.
Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as
unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o
individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it
in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in
its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the freedom of all since
I am not truly free in thought an din fact, except when my freedom and
my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all
men [and women] who are my equals." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico
Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as
Bakunin reminds us:
"The abolition of this mutual influence would be
death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no
means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that
individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the
abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal,
official." [quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover
of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the
intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and
increase." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196] Because human
beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the
opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their very
existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our
humanity, because:
"The very fact. . . that a person has a
consciousness of self, of being different from others, creates a desire
to act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very
fundamental and dominant trait." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 439]
For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and
independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by
authority. Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature.
Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best
of himself. Only in freedom will he realise the true force of the
social bonds which tie men together, and which are the true foundations
of a normal social life." [Op. Cit., pp. 72-3]
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and
their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and
diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves and make
their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this can have
no other effect than expanding and stimulating the individuals
involved. As Malatesta put it, "[f]or people to become educated to
freedom and the management of their own interests, they must be left to
act for themselves, to feel responsibility for their own actions in the
good or bad that comes from them. They'd make mistakes, but they'd
understand from the consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out
new ways." [Fra Contadini, p. 26]
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's
individual potential, which is also a social product and can be
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and
enrich the social relationships between the people of whom it is
composed. Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because
they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they
have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to
impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . . .
One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one's
dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has
always been the same in political life as well." In fact, we "owe all
the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or
lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to
their own strength." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 75]
It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of "Direct Action"
(see section J.2) for, as Emma Goldman argued, we have "as much liberty
as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct
action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and
restrictions, economic, social, and moral." It requires "integrity,
self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent
spirits" and "only presistent resistance" can "finally set [us] free.
Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against
the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive,
meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent
method of Anarchism." [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 76-7]
Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to
resist oppression in the here and now as well as the means of creating
a free society. It creates the necessary individual mentality and
social conditions in which liberty flourishes. Both are essential as
liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it. Thus
Murray Bookchin writes:
"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people
have in a given historical period is the product of long social
traditions and . . . a collective development -- which is not to deny
that individuals play an important role in that development, indeed are
ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free." [Social Anarchism
or Lifestyle Anarchism, p. 15]
But freedom requires the right kind of social environment in which to
grow and develop. Such an environment must be decentralised and based
on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation
means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the
essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals
involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly their
mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities and
thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the
individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities to
the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their
development is blunted (see also section B.1).
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and
statism. As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority
"dresses itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the
State; and the economic form, that is private property." [cited by
Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 43] Capitalism, like the
state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over the
worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management of work
out of the hands of those who do it. This means "that the serious,
final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one
condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw
material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body
of the workers." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit.,
p. 50]
Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose
private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which
is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that
labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the
producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of State, p. 158]
Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which
individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern
themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it implies
that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which
violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince"
individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm
supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this
support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority,
i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to
"government" means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical,
bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose
self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots
organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather
than the delegation of power to "representatives" (see section A.2.9
for more on anarchist organisation). For authority is the opposite of
liberty, and hence any form of organisation based on the delegation of
power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of the people subjected to
that power.
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within
which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and
statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private
property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of
most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely
restricting their liberty and making impossible the "full development
of all the material, intellectual and moral capacities that are latent
in every one of us." [Michael Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 261]
(See section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty
cannot exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett
pointed out:
"To get the full meaning out of life we must
co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our
fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of
freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise
of our freedom.
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make
agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes
tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday
pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because
it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a
certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least
extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate
with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is
against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd.
I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my
friend to go for a walk.
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior
knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore
I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit
freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government."
[Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348-9]
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each
of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in
collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of
leaders." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p.
86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a
structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while
anarchists "aren't opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish
hierarchical structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting
no structure at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that
would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum
number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of
information and resources" are based on "good social anarchist
principles of organisation!" ["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism",
Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46]
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange
at first, but it is understandable. "For those with experience only of
authoritarian organisation," argue two British anarchists, "it appears
that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that
those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in
organisation at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and Albert
Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In other words, because we
live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are
authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible.
What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is
historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society --
one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. According
to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only
existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive
states based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves
created a surplus which supported a ruling class.
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and
proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that
is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual
aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products
of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably
had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the
sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced
by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving
the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin,
The Ecology of Freedom).
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate going
"back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason
to suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think
that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian,
competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence
to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially
conditioned, or learned, and as such, can be unlearned (see Ashley
Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression). We are not fatalists or
genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people
can change the way they do things, including the way they organise
society.
And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised,
because presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the
majority -- and power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at
the top of the social pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for
the rest, particularly for those at the bottom. Yet because this elite
controls the means of coercion through its control of the state (see
section B.2.3), it is able to suppress the majority and ignore its
suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller scale within all
hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within authoritarian and
centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of their freedom.
As Alexander Berkman puts it:
"Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe
in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and
everything is organisation. The whole of life is organisation,
conscious or unconscious . . . But there is organisation and
organisation. Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various
members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your
whole body aches and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the
organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against,
suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an
aching tooth: you would be sick all over." [Op. Cit., p. 198]
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result that it is, indeed, "sick all over."
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of
organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement.
Free agreement is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when
each is a free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his
own choice because of mutual interests, can the world work successfully
and become powerful." [Op. Cit., p. 199] As we discuss in section
A.2.14, anarchists stress that free agreement has to be complemented by
direct democracy (or, as it is usually called by anarchists,
self-management) within the association itself otherwise "freedom"
become little more than picking masters.
Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power
back into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected
by the decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:
"Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of
the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere
of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial
council within its own territory . . . should act directly and by
itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should
exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [The General Idea of
the Revolution, p. 276]
It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests.
For anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management.
With the abolition of the State, society "can, and must, organise
itself in a different fashion, but not from top to bottom . . . The
future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards,
by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their
unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great
federation, international and universal. Then alone will be realised
the true and life-giving order of freedom and the common good, that
order which, far from denying, on the contrary affirms and brings into
harmony the interests of individuals and of society." [Bakunin, Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 205-6] Because a "truly popular
organisation begins . . . from below" and so "federalism becomes a
political institution of Socialism, the free and spontaneous
organisation of popular life." Thus libertarian socialism "is
federalistic in character." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin, pp. 273-4 and p. 272]
Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or
self-management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the
expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory)
democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for
forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which
allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls "the creative
role of dissent." Federalism is necessary to ensure that common
interests are discussed and joint activity organised in a way which
reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To ensure that
decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the
top down by a few rulers.
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9
and A.2.11.
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial
of the liberty of others.
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to
exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the
contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and
solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the
need to resist and overthrow it.
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule
others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for
everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others;
which does not mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical
authority is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or
public (the state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on
"Civil Disobedience" (1847)
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
As mentioned in above, anarchists are dedicated to social equality
because it is the only context in which individual liberty can
flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about
"equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is very
strange indeed. Before discussing what anarchist do mean by equality,
we have to indicate what we do not mean by it.
Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only
non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought
about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences
not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why?
Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person
will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share."
[Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]
That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality"
that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of
present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a
corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian
system and side-track people into discussions of biology. "The
uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of
equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal
implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that
they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the
same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means
that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of
domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is
that all men are alike." [The Fear of Freedom, p. 228] Thus it would be
fairer to say that anarchists seek equality because we recognise that
everyone is different and, consequently, seek the full affirmation and
development of that uniqueness.
Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We
have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods,
lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of
the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is
that they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The
McDonaldisation of Society on why capitalism is driven towards
standardisation and conformity). In the words of Alexander Berkman:
"The spirit of authority, law, written and
unwritten, tradition and custom force us into a common grove and make a
man [or woman] a will-less automation without independence or
individuality. . . All of us are its victims, and only the
exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains, and that only
partly." [What is Anarchism?, p. 165]
Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common
grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social
relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.
"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force,
which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than
others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as
we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities,
desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny.
Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not,
they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true
of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it:
"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal
opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in
liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist
equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one
must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in
the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact."
"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites
differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true
equality.
"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door
for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For
human character is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and
acting out your individuality means development of natural
dissimilarities and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]
For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome"
or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical
society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are
related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each
generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones.
This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a
rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources)
becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for
the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who
argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created
by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are
talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only
on an open road but also upon an equal start. >From this obvious
fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of
outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free
society this would not the case (as we will see).
Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:
"once equality has triumphed and is well
established, will various individuals' abilities and their levels of
energy cease to differ? Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now,
but certainly some will always exist. It is proverbial that the same
tree never bears two identical leaves, and this will probably be always
be true. And it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are
much more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On
the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this
diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual
complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite
diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very
basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality."
["All-Round Education", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 117-8]
Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta used
the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By this he
means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability
and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be
turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would be of
no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity
when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." [Michael
Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]
If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them,
are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and are
based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural
differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power. For
example, without capitalist property rights there would not be means by
which a minority could monopolise the means of life (machinery and
land) and enrich themselves by the work of others via the wages system
and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers manage
their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their
labour. Thus Proudhon:
"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?
"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation
within society of this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.
"It is because society has divided itself into three
categories of citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula.
. . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half
of the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists of
reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into the
simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every citizen
simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist, labourer and
expert or artist." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8]
Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the
key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management as the means
to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to social equality.
Social equality in the workplace, for example, means that everyone has
an equal say in the policy decisions on how the workplace develops and
changes. Anarchists are strong believers in the maxim "that which
touches all, is decided by all."
This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that
everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different
people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously
they will want to study different things and do different kinds of
work. It is also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor
-- an expert -- who manages his or her own work rather than being
directed by a committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up,
but once the topics of social equality and workers' self-management
come up, some people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a
hospital managed in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical
staff voting on how doctors should perform an operation!
In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable.
Without the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group
(equality) to complement the individual self-management of decisions
that affect the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For
without both, some will have power over others, making decisions for
them (i.e. governing them), and thus some will be more free than
others. Which implies, just to state the obvious, anarchists seek
equality in all aspects of life, not just in terms of wealth.
Anarchists "demand for every person not just his [or her] entire
measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of
social power." [Malatesta and Hamon, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p.
20] Thus self-management is needed to ensure both liberty and equality.
Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express
themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working in
face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the
uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving common
problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, From the Ground
Up, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression of individuality and so
is a necessary base for individual liberty.
Section F.3 ("Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists place little or no value on
equality?") discusses anarchist ideas on equality further. Noam
Chomsky's essay "Equality" (contained in The Chomsky Reader) is a good
summary of libertarian ideas on the subject.
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength
and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.
Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that
the "human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the
specific conditions of existence that characterise the human species
and is one of the strongest motivations of human behaviour." [To Be or
To Have, p.107]
Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max
Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions,
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order
to be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be
organised in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and
non-hierarchical.
Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life
and is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed Errico
Malatesta, "is the only environment in which Man can express his
personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest
possible wellbeing." This "coming together of individuals for the
wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each," results in
"the freedom of each not being limited by, but complemented -- indeed
finding the necessary raison d'etre in -- the freedom of others."
[Anarchy, p. 29] In other words, solidarity and co-operation means
treating each other as equals, refusing to treat others as means to an
end and creating relationships which support freedom for all rather
than a few dominating the many. Emma Goldman reiterated this theme,
noting "what wonderful results this unique force of man's individuality
has achieved when strengthened by co-operation with other
individualities . . . co-operation -- as opposed to internecine strife
and struggle -- has worked for the survival and evolution of the
species. . . . only mutual aid and voluntary co-operation . . . can
create the basis for a free individual and associational life." [Red
Emma Speaks, p. 118]
Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on
solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the
individuality of those subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out,
liberty needs solidarity, the recognition of common interests:
"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is
the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I want to
appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured
only when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when
all other people around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the
people I see and meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only
then can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure
knowledge that other people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for
that reason it is a question of my own contentment, only of my own
self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens my freedom and
my happiness. . ." [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner
magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the
legends, pp. 133-4]
To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to
all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points
out:
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to
associate the concept with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result
from confusing co-operation with altruism. . . Structural co-operation
defies the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy. It sets things up so that
by helping you I am helping myself at the same time. Even if my motive
initially may have been selfish, our fates now are linked. We sink or
swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful strategy
- a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even
more effectively than competition does. . . There is also good evidence
that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health and to
liking one another." [No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 7]
And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is
necessary to resist those in power. Malatesta's words are relevant here:
"the oppressed masses who have never completely
resigned themselves to oppress and poverty, and who . . . show
themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and wellbeing, are beginning
to understand that they will not be able to achieve their emancipation
except by union and solidarity with all the oppressed, with the
exploited everywhere in the world." [Anarchy, p. 33]
By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we
want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we can start to manage our
own collective affairs together and so replace the boss once and for
all. "Unions will. . . multiply the individual's means and secure his
assailed property." [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 258] By
acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current system with one
more to our liking: "in union there is strength." [Alexander Berkman,
What is Anarchism?, p. 74]
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for
another. By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options
so that we may enjoy more, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest
-- that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with
others based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate
someone, this means that the conditions exist which allow domination,
and so in all probability I too will be dominated in turn.
As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to
rule us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you
bound to let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no
one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting
you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without
difficulty." [quoted in Luigi Galleani's The End of Anarchism?, p. 79 -
different translation in The Ego and Its Own, p. 197]
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the
means by which liberty can be created and defended against power.
Solidarity is strength and a product of our nature as social beings.
However, solidarity should not be confused with "herdism," which
implies passively following a leader. In order to be effective,
solidarity must be created by free people, co-operating together as
equals. The "big WE" is not solidarity, although the desire for
"herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union. It is a
"solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are
conditioned to blindly obey leaders.
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be
freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through their
own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As
Emma Goldman points out:
"History tells us that every oppressed class [or
group or individual] gained true liberation from its masters by its own
efforts." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 167]
Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves by
their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") and
will not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people
organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways
that empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do
things for them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves"
(performing what anarchists call "direct action" -- see section J.2 for
details).
Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved
in it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative,
imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be
developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico
Malatesta pointed out:
"Between man and his social environment there is a
reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men
what they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. To
transform society men [and women] must be changed, and to transform
men, society must be changed . . . Fortunately existing society has not
been created by the inspired will of a dominating class, which has
succeeded in reducing all its subjects to passive and unconscious
instruments of its interests. It is the result of a thousand
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors . . .
"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must
take advantage of all the means, all the possibilities and the
opportunities that the present environment allows us to act on our
fellow men [and women] and to develop their consciences and their
demands . . . to claim and to impose those major social transformations
which are possible and which effectively serve to open the way to
further advances later . . . We must seek to get all the people . . .
to make demands, and impose itself and take for itself all the
improvements and freedoms it desires as and when it reaches the state
of wanting them, and the power to demand them . . . we must push the
people to want always more and to increase its pressures [on the ruling
elite], until it has achieved complete emancipation." [Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 188-9]
Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them,
through their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions
that limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion
the process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation
begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose
from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op. Cit., p.
167] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging
a piece of chain with him." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 168] By changing
the world, even in a small way, we change ourselves.
In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision and
gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real world.
Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait for
the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political,
and given the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will
influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in
pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it,
"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." We can do
so by creating alternative social relationships and organisations,
acting as free people in a non-free society. Only by our actions in the
here and now can we lay the foundation for a free society. Moreover,
this process of self-liberation goes on all the time:
"Subordinates of all kinds exercise their capacity
for critical self-reflection every day -- that is why masters are
thwarted, frustrated and, sometimes, overthrown. But unless masters are
overthrown, unless subordinates engage in political activity, no amount
of critical reflection will end their subjection and bring them
freedom." [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p. 205]
Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life to
reject, resist and thwart authority and bring them to their logical
conclusion -- a society of free individuals, co-operating as equals in
free, self-managed associations. Without this process of critical
self-reflection, resistance and self-liberation a free society is
impossible. Thus, for anarchists, anarchism comes from the natural
resistance of subordinated people striving to act as free individuals
within a hierarchical world. This process of resistance is called by
many anarchists the "class struggle" (as it is working class people who
are generally the most subordinated group within society) or, more
generally, "social struggle." It is this everyday resistance to
authority (in all its forms) and the desire for freedom which is the
key to the anarchist revolution. It is for this reason that "anarchists
emphasise over and over that the class struggle provides the only means
for the workers [and other oppressed groups] to achieve control over
their destiny." [Marie-Louise Berneri, Neither East Nor West, p. 32]
Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous
revolutionary action" usually results from and is based upon the
patient work of many years of organisation and education by people with
"utopian" ideas. The process of "creating the new world in the shell of
the old" (to use another I.W.W. expression), by building alternative
institutions and relationships, is but one component of what must be a
long tradition of revolutionary commitment and militancy.
As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of all
kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should
therefore be an integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not
want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate
themselves. . . , we want the new way of life to emerge from the body
of the people and correspond to the state of their development and
advance as they advance." [Op. Cit., p. 90]
Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is
impossible. Only when individuals free themselves, both materially (by
abolishing the state and capitalism) and intellectually (by freeing
themselves of submissive attitudes towards authority), can a free
society be possible. We should not forget that capitalist and state
power, to a great extent, is power over the minds of those subject to
them (backed up, of course, with sizeable force if the mental
domination fails and people start rebelling and resisting). In effect,
a spiritual power as the ideas of the ruling class dominate society and
permeate the minds of the oppressed. As long as this holds, the working
class will acquiesce to authority, oppression and exploitation as the
normal condition of life. Minds submissive to the doctrines and
positions of their masters cannot hope to win freedom, to revolt and
fight. Thus the oppressed must overcome the mental domination of the
existing system before they can throw off its yoke (and, anarchists
argue, direct action is the means of doing both -- see sections J.2 and
J.4). Capitalism and statism must be beaten spiritually and
theoretically before it is beaten materially (many anarchists call this
mental liberation "class consciousness" -- see section B.7.3). And
self-liberation through struggle against oppression is the only way
this can be done. Thus anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term)
"the spirit of revolt."
Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation,
solidarity and direct action. Direct action is the means of creating
anarchists, free people, and so "Anarchists have always advised taking
an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the
direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, -- the
State." This is because "[s]uch a struggle . . . better than any
indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary
improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his [or
her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that
supports it, and wakes up his [or her] thoughts concerning the
possibility of organising consumption, production and exchange without
the intervention of the capitalist and the state," that is, see the
possibility of a free society. Kropotkin, like many anarchists, pointed
to the Syndicalist and Trade Union movements as a means of developing
libertarian ideas within existing society (although he, like most
anarchists, did not limit anarchist activity exclusively to them).
Indeed, any movement which "permit[s] the working men [and women] to
realise their solidarity and to feel the community of their interests .
. . prepare[s] the way for these conceptions" of communist-anarchism,
i.e. the overcoming the spiritual domination of existing society within
the minds of the oppressed. [Evolution and Environment, p. 83 and p. 85]
For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the
"history of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and
disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to authority
in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through
rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, Not a Life Story, Just a
Leaf from It, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation (and
self-organisation, self-management and self-activity). Little wonder
Bakunin considered "rebellion" as one of the "three fundamental
principles [which] constitute the essential conditions of all human
development, collective or individual, in history." [God and the State,
p. 12] This is simply because individuals and groups cannot be freed by
others, only by themselves. Such rebellion (self-liberation) is the
only means by which existing society becomes more libertarian and an
anarchist society a possibility.
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is
an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,
since they embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman
argued, "it is not only government in the sense of the state which is
destructive of every individual value and quality. It is the whole
complex authority and institutional domination which strangles life. It
is the superstition, myth, pretence, evasions, and subservience which
support authority and institutional domination." [Red Emma Speaks, p.
435] This means that "there is and will always be a need to discover
and overcome structures of hierarchy, authority and domination and
constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery [i.e. capitalism],
racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc." [Noam Chomsky, Language
and Politics, p. 364]
Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships as
well as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be an
anarchist means to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if anybody
needs one) is as follows:
A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a
series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and
(usually) remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical
form have found that the two primary principles it embodies are
domination and exploitation. For example, in his classic article "What
Do Bosses Do?" (Review of Radical Political Economy, Vol. 6, No. 2), a
study of the modern factory, Steven Marglin found that the main
function of the corporate hierarchy is not greater productive
efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater control over workers,
the purpose of such control being more effective exploitation.
Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the
threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical,
economic, psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the
repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates
centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest control
is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of the
organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control
and the many at the bottom have virtually none.
Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential features
of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in hierarchies,
all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover, for
anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to
dismantle all forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This
applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure
of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in
nature:
"a fascist system. . . [is] absolutist - power goes
from top down . . . the ideal state is top down control with the public
essentially following orders.
"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you
look at what they are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of
directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the people on the
shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There's no flow of power or
planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and make suggestions,
but the same is true of a slave society. The structure of power is
linear, from the top down." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 237]
David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company and the state well when he writes:
"Most factories are like military dictatorships.
Those at the bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on
up through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything from
our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion of our
lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require us to see a
company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it can forbid us free
time to engage in political activity; it can suppress freedom of
speech, press and assembly -- it can use ID cards and armed security
police, along with closed-circuit TVs to watch us; it can punish
dissenters with 'disciplinary layoffs' (as GM calls them), or it can
fire us. We are forced, by circumstances, to accept much of this, or
join the millions of unemployed. . . In almost every job, we have only
the 'right' to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are
expected to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft."
["For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social self-management",
Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4]
Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms,
including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support archy --
which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other words, for
anarchists, "[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) slavery,
agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate status, are all
illegitimate because they do restrict and restrain individual
autonomy." [Robert Graham, "The Anarchist Contract, Reinventing
Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 77] Hierarchy, therefore,
is against the basic principles which drive anarchism. It denies what
makes us human and "divest[s] the personality of its most integral
traits; it denies the very notion that the individual is competent to
deal not only with the management of his or her personal life but with
its most important context: the social context." [Murray Bookchin, The
Ecology of Freedom, p. 129]
Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has
an hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is
for two reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are driven by
economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty) to those who
own the means of life. This process re-enforces the economic conditions
workers face by creating "massive disparities in wealth . . . [as]
workers. . . sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does
not reflect its real value." Therefore:
"To portray the parties to an employment contract,
for example, as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious
inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker and the
employer. To then go on to portray the relationship of subordination
and exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of freedom is
to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social justice."
[Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70]
It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and
organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working people and
allows them to assert their autonomy (see section J).
Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association is
voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state system
must be considered as "anarchy." In a modern democracy no one forces an
individual to live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go
somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature of an association,
you can end up supporting organisations based upon the denial of
freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed forces, states even)
all because they are "voluntary." As Bob Black argues, "[t]o demonise
state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit
contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale
corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its
worst." [The Libertarian as Conservative, The Abolition of Work and
other essays, p. 142] Anarchy is more than being free to pick a master.
Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position,
otherwise you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly
anarchistic. For more on this see section A.2.14 ( Why is voluntarism
not enough?).
Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical,
they can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own
affairs directly. In this way we can do without without hierarchical
structures (i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only
when an association is self-managed by its members can it be considered
truly anarchistic.
We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation),
"anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this,
see Section F)
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association.
We consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values
we have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and
territorially, can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The
delegation of power into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial
of individual liberty and dignity. Rather than taking the management of
their own affairs away from people and putting it in the hands of
others, anarchists favour organisations which minimise authority,
keeping power at the base, in the hands of those who are affected by
any decisions reached.
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society.
Individuals must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is
the basis of freedom and human dignity. However, any such free
agreement must be based on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will
be a sham (as in capitalism), as only equality provides the necessary
social context for freedom to grow and development. Therefore
anarchists support directly democratic collectives, based on "one
person one vote" (for the rationale of direct democracy as the
political counterpart of free agreement, see section A.2.11 -- Why do
most anarchists support direct democracy?).
We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited
progress. But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the
struggle for food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could
be solved without the slightest threat to the social order and
individual liberty." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 28] Anarchism aims to
"rouse the spirit of initiative in individuals and in groups." These
will "create in their mutual relations a movement and a life based on
the principles of free understanding" and recognise that "variety,
conflict even, is life and that uniformity is death." [Peter Kropotkin,
Anarchism, p. 143]
Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative
conflict as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements
exist [and should not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement
destructive is not the fact of conflict itself but the addition of
competition." Indeed, "a rigid demand for agreement means that people
will effectively be prevented from contributing their wisdom to a group
effort." [Alfie Kohn, No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 156]
It is for this reason that most anarchists reject consensus decision
making in large groups (see section A.2.12).
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass
assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and
co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks
being handled by elected committees. These committees would be made up
of mandated, recallable and temporary delegates who carry out their
tasks under the watchful eyes of the assembly which elected them. Thus
in an anarchist society, "we'll look after our affairs ourselves and
decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action,
there is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell them
to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . . nothing would be
done without our decision. So our delegates, instead of people being
individuals whom we've given the right to order us about, would be
people . . . [with] no authority, only the duty to carry out what
everyone involved wanted." [Errico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, p. 34] If
the delegates act against their mandate or try to extend their
influence or work beyond that already decided by the assembly (i.e. if
they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly recalled
and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains in
the hands of the union of individuals who created it.
This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the
power of recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The
key difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an
anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for
example, people give power to a group of representatives to make
decisions for them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out
their promises is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next
election. Power lies at the top and those at the base are expected to
obey. Similarly, in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an
unelected minority of bosses and managers at the top and the workers
are expected to obey.
In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one
individual or group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist
community. Instead decisions are made using direct democratic
principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint
delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction
between policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and
the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy (which is
the job for delegates).
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would
be run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner
as the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national"
and international conferences in which all important issues and
problems affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In
addition, the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society
would be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice,
reviewed, and co-ordinated. The delegates would simply "take their
given mandates to the relative meetings and try to harmonise their
various needs and desires. The deliberations would always be subject to
the control and approval of those who delegated them" and so "there
would be no danger than the interest of the people [would] be
forgotten." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 36]
Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under
strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies
would have a limited tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses,
have a fixed mandate -- they are not able to make decisions on behalf
of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the delegates
to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall
by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first
place. In this way any committees required to co-ordinate join
activities would be, to quote Malatesta's words, "always under the
direct control of the population" and so express the "decisions taken
at popular assemblies." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 175
and p. 129]
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any
decisions reached by the conferences and withdraw from any
confederation. Any compromises that are made by a delegate during
negotiations have to go back to a general assembly for ratification.
Without that ratification any compromises that are made by a delegate
are not binding on the community that has delegated a particular task
to a particular individual or committee. In addition, they can call
confederal conferences to discuss new developments and to inform action
committees about changing wishes and to instruct them on what to do
about any developments and ideas.
In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation
or society are not representatives (as they are in a democratic
government). Kropotkin makes the difference clear:
"The question of true delegation versus
representation can be better understood if one imagines a hundred or
two hundred men [and women], who meet each day in their work and share
common concerns . . . who have discussed every aspect of the question
that concerns them and have reached a decision. They then choose
someone and send him [or her] to reach an agreement with other
delegates of the same kind. . . The delegate is not authorised to do
more than explain to other delegates the considerations that have led
his [or her] colleagues to their conclusion. Not being able to impose
anything, he [or she] will seek an understanding and will return with a
simple proposition which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is
what happens when true delegation comes into being." [Words of a Rebel,
p. 132]
Unlike in a representative system, power is not delegated into the
hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for the
association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the first
place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated and
subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of the
assemblies they came from rather than their own. In this way government
is replaced by anarchy, a network of free associations and communities
co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated delegates, instant
recall, free agreement and free federation from the bottom up.
Only this system would ensure the "free organisation of the people, an
organisation from below upwards." This "free federation from below
upward" would start with the basic "association" and their federation
"first into a commune, then a federation of communes into regions, of
regions into nations, and of nations into an international fraternal
association." [Michael Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
298] This network of anarchist communities would work on three levels.
There would be "independent Communes for the territorial organisation,
and of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for
the organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different
functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the
satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary,
and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas,
for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and
Environment, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free
association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of
life, because the people at the base of the organisation are in
control, not their delegates. Only this form of organisation can
replace government (the initiative and empowerment of the few) with
anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of all). This form of
organisation would exist in all activities which required group work
and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as Bakunin said, the
means "to integrate individuals into structures which they could
understand and control." [quoted by Cornelious Castoriadis, Political
and Social Writings, vol. 2, p. 97] For individual initiatives, the
individual involved would manage them.
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon
structures that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield
power over others. Free agreement, confederation and the power of
recall, fixed mandates and limited tenure are mechanisms by which power
is removed from the hands of governments and placed in the hands of
those directly affected by the decisions.
For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would look like
see section I. Anarchy, however, is not some distant goal but rather an
aspect of current struggles against oppression and exploitation. Means
and ends are linked, with direct action generating mass participatory
organisations and preparing people to directly manage their own
personal and collective interests. This is because anarchists, as we
discuss in section I.2.3, see the framework of a free society being
based on the organisations created by the oppressed in their struggle
against capitalism in the here and now. In this sense, collective
struggle creates the organisations as well as the individual attitudes
anarchism needs to work. The struggle against oppression is the school
of anarchy. It teaches us not only how to be anarchists but also gives
us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like, what its
initial organisational framework could be and the experience of
managing our own activities which is required for such a society to
work. As such, anarchists try to create the kind of world we want in
our current struggles and do not think our ideas are only applicable
"after the revolution." Indeed, by applying our principles today we
bring anarchy that much nearer.
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of
millions of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at
now.
However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and
doomed to failure. To those who say that such confederal,
non-authoritarian organisations would produce confusion and disunity,
anarchists maintain that the statist, centralised and hierarchical form
of organisation produces indifference instead of involvement,
heartlessness instead of solidarity, uniformity instead of unity, and
privileged elites instead of equality. More importantly, such
organisations destroy individual initiative and crush independent
action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy, see section B.1
-- "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?").
That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner
Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when
visiting Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great
solidarity that existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual
relying on his [sic] own strength and not depending upon leadership. .
. . The organisations must, to be successful, be combined with
free-thinking people; not a mass, but free individuals" [quoted by
Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 67f]
As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very
well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system,
he cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at
all." [quoted in Paths in Utopia, Martin Buber, p. 33]
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking
life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy,
you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and
stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the
balance of your life." ["The Libertarian as Conservative," The
Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 147-8]
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating in
the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual
capacities.
With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly see
the end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people existing to
make ends meet and being used to increase the wealth and power of the
few as under capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see (to quote
Kropotkin) "the well-being of all" and it is "high time for the worker
to assert his [or her] right to the common inheritance, and to enter
into possession of it." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 35 and p. 44] For
only taking possession of the means of life (workplaces, housing, the
land, etc.) can ensure "liberty and justice, for liberty and justice
are not decreed but are the result of economic independence. They
spring from the fact that the individual is able to live without
depending on a master, and to enjoy . . . the product of his [or her]
toil." [Ricardo Flores Magon, Land and Liberty, p. 62] Therefore
liberty requires the abolition of capitalist private property rights in
favour of "use rights." (see section B.3 for more details). Ironically,
the "abolition of property will free the people from homelessness and
nonpossession." [Max Baginski, "Without Government," Anarchy! An
Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, p. 11] Thus anarchism
promises "both requisites of happiness -- liberty and wealth." In
anarchy, "mankind will live in freedom and in comfort." [Benjamin
Tucker, Why I am an Anarchist, p. 135 and p. 136]
Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society
can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity of
individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation allows
the vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed and used,
enriching society by the very process of enriching and developing the
individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of thinking,
planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that affect them
can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and protected.
Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of people
enslaved by hierarchy.
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and
exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for
Yourselves, p. 83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship
the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid
for the 'glory of command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his
duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative
potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical
excursion." [For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95]
A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions
within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement
(this is also known as "self-management"). The reason is that "many
forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.' non-coercive,
contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that mere
opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of
oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93] Thus the
relationships we create within an organisation is as important in
determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary nature (see section
A.2.14 for more discussion).
It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a
fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans" the
individual has three options: "he [or she] must submit to the will of
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the
greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this
necessity." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 85]
Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only
means by which individuals can work together as free and equal human
beings, respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only
within direct democracy can individuals express themselves, practice
critical thought and self-government, so developing their intellectual
and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of increasing an
individual's freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social
faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be
subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory
behind anarchist direct democracy?
As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist "does not wish to abolish
government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to
abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those who
oppose it." [Roads to Freedom, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as
the means to achieve this. Once an individual joins a community or
workplace, he or she becomes a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of
that association. The association is organised around an assembly of
all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be
a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In
this assembly, in concert with others, the content of his or her
political obligations are defined. In acting within the association,
people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their
own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical
organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals
participate in making their own collective decisions, their own
commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation is
not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the
state or company, but to one's fellow "citizens."
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules
governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they
are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be
modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens"
constitute a political "authority", but as this "authority" is based on
horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones
between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical
("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 - "Why are anarchists against
authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free
agreement]. - No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously;
each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws."
[The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6]
Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in
every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be
put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by
some of its members), in practice certain activities (and so purely
functional decisions) will be handled by the association's elected
administration. This is because, to quote a Spanish anarchist activist,
"a collectivity as such cannot write a letter or add up a list of
figures or do hundreds of chores which only an individual can perform."
Thus the need "to organise the administration." Supposing an
association is "organised without any directive council or any
hierarchical offices" which "meets in general assembly once a week or
more often, when it settles all matters needful for its progress" it
still "nominates a commission with strictly administrative functions."
However, the assembly "prescribes a definite line of conduct for this
commission or gives it an imperative mandate" and so "would be
perfectly anarchist." As it "follows that delegating these tasks to
qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how to proceed, .
. . does not mean an abdication of that collectivity's own liberty."
[Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of
Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted, follows Proudhon's ideas
that within the workers' associations "all positions are elective, and
the by-laws subject to the approval of the members." [Proudhon, Op.
Cit., p. 222]
Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e.
direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined
associations that make up a free society. This would apply to the
federations of associations an anarchist society would need to
function. "All the commissions or delegations nominated in an anarchist
society," correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols, "must be subject to
replacement and recall at any time by the permanent suffrage of the
section or sections that elected them." Combined with the "imperative
mandate" and "purely administrative functions," this "make[s] it
thereby impossible for anyone to arrogate to himself [or herself] a
scintilla of authority." [quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188-9]
Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the
"implementation of the binding mandate" to ensure the people do not
"adjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]
By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists
ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own
decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude
others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to
ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent human
existence.
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,
The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct
democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the
concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on
a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either
consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority
the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its
autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely
accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to
the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct
democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of
freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and
self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be
nurtured ("Individual autonomy limited by the obligation to hold given
promises." [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico
Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]). Needless to say, a
minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try
to convince the majority of the error of its ways.
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy
does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from
it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is
always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own
advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense
predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of
state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and
empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions.
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that
is why our theories on association place great importance on minority
rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation,
which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against
majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making.
Thus Carole Pateman:
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then
the] minority will have to take political action, including politically
disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and
independence, and the political association itself. . . Political
disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active
citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based . . . The
social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change
commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political
obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the
right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary,
to disobey." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162]
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links
between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations
themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have
associations joining confederations. The links between associations in
the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as
within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for
members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes
an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune
of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising
participation and self-management.
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 (
What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater
detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory.
Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists
deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general." As
can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority
-- the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use
Malatesta's words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the
majority before they have even heard what these might be." [The
Anarchist Revolution, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within
voluntary association does not create "majority rule" nor assume that
the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect,
anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta's
argument that:
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is
lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to
accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or
usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of
all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many .
. . But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the
other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need
and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and
statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100]
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is
not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool
which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted
upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority.
In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority.
After all, as Malatesta argued:
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who
is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to
disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively
look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers
wrong." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 132]
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all,
voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the
members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion
as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However,
only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and
the justice of the law") could determine individual rights as this
"tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can
rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity,
against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be
such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce" (his
support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be
impossible in practice" for all members of an association to agree)
[Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]
Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In
practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most
decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities
required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury
system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority
claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can
only be created through practical experience by the people directly
involved.
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For
example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making
(see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think
that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most
anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the
best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with
anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.
A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based upon
everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put into
action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling the
minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles.
Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree,
has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing his
experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications:
"In order. . . to create full consensus on a
decision, minority dissenters were often subtly urged or
psychologically coerced to decline to vote on a troubling issue,
inasmuch as their dissent would essentially amount to a one-person
veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in American consensus
processes, all too often involved intimidation of the dissenters, to
the point that they completely withdrew from the decision-making
process, rather than make an honourable and continuing expression of
their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance with their
views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings--so that a
'decision' could be made. . . . 'consensus' was ultimately achieved
only after dissenting members nullified themselves as participants in
the process.
"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced
that most vital aspect of all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent,
the passionate dialogue that still persists even after a minority
accedes temporarily to a majority decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . .
.by dull monologues -- and the uncontroverted and deadening tone of
consensus. In majority decision-making, the defeated minority can
resolve to overturn a decision on which they have been defeated -- they
are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned and potentially
persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours no
minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the
'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of
Anarchism", Democracy and Nature, no. 8, p. 8]
Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar
with one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own
experience has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions
by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common
intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizeable
assembly of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone
must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue" [Op.
Cit., p.7]
Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association.
While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually
impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its
other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association
by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and
dissent in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor
solidarity are fostered when the individual's development and
self-expression are aborted by public disapproval and pressure. Since
individuals are all unique, they will have unique viewpoints which they
should be encouraged to express, as society evolves and is enriched by
the actions and ideas of individuals.
In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the
"creative role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends to fade away in the
gray uniformity required by consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8]
We must stress that anarchists are not in favour of a mechanical
decision making process in which the majority just vote the minority
away and ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct
democracy see it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and
minority listen to and respect each other as far possible and create a
decision which all can live with (if possible). They see the process of
participation within directly democratic associations as the means of
creating common interests, as a process which will encourage diversity,
individual and minority expression and reduce any tendency for
majorities to marginalise or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion
and debate occurs on important issues.
A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that
liberal scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being
"collectivists" while Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general
for being "individualists."
This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as
nonsense. Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist individualists and
collectivists are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This can best
shown be by considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and
"collectivist" tendencies continually interact, often with the
political and economic structure swinging from one pole to the other.
Capitalist collectivism and individualism are both one-sided aspects of
human existence, and like all manifestations of imbalance, deeply
flawed.
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves
for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of
individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the
group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human
interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think,
only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely
the "cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be
expected, since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract
groups, denies their individuality, and ends up with the need for
someone with enough individuality to make decisions -- a problem that
is "solved" by the leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent
examples of this phenomenon.
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of
society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This
means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group. In
anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the
individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much stress on
groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express
themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social
relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom. So
while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the
individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
"Much has been said about the respective roles of
individual initiative and social action in the life and progress of
human societies . . . [E]verything is maintained and kept going in the
human world thanks to individual initiative . . . The real being is
man, the individual. Society or the collectivity - and the State or
government which claims to represent it - if it is not a hollow
abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the organism
of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have
their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts
and acts when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social
action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of
individual initiatives, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts
and actions of all individuals who make up society . . . [T]he question
is not really changing the relationship between society and the
individual . . . [I]t is a question of preventing some individuals from
oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the
same means of action; and of replacing the initiative to the few [which
Malatesta defines as a key aspect of government/hierarchy], which
inevitably results in the oppression of everyone else . . . " [Anarchy,
pp. 38-38]
These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . .
is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his
individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic
laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes
by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic
indoctrination of the servile spirit . . . That corrupt and perverse
'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality . . [It] has
inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class
distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism'
has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are
regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking
'supermen.'" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 112]
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by
themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of
individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships by
their very nature, they help shape individuals. In other words, groups
structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact on the
freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to the
abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists
fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian
manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups".
Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist"
institutions in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover,
always find a need for the state despite their frequent denunciations
of it. These contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's
dependence on individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. abstract
individualism.
In contrast, anarchists stress social "individualism" (another, perhaps
better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality").
Anarchism "insists that the centre of gravity in society is the
individual -- that he [sic] must think for himself, act freely, and
live fully. . . . If he is to develop freely and fully, he must be
relieved from the interference and oppression of others. . . . [T]his
has nothing in common with. . . 'rugged individualism.' Such predatory
individualism is really flabby, not rugged. At the least danger to its
safety, it runs to cover of the state and wails for protection. . .
.Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretences the
ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion."
[Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 442-3]
Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its
ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by
others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists
and grows. "The freedom we want," Malatesta argued, "for ourselves and
for others, is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom which in
practice is inevitably translated into the oppression of the weak; but
it is a real freedom, possible freedom, which is the conscious
community of interests, voluntary solidarity." [Anarchy, p. 43]
A society based on abstract individualism results in an inequality of
power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for
an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce
the contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism
and, most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state
developed. In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free"
when they are isolated from each other, as they allegedly were
originally in the "state of nature." Once they join society, they
supposedly create a "contract" and a state to administer it. However,
besides being a fantasy with no basis in reality (human beings have
always been social animals), this "theory" is actually a justification
for the state's having extensive powers over society; and this in turn
is a justification of the capitalist system, which requires a strong
state. It also mimics the results of the capitalist economic relations
upon which this theory is built. Within capitalism, individuals
"freely" contract together, but in practice the owner rules the worker
for as long as the contract is in place. (See sections A.2.14 and B.4
for further details).
Thus anarchists reject capitalist "individualism" as being, to quote
Kropotkin, "a narrow and selfish individualism" which, moreover, is "a
foolish egoism which belittles the individual" and is "not
individualism at all. It will not lead to what was established as a
goal; that is the complete broad and most perfectly attainable
development of individuality." The hierarchy of capitalism results in
"the impoverishment of individuality" rather than its development. To
this anarchists contrast "the individuality which attains the greatest
individual development possible through the highest communist
sociability in what concerns both its primordial needs and its
relationships with others in general." [Selected Writings on Anarchism
and Revolution, p. 295, p. 296 and p. 297] For anarchists, our freedom
is enriched by those around us when we work with them as equals and not
as master and servant.
In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of
both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition,
each implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form
of individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of
collectivism.
Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual,
ultimately impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by
the individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit
suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom you live),
ultimately impoverishes the individual, since individuals do not exist
apart from society but can only exist within it. In addition,
individualism ends up denying the "select few" the insights and
abilities of the individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is
a source of self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and
contradiction), namely "the impossibility for the individual to attain
a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the mass
by the 'beautiful aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain
uni-lateral." [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 293]
True liberty and community exist elsewhere.
A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order
maximise liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking
that only in free association, created by free agreement, can
individuals develop, grow, and express their liberty. However, it is
evident that under capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to
maximise liberty.
Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements),
and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent
judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that
they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts
under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of
voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in
section B.4, this is not really the case), capitalist contracts result
in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of
wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. And as
Carole Pateman points out, "to promise to obey is to deny or to limit,
to a greater or lesser degree, individuals' freedom and equality and
their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement
and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in
certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to
exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no
longer equal, but subordinate." [The Problem of Political Obligation,
p. 19] This results in those obeying no longer making their own
decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are
capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their
individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a
hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey (see
also section A.2.8). Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships
of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its
own justification.
This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their
freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are
only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey!
Freedom, however, must mean more than the right to change masters.
Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau argued,
sovereignty, "for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be
represented" neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a
hiring contract. Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England
regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only
during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are
elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [The Social Contract
and Discourses, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To
paraphrase Rousseau:
Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free;
but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when she signs her
contract with her boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her
and she is nothing but an order taker.
To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:
"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired
immense possessions in land, should impose laws on those who want to
establish themselves there, and that he should only allow them to do so
on condition that they accept his supreme authority and obey all his
wishes; that, I can still conceive . . . Would not this tyrannical act
contain a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that
on the liberty of the inhabitants?" [Op. Cit., p. 316]
Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be made by property a slave or a
despot by turns." [What is Property?, p. 371] Little wonder we discover
Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another individual on any footing
but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would "alienate his
[or her] freedom" and so would be a "a relationship of voluntary
servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a contract in a
free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be "devoid of any sense of
personal dignity." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 68-9] Only
self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather
than of subordination between its members.
Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a
sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism.
Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality
rather than of subordination between its members.
It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged
"workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal
conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism."
[Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 277] For similar
reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed
marriage as it turned women into "a bonded slave, who takes her
master's name, her master's bread, her master's commands, and serves
her master's passions . . . who can control no property, not even her
own body, without his consent." [Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul
Avrich, An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre, p.
160] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries has
been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals, it
still is based on the patriarchical principles anarchists like Goldman
and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see section A.3.5 for more on
feminism and anarchism).
Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
to defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores
(or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are
made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them
("For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to remain
free." [Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p.
305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are
likely to be based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This
of course assumes a definition of liberty according to which
individuals exercise their capacities and decide their own actions.
Therefore, voluntarism is not enough to create a society that maximises
liberty. This is why anarchists think that voluntary association must
be complemented by self-management (direct democracy) within these
associations. For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply
self-management. Or, to use Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the
primordial fact of humanity, so association is its complementary term."
[System of Economical Contradictions, p. 430]
To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private
property (and so statism), those with property have more power, which
they can use to perpetuate their authority. "Wealth is power, poverty
is weakness," in the words of Albert Parsons. This means that under
capitalism the much praised "freedom to choose" is extremely limited.
It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom to pick a master (under
slavery, quipped Parsons, the master "selected . . . his own slaves.
Under the wage slavery system the wage slave selects his master.").
Under capitalism, Parsons stressed, "those disinherited of their
natural rights must hire out and serve and obey the oppressing class or
starve. There is no other alternative. Some things are priceless, chief
among which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale
or hire." [Anarchism, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse
servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty of
others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is
actually a denial of liberty.
Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are
prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of
robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We
are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.
( Section A.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses
why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between
property owners and the propertyless).
A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is
not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing.
If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that
human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and
heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed
by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is
considered "human nature" can change with changing social
circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human
nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was
considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of
years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only
become part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:
"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But
individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots
of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and
options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the
institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted
pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only
way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest
themselves.
"If we have institutions which make greed the sole
property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of
other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society
based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be
organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other
sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll
have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing
themselves." [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]
Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human
nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed.
Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we
think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is
inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent
on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society
will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human
nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So "when we hear
men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much
better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people
can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means
of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less
ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those
conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of
slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]
As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is
simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to
think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to policemen,
from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science,
presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the
mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness
and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day,
with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and
maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we
can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of
an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism "stands for the
liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the
liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation
from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom,
expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can
teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its
wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky
argues, "I don't think its possible to give a rational account of the
concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is
nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce
something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of
social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature
and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able
to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our
essential nature." [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to
enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability
to think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans
are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete
and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose
injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "the power to
think and the desire to rebel" as "precious faculties." [God and the
State, p. 9]).
These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist
society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes
all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep
unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the
centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is
denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for
the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in
anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society
calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who
can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have
accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it
is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while
our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the
rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent
those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming
still worse than they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and
ruled are spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are
spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a very
important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make
no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes
unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we
are dreamers." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human
nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping
this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations
bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the
oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so
produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of
privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the mind and heart of man . . .
That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of
equality and humanity." [God and the State, p. 31] And while the
privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become
servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there
will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is
oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it
seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy
in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.
Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For
example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little
real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is
determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the
"human nature" argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by
the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support
for this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to
those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an
"objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in
wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our
Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin
and Leon J. Kamin).
This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist
Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential behaviour is
circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what sociobiology means
"by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree." However, this is
not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of "biological determinism"
that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for
specific human traits says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and
general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a
possible range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and
kindness." And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create
social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may be the
case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who
"acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while "often dismiss[ing] the
uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary and unimportant aberrations."
This is surprising, for if you believe that "repeated, often genocidal
warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive
peoples is embarrassing." [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]
Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by
first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature
(often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas
in question as both "normal" and "natural"). Then the theories of
nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and
history, being used to "prove" that the principles of capitalism
(hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are
then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly,
there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this
sleight-of-hand seriously.
This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and
so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are
misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As
Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a "weak,
enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an 'alpha'
male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.' By contrast, the
most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised
authority with devastating effect in the course of history." This
"expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is
completely reversed in so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence
of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about
'alpha males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology",
Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human
society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in
society are hidden under a genetic screen.
The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or
sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling
class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support
doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite
power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc.
Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of
course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human
nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific
priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped.
One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from
what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in
place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic
system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that
people will still be claiming that their new society is the "One True
System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past
systems did not.
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the
same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists
may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they
live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that
scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution
based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive
struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected
the dominant political and economic theories of British society
(notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.
Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in
response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of
Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the
mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time,
Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual
aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual
struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see
Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book Bully
for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a
"factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most
circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is
just as "natural" as competition so proving that "human nature" was not
a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can
be the best pathway to advantage individuals.
To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human
nature" for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being
"human nature" is shaped by the society we live in and the
relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will
encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one
would encourage others. As such, anarchists "do not so much rely on the
fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the
some nature will act differently under different circumstances."
Secondly, change "seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence"
so "who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his
possibilities." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360-1 and
p. 360]
For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of
which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally
good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway
(ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127-149] and
David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature". [Anarchist
Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]
A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a human
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human
beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect"
for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and
Meltzer:
"[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary
socialism [i.e. anarchism] is an 'idealisation' of the workers and [so]
the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class
struggle . . . it seems morally unreasonable that a free society . . .
could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the
overthrow of [existing] society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of
people's shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become
institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact . . . that the
workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they
had acquired the social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the
prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia.
What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters?
Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate
is favourable to them . . . What we say is . . . that once life can
continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority
cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the
prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for
them other than the free process of education." [The Floodgates of
Anarchy, pp. 36-7]
Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who
are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and
needs, thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be
solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual
third parties, or community and workplace assemblies (see section I.5.8
for a discussion of how could be done for anti-social activities as
well as disputes).
Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section
A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people --
people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of
authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting
effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make
no such claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting
power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as
people are not perfect.
It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new"
(perfect) man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to
discredit it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical
authority, particularly capitalist relations of production). After all,
people are not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they
pounce on every example of a government falling and the resulting chaos
to dismiss anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a
country to be falling into "anarchy" whenever there is a disruption in
"law and order" and looting takes place.
Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection
shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming an
anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims is
raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real
anarchism. However, their "objection" discredits their own claim to be
anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without
anarchists!). Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still
saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon become
authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because even if the
government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up
again, because "the strength of the government rests not with itself,
but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman.
His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people
who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition
exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny;
the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely
on something outside themselves." [George Barrett, Objections to
Anarchism, p. 355]
Hence Alexander Berkman:
"Our social institutions are founded on certain
ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions
built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think
political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will
continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and
just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive
present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and
capitalism." [What is Anarchism?, p. xii]
In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have
freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that
command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are
necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs
"perfect" people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the
obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people
will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and
self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists,
"history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled,
the oppressors and the oppressed." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for
Yourselves, p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in
the struggle against oppression and exploitation, we not only change
the world, we change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle
for freedom which creates people capable of taking the responsibility
for their own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living
as equals in a free society, so making anarchy possible.
As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is
not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means
that the necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do
not exist. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the
heart of society, not the product of external shocks. Nor, we should
note, do anarchists think that such a society will appear "overnight."
Rather, we see the creation of an anarchist system as a process, not an
event. The ins-and-outs of how it would function will evolve over time
in the light of experience and objective circumstances, not appear in a
perfect form immediately (see section H.2.5 for a discussion of Marxist
claims otherwise).
Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are
necessary anarchism to work because the anarchist is "no liberator with
a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity
struggling onwards towards liberty." As such, "[i]f, then, by some
external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied
ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would
reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the
people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of
the last stronghold of tyranny --- the government -- then indeed the
revolution will be permanently accomplished." [George Barrett, Op.
Cit., p. 355]
This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until
everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for
example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of
their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a
large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite has always used
repression to defend its position in society. The use of fascism in
Spain (see section A.5.6) and Italy (see section A.5.5) show the depths
the capitalist class can sink to. Anarchism will be created in the face
of opposition by the ruling minorities and, consequently, will need to
defend itself against attempts to recreate authority (see section H.2.1
for a refutation of Marxist claims anarchists reject the need to defend
an anarchist society against counter-revolution).
Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on
convincing those subject to oppression and exploitation that they have
the power to resist both and, ultimately, can end both by destroying
the social institutions that cause them. As Malatesta argued, "we need
the support of the masses to build a force of sufficient strength to
achieve our specific task of radical change in the social organism by
the direct action of the masses, we must get closer to them, accept
them as they are, and from within their ranks seek to 'push' them
forward as much as possible." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas,
pp. 155-6] This would create the conditions that make possible a rapid
evolution towards anarchism as what was initially accepted by a
minority "but increasingly finding popular expression, will make its
way among the mass of the people" and "the minority will become the
People, the great mass, and that mass rising up against property and
the State, will march forward towards anarchist communism." [Kropotkin,
Words of a Rebel, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists attach to
spreading our ideas and arguing the case for anarchism. This creates
conscious anarchists from those questioning the injustices of
capitalism and the state.
This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society and the
resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it. Anarchist
ideas develop spontaneously through struggle. As we discuss in section
I.2.3, anarchistic organisations are often created as part of the
resistance against oppression and exploitation which marks every
hierarchical system and can., potentially, be the framework of a few
society. As such, the creation of libertarian institutions is,
therefore, always a possibility in any situation. A peoples'
experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions, namely the
awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy and powerful few
and to disempower the many. That while it is needed to maintain class
and hierarchical society, it is not needed to organise society nor can
it do so in a just and fair way for all. This is possible. However,
without a conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are
likely to be used, abused and finally destroyed by parties or religious
groups seeking political power over the masses (the Russian Revolution
is the most famous example of this process). It is for that reason
anarchists organise to influence the struggle and spread our ideas (see
section J.3 for details). For it is the case that only when anarchist
ideas "acquire a predominating influence" and are "accepted by a
sufficiently large section of the population" will we "have achieved
anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy." For anarchy "cannot be
imposed against the wishes of the people." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 159
and p. 163]
So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent
on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being
anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner.
This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a fully
formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground for the
gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social behaviour
that remain after the struggle to change society has revolutionised
those doing it.
A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but
we know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary
people are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run
society. All aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to
Right, contain people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, fascists,
Fabians or Objectivists, it is assumed that only a select few are
creative and intelligent and that these people should govern others.
Usually, this elitism is masked by fine, flowing rhetoric about
"freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes with which the ideologues
attempt to dull people's critical thought by telling them want they
want to hear.
It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural"
elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an
"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great
mass of "second-handers" (it is always amusing to hear people who
simply parrot the ideas of Ayn Rand dismissing other people so!) or who
will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown "ideal" of "real" capitalism.
Everybody reading an elitist text will consider him or herself to be
part of the "select few." It's "natural" in an elitist society to
consider elites to be natural and yourself a potential member of one!
Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology
which has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling
classes since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This
ideology merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content.
During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity,
being adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful
"divinely revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the
notion that human beings are basically depraved and incompetent
creatures who need "direction from above," with priests as the
conveniently necessary mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The
idea that average people are basically stupid and thus incapable of
governing themselves is a carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the
Dark Ages.
In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers"
or cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all
we can say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a
superficial look at history, particularly the labour movement. The
creative powers of those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing,
and if this intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal"
society, this is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening
effects of hierarchy and the conformity produced by authority. (See
also section B.1 for more on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black
points outs:
"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid,
monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid, and
monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping
cretinisation all around us than even such significant moronising
mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all
their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by the family in
the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated to
hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is
so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally
grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into
the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than
one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the
vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and
expertise in everything. They're used to it." [The Abolition of Work
and other essays, pp. 21-2]
When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it
being given to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails.
Only self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and
distorting effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity.
The few examples of such self-liberation prove that most people, once
considered incapable of freedom by others, are more than up for the
task.
Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that
their authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves
from the debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in
the words of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on
our knees."
As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary
achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the
loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish
do so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority
challenged. This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the
master over his economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere
woman is escaping her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free,
large strides." [Vision on Fire, p. 256] The same comments are
applicable, for example, to the very successful experiments in workers'
self-management during the Spanish Revolution.
Then, of course, the notion that people are too stupid for anarchism to
work also backfires on those who argue it. Take, for example, those who
use this argument to advocate democratic government rather than
anarchy. Democracy, as Luigi Galleani noted, means "acknowledging the
right and the competence of the people to select their rulers."
However, "whoever has the political competence to choose his [or her]
own rulers is, by implication, also competent to do without them,
especially when the causes of economic enmity are uprooted." [The End
of Anarchism?, p. 37] Thus the argument for democracy against anarchism
undermines itself, for "if you consider these worthy electors as unable
to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that they know
how to choose for themselves the shepherds who must guide them? And how
will they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of producing
the election of a genius from the votes of a mass of fools?"
[Malatesta, Anarchy, pp. 53-4]
As for those who consider dictatorship as the solution to human
stupidity, the question arises why are these dictators immune to this
apparently universal human trait? And, as Malatesta noted, "who are the
best? And who will recognise these qualities in them?" [Op. Cit., p.
53] If they impose themselves on the "stupid" masses, why assume they
will not exploit and oppress the many for their own benefit? Or, for
that matter, that they are any more intelligent than the masses? The
history of dictatorial and monarchical government suggests a clear
answer to those questions. A similar argument applies for other
non-democratic systems, such as those based on limited suffrage. For
example, the Lockean (i.e. classical liberal or right-wing libertarian)
ideal of a state based on the rule of property owners is doomed to be
little more than a regime which oppresses the majority to maintain the
power and privilege of the wealthy few. Equally, the idea of near
universal stupidity bar an elite of capitalists (the "objectivist"
vision) implies a system somewhat less ideal than the perfect system
presented in the literature. This is because most people would tolerate
oppressive bosses who treat them as means to an end rather than an end
in themselves. For how can you expect people to recognise and pursue
their own self-interest if you consider them fundamentally as the
"uncivilised hordes"? You cannot have it both ways and the "unknown
ideal" of pure capitalism would be a grubby, oppressive and alienating
as "actually existing" capitalism.
As such, anarchists are firmly convinced that arguments against anarchy
based on the lack of ability of the mass of people are inherently
self-contradictory (when not blatantly self-servicing). If people are
too stupid for anarchism then they are too stupid for any system you
care to mention. Ultimately, anarchists argue that such a perspective
simply reflects the servile mentality produced by a hierarchical
society rather than a genuine analysis of humanity and our history as a
species. To quote Rousseau:
"when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages
scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and
death to preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not
behove slaves to reason about freedom." [quoted by Noam Chomsky,
Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 780]
A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?
No. This is for three reasons.
Terrorism means either targeting or not worrying about killing innocent
people. For anarchy to exist, it must be created by the mass of people.
One does not convince people of one's ideas by blowing them up.
Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One cannot blow up a
social relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the actions of an
elite few destroying rulers on behalf of the majority. Simply put, a
"structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few
kilos of explosives." [Kropotkin, quoted by Martin A. Millar,
Kropotkin, p. 174] For so long as people feel the need for rulers,
hierarchy will exist (see section A.2.16 for more on this). As we have
stressed earlier, freedom cannot be given, only taken. Lastly,
anarchism aims for freedom. Hence Bakunin's comment that "when one is
carrying out a revolution for the liberation of humanity, one should
respect the life and liberty of men [and women]." [quoted by K.J.
Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx, p. 125] For anarchists, means
determine the ends and terrorism by its very nature violates life and
liberty of individuals and so cannot be used to create an anarchist
society. The history of, say, the Russian Revolution, confirmed
Kropotkin's insight that "[v]ery sad would be the future revolution if
it could only triumph by terror." [quoted by Millar, Op. Cit., p. 175]
Moreover anarchists are not against individuals but the institutions
and social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power
over others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist
revolution is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin
pointed out, "we wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status and
its perquisites" and anarchism "does not mean the death of the
individuals who make up the bourgeoisie, but the death of the
bourgeoisie as a political and social entity economically distinct from
the working class." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 71 and p. 70] In other
words, "You can't blow up a social relationship" (to quote the title of
an anarchist pamphlet which presents the anarchist case against
terrorism).
How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly
this is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists
who are not anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German
Bader-Meinhoff gang were often called "anarchists" despite their
self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism. Smears, unfortunately, work.
Similarly, as Emma Goldman pointed out, "it is a known fact known to
almost everyone familiar with the Anarchist movement that a great
number of [violent] acts, for which Anarchists had to suffer, either
originated with the capitalist press or were instigated, if not
directly perpetrated, by the police." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 262]
An example of this process at work can be seen from the current
anti-globalisation movement. In Seattle, for example, the media
reported "violence" by protestors (particularly anarchist ones) yet
this amounted to a few broken windows. The much greater actual violence
of the police against protestors (which, incidentally, started before
the breaking of a single window) was not considered worthy of comment.
Subsequent media coverage of anti-globalisation demonstrations followed
this pattern, firmly connecting anarchism with violence in spite of
that the protesters have been the ones to suffer the greatest violence
at the hands of the state. As anarchist activist Starhawk notes, "if
breaking windows and fighting back when the cops attack is 'violence,'
then give me a new word, a word a thousand times stronger, to use when
the cops are beating non-resisting people into comas." [Staying on the
Streets, p. 130]
Similarly, at the Genoa protests in 2001 the mainstream media presented
the protestors as violent even though it was the state who killed one
of them and hospitalised many thousands more. The presence of police
agent provocateurs in creating the violence was unmentioned by the
media. As Starhawk noted afterwards, in Genoa "we encountered a
carefully orchestrated political campaign of state terrorism. The
campaign included disinformation, the use of infiltrators and
provocateurs, collusion with avowed Fascist groups . . . , the
deliberate targeting of non-violent groups for tear gas and beating,
endemic police brutality, the torture of prisoners, the political
persecution of organisers . . . They did all those openly, in a way
that indicates they had no fear of repercussions and expected political
protection from the highest sources." [Op. Cit., pp. 128-9] This was,
unsurprisingly, not reported by the media.
Subsequent protests have seen the media indulge in yet more
anti-anarchist hype, inventing stories to present anarchists are
hate-filled individuals planning mass violence. For example, in Ireland
in 2004 the media reported that anarchists were planning to use poison
gas during EU related celebrations in Dublin. Of course, evidence of
such a plan was not forthcoming and no such action happened. Neither
did the riot the media said anarchists were organising. A similar
process of misinformation accompanied the anti-capitalist May Day
demonstrations in London and the protests against the Republican
National Congress in New York. In spite of being constantly proved
wrong after the event, the media always prints the scare stories of
anarchist violence (even inventing events at, say Seattle, to justify
their articles and to demonise anarchism further). Thus the myth that
anarchism equals violence is perpetrated. Needless to say, the same
papers that hyped the (non-existent) threat of anarchist violence
remained silent on the actual violence of, and repression by, the
police against demonstrators which occurred at these events. Neither
did they run apologies after their (evidence-less) stories of doom were
exposed as the nonsense they were by subsequent events.
This does not mean that Anarchists have not committed acts of violence.
They have (as have members of other political and religious movements).
The main reason for the association of terrorism with anarchism is
because of the "propaganda by the deed" period in the anarchist
movement.
This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked by a small
number of anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class
(royalty, politicians and so forth). At its worse, this period saw
theatres and shops frequented by members of the bourgeoisie targeted.
These acts were termed "propaganda by the deed." Anarchist support for
the tactic was galvanised by the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in
1881 by Russian Populists (this event prompted Johann Most's famous
editorial in Freiheit, entitled "At Last!", celebrating regicide and
the assassination of tyrants). However, there were deeper reasons for
anarchist support of this tactic: firstly, in revenge for acts of
repression directed towards working class people; and secondly, as a
means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their oppressors
could be defeated.
Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by the
deed began in France after the 20 000-plus deaths due to the French
state's brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many
anarchists were killed. It is interesting to note that while the
anarchist violence in revenge for the Commune is relatively well known,
the state's mass murder of the Communards is relatively unknown.
Similarly, it may be known that the Italian Anarchist Gaetano Bresci
assassinated King Umberto of Italy in 1900 or that Alexander Berkman
tried to kill Carnegie Steel Corporation manager Henry Clay Frick in
1892. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon and
killed protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also murdered
locked-out workers at Homestead.
Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is hardly
surprising. "The State's behaviour is violence," points out Max
Stirner, "and it calls its violence 'law'; that of the individual,
'crime.'" [The Ego and Its Own, p. 197] Little wonder, then, that
anarchist violence is condemned but the repression (and often worse
violence) that provoked it ignored and forgotten. Anarchists point to
the hypocrisy of the accusation that anarchists are "violent" given
that such claims come from either supporters of government or the
actual governments themselves, governments "which came into being
through violence, which maintain themselves in power through violence,
and which use violence constantly to keep down rebellion and to bully
other nations." [Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader, p. 652]
We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of
anarchist violence by non-anarchists by considering their response to
state violence. For example, many capitalist papers and individuals in
the 1920s and 1930s celebrated Fascism as well as Mussolini and Hitler.
Anarchists, in contrast, fought Fascism to the death and tried to
assassinate both Mussolini and Hitler. Obviously supporting murderous
dictatorships is not "violence" and "terrorism" but resisting such
regimes is! Similarly, non-anarchists can support repressive and
authoritarian states, war and the suppression of strikes and unrest by
violence ("restoring law and order") and not be considered "violent."
Anarchists, in contrast, are condemned as "violent" and "terrorist"
because a few of them tried to revenge such acts of oppression and
state/capitalist violence! Similarly, it seems the height of hypocrisy
for someone to denounce the anarchist "violence" which produces a few
broken windows in, say, Seattle while supporting the actual violence of
the police in imposing the state's rule or, even worse, supporting the
American invasion of Iraq in 2003. If anyone should be considered
violent it is the supporter of state and its actions yet people do not
see the obvious and "deplore the type of violence that the state
deplores, and applaud the violence that the state practises." [Christie
and Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 132]
It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this
tactic. Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed" (sometimes
called "attentats"), as Murray Bookchin points out, only a "few . . .
were members of Anarchist groups. The majority . . . were soloists."
[The Spanish Anarchists, p. 102] Needless to say, the state and media
painted all anarchists with the same brush. They still do, sometimes
inaccurately (such as blaming Bakunin for such acts even though he had
been dead years before the tactic was even discussed in anarchist
circles!).
All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was a
failure, as the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see. Kropotkin
can be considered typical. He "never liked the slogan propaganda by
deed, and did not use it to describe his own ideas of revolutionary
action." However, in 1879 while still "urg[ing] the importance of
collective action" he started "expressing considerable sympathy and
interest in attentats" (these "collective forms of action" were seen as
acting "at the trade union and communal level"). In 1880 he "became
less preoccupied with collective action and this enthusiasm for acts of
revolt by individuals and small groups increased." This did not last
and Kropotkin soon attached "progressively less importance to isolated
acts of revolt" particularly once "he saw greater opportunities for
developing collective action in the new militant trade unionism."
[Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p.
92, p. 115, p. 129, pp. 129-30, p. 205] By the late 1880s and early
1890s he came to disapprove of such acts of violence. This was partly
due to simple revulsion at the worse of the acts (such as the Barcelona
Theatre bombing in response to the state murder of anarchists involved
in the Jerez uprising of 1892 and Emile Henry's bombing of a cafe in
response to state repression) and partly due to the awareness that it
was hindering the anarchist cause.
Kropotkin recognised that the "spate of terrorist acts" of the 1880s
had caused "the authorities into taking repressive action against the
movement" and were "not in his view consistent with the anarchist ideal
and did little or nothing to promote popular revolt." In addition, he
was "anxious about the isolation of the movement from the masses" which
"had increased rather than diminished as a result of the preoccupation
with" propaganda by deed. He "saw the best possibility for popular
revolution in the . . . development of the new militancy in the labour
movement. From now on he focussed his attention increasingly on the
importance of revolutionary minorities working among the masses to
develop the spirit of revolt." However, even during the early 1880s
when his support for individual acts of revolt (if not for propaganda
by the deed) was highest, he saw the need for collective class struggle
and, therefore, "Kropotkin always insisted on the importance of the
labour movement in the struggles leading up to the revolution." [Op.
Cit., pp. 205-6, p. 208 and p. 280]
Kropotkin was not alone. More and more anarchists came to see
"propaganda by the deed" as giving the state an excuse to clamp down on
both the anarchist and labour movements. Moreover, it gave the media
(and opponents of anarchism) a chance to associate anarchism with
mindless violence, thus alienating much of the population from the
movement. This false association is renewed at every opportunity,
regardless of the facts (for example, even though Individualist
Anarchists rejected "propaganda by the deed" totally, they were also
smeared by the press as "violent" and "terrorists").
In addition, as Kropotkin pointed out, the assumption behind propaganda
by the deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a chance to rebel, was
false. In fact, people are products of the system in which they live;
hence they accepted most of the myths used to keep that system going.
With the failure of propaganda by deed, anarchists turned back to what
most of the movement had been doing anyway: encouraging the class
struggle and the process of self-liberation. This turn back to the
roots of anarchism can be seen from the rise in anarcho-syndicalist
unions after 1890 (see section A.5.3).
Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed,
few would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination under
all circumstances. Bombing a village during a war because there might
be an enemy in it is terrorism, whereas assassinating a murdering
dictator or head of a repressive state is defence at best and revenge
at worst. As anarchists have long pointed out, if by terrorism it is
meant "killing innocent people" then the state is the greatest
terrorist of them all (as well as having the biggest bombs and other
weapons of destruction available on the planet). If the people
committing "acts of terror" are really anarchists, they would do
everything possible to avoid harming innocent people and never use the
statist line that "collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable.
This is why the vast majority of "propaganda by the deed" acts were
directed towards individuals of the ruling class, such as Presidents
and Royalty, and were the result of previous acts of state and
capitalist violence.
So "terrorist" acts have been committed by anarchists. This is a fact.
However, it has nothing to do with anarchism as a socio-political
theory. As Emma Goldman argued, it was "not Anarchism, as such, but the
brutal slaughter of the eleven steel workers [that] was the urge for
Alexander Berkman's act." [Op. Cit., p. 268] Equally, members of other
political and religious groups have also committed such acts. As the
Freedom Group of London argued:
"There is a truism that the man [or woman] in the
street seems always to forget, when he is abusing the Anarchists, or
whatever party happens to be his bete noire for the moment, as the
cause of some outrage just perpetrated. This indisputable fact is that
homicidal outrages have, from time immemorial, been the reply of goaded
and desperate classes, and goaded and desperate individuals, to wrongs
from their fellowmen [and women], which they felt to be intolerable.
Such acts are the violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or
repressive . . . their cause lies not in any special conviction, but in
the depths of . . . human nature itself. The whole course of history,
political and social, is strewn with evidence of this." [quoted by Emma
Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 259]
Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and religious
groups and parties. For example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus,
Nationalists, Republicans, Moslems, Sikhs, Fascists, Jews and Patriots
have all committed acts of terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas
have been labelled as "terrorist by nature" or continually associated
with violence -- which shows anarchism's threat to the status quo.
There is nothing more likely to discredit and marginalise an idea than
for malicious and/or ill-informed persons to portray those who believe
and practice it as "mad bombers" with no opinions or ideals at all,
just an insane urge to destroy.
Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed
terrorism as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast
majority of anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that
in our case it is necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time
and time again.
So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been
anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been
terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised
that social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of
existence. Compared to the violence of the state and capitalism,
anarchist violence is a drop in the ocean. Unfortunately most people
remember the acts of the few anarchists who have committed violence
rather than the acts of violence and repression by the state and
capital that prompted those acts.
A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?
Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share a
common belief in the need for an individual to develop within
themselves their own sense of ethics. All anarchists agree with Max
Stirner that an individual must free themselves from the confines of
existing morality and question that morality -- "I decide whether it is
the right thing for me; there is no right outside me." [The Ego and Its
Own, p. 189]
Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject any
concept of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some
universal concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral
relativism is almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists
(moral relativism is the view that there is no right or wrong beyond
what suits an individual while moral absolutism is that view that what
is right and wrong is independent of what individuals think).
It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of
excessive "egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral
relativism goes, this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged
upon society by various Moralists and true-believers because it bases
itself, however slimly, upon the idea of individual reason. However, as
it denies the existence (or desirability) of ethics it is but the
mirror image of what it is rebelling against. Neither option empowers
the individual or is liberating.
Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to
authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion
about things (and will tolerate anything) or who blindly follow the
commands of the ruling elite are of great value to those in power. Both
are rejected by most anarchists in favour of an evolutionary approach
to ethics based upon human reason to develop the ethical concepts and
interpersonal empathy to generalise these concepts into ethical
attitudes within society as well as within individuals. An anarchistic
approach to ethics therefore shares the critical individual
investigation implied in moral relativism but grounds itself into
common feelings of right and wrong. As Proudhon argued:
"All progress begins by abolishing something; every
reform rests upon denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based
upon the proved insufficiency of the old idea."
Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life
itself, are in a constant process of evolution. This leads them to
reject the various notions of "God's Law," "Natural Law," and so on in
favour of a theory of ethical development based upon the idea that
individuals are entirely empowered to question and assess the world
around them -- in fact, they require it in order to be truly free. You
cannot be an anarchist and blindly accept anything! Michael Bakunin,
one of the founding anarchist thinkers, expressed this radical
scepticism as so:
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has
ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a
true seeker."
Any system of ethics which is not based on individual questioning can only be authoritarian. Erich Fromm explains why:
"Formally, authoritarian ethics denies man's
capacity to know what is good or bad; the norm giver is always an
authority transcending the individual. Such a system is based not on
reason and knowledge but on awe of the authority and on the subject's
feeling of weakness and dependence; the surrender of decision making to
the authority results from the latter's magic power; its decisions can
not and must not be questioned. Materially, or according to content,
authoritarian ethics answers the question of what is good or bad
primarily in terms of the interests of the authority, not the interests
of the subject; it is exploitative, although the subject may derive
considerable benefits, psychic or material, from it." [Man For Himself,
p. 10]
Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to
problems. Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on
the mythology of spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds.
This is done through logic and reason, and is a far better route to
resolving moral questions than obsolete, authoritarian systems like
orthodox religion and certainly better than the "there is no wrong or
right" of moral relativism.
So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, "nature has
thus to be recognised as the first ethical teacher of man. The social
instinct, innate in men as well as in all the social animals, - this is
the origin of all ethical conceptions and all subsequent development of
morality." [Ethics, p. 45]
Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means
that, essentially (according to anarchists), an individual's ethical
viewpoints are derived from three basic sources:
1) from the society an individual lives in. As
Kropotkin pointed out, "Man's conceptions of morality are completely
dependent upon the form that their social life assumed at a given time
in a given locality . . . this [social life] is reflected in the moral
conceptions of men and in the moral teachings of the given epoch." [Op.
Cit., p. 315] In other words, experience of life and of living.
2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their
society's ethical norms, as indicated above. This is the core of Erich
Fromm's argument that "Man must accept the responsibility for himself
and the fact that only using his own powers can he give meaning to his
life . . .there is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his
life by the unfolding of his powers, by living productively." [Man for
Himself, p. 45] In other words, individual thought and development.
3) The feeling of empathy - "the true origin of the
moral sentiment . . . [is] simply in the feeling of sympathy."
["Anarchist Morality", Anarchism, p. 94] In other words, an
individual's ability to feel and share experiences and concepts with
others.
This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of
ethics. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]he more powerful your imagination, the
better you can picture to yourself what any being feels when it is made
to suffer, and the more intense and delicate will your moral sense be.
. . And the more you are accustomed by circumstances, by those
surrounding you, or by the intensity of your own thought and your
imagination, to act as your own thought and imagination urge, the more
will the moral sentiment grow in you, the more will it became
habitual." [Op. Cit., p. 95]
So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim "treat
others as you would like them to treat you under similar
circumstances." Anarchists are neither egoists nor altruists when it
come to moral stands, they are simply human.
As Kropotkin noted, "egoism" and "altruism" both have their roots in
the same motive -- "however great the difference between the two
actions in their result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the
quest for pleasure." [Op. Cit., p. 85]
For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by
themselves and requires the full use of an individual's mental
abilities as part of a social grouping, as part of a community. As
capitalism and other forms of authority weaken the individual's
imagination and reduce the number of outlets for them to exercise their
reason under the dead weight of hierarchy as well as disrupting
community, little wonder that life under capitalism is marked by a
stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.
Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within
society. Without equality, there can be no real ethics for "Justice
implies Equality. . . only those who consider others as their equals
can obey the rule: 'Do not do to others what you do not wish them to do
to you.' A serf-owner and a slave merchant can evidently not recognise
. . . the 'categorial imperative' [of treating people as ends in
themselves and not as means] as regards serfs [or slaves] because they
do not look upon them as equals." Hence the "greatest obstacle to the
maintenance of a certain moral level in our present societies lies in
the absence of social equality. Without real equality, the sense of
justice can never be universally developed, because Justice implies the
recognition of Equality." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment,
p. 88 and p. 79]
Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it deserves..
In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it is
little wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By
disempowering individuals from developing their own ethical ideas and
instead encouraging blind obedience to external authority (and so moral
relativism once individuals think that they are without that
authority's power), capitalist society ensures an impoverishment of
individuality and ego. As Erich Fromm puts it:
"The failure of modern culture lies not in its
principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the
same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the
meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too much
concerned with their self-interest, but that they are not concerned
enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they
are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves." [Man for
Himself, p. 139]
Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame
of reference - ethical ideas must be an expression of what gives us
pleasure as a whole individual (both rational and emotional, reason and
empathy). This leads all anarchists to reject the false division
between egoism and altruism and recognise that what many people (for
example, capitalists) call "egoism" results in individual self-negation
and a reduction of individual self-interest. As Kropotkin argues:
"What was it that morality, evolving in animal and
human societies, was striving for, if not for the opposition to the
promptings of narrow egoism, and bringing up humanity in the spirit of
the development of altruism? The very expressions 'egoism' and
'altruism' are incorrect, because there can be no pure altruism without
an admixture of personal pleasure - and consequently, without egoism.
It would therefore be more nearly correct to say that ethics aims at
the development of social habits and the weakening of the narrowly
personal habits. These last make the individual lose sight of society
through his regard for his own person, and therefore they even fail to
attain their object, i.e. the welfare of the individual, whereas the
development of habits of work in common, and of mutual aid in general,
leads to a series of beneficial consequences in the family as well as
society." [Ethics, pp. 307-8]
Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism
(i.e. "God's Law," "Natural Law," "Man's Nature," "A is A") and the
narrow egotism which moral relativism so easily lends itself to.
Instead, anarchists recognise that there exists concepts of right and
wrong which exist outside of an individual's evaluation of their own
acts.
This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions
between individuals do develop into a social maxim which, according to
Kropotkin, can be summarised as "[i]s it useful to society? Then it is
good. Is it hurtful? Then it is bad." Which acts human beings think of
as right or wrong is not, however, unchanging and the "estimate of what
is useful or harmful . . . changes, but the foundation remains the
same." ["Anarchist Morality", Op. Cit., p. 91 and p. 92]
This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental
basis of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical
criterion for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So,
while recognising the root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider
ethics as fundamentally a human idea - the product of life, thought and
evolution created by individuals and generalised by social living and
community.
So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything
that denies the most precious achievement of history: the liberty,
uniqueness and dignity of the individual.
Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy,
they can place themselves into the position of those suffering the
behaviour. Acts which restrict individuality can be considered
unethical for two (interrelated) reasons.
Firstly, the protection and development of individuality in all
enriches the life of every individual and it gives pleasure to
individuals because of the diversity it produces. This egoist basis of
ethics reinforces the second (social) reason, namely that individuality
is good for society for it enriches the community and social life,
strengthening it and allowing it to grow and evolve. As Bakunin
constantly argued, progress is marked by a movement from "the simple to
the complex" or, in the words of Herbert Read, it "is measured by the
degree of differentiation within a society. If the individual is a unit
in a corporate mass, his [or her] life will be limited, dull, and
mechanical. If the individual is a unit on his [or her] own, with space
and potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop - develop in
the only real meaning of the word - develop in consciousness of
strength, vitality, and joy." ["The Philosophy of Anarchism," Anarchy
and Order, p. 37]
This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,
diversity is strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic
ethical insight. In its most basic form, it provides a guide to "help
us distinguish which of our actions serve the thrust of natural
evolution and which of them impede them." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology
of Freedom, p. 342]
So, the ethical concept "lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in
the entire animal world and in the conceptions of equity, which
constitutes one of the fundamental primary judgements of human reason."
Therefore anarchists embrace "the permanent presence of a double
tendency - towards greater development on the one side, of sociality,
and, on the other side, of a consequent increase of the intensity of
life which results in an increase of happiness for the individuals, and
in progress - physical, intellectual, and moral." [Kropotkin, Ethics,
pp. 311-2 and pp. 19-20]
Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private
property and so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of
individuals is of prime concern and that our ability to empathize with
others, to see ourselves in others (our basic equality and common
individuality, in other words).
Thus anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a
given set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective
interpersonal conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic
bounds and discussion between equals. Anarchism is based on a
humanistic approach to ethical ideas, one that evolves along with
society and individual development. Hence an ethical society is one in
which "[d]ifference among people will be respected, indeed fostered, as
elements that enrich the unity of experience and phenomenon . . . [the
different] will be conceived of as individual parts of a whole all the
richer because of its complexity." [Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity
Anarchism, p. 82]
A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?
It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of
god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organised religion.
Today, in secularised western European countries, religion has lost its
once dominant place in society. This often makes the militant atheism
of anarchism seem strange. However, once the negative role of religion
is understood the importance of libertarian atheism becomes obvious. It
is because of the role of religion and its institutions that anarchists
have spent some time refuting the idea of religion as well as
propagandising against it.
So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is
that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of
anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate
authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called
Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and
scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be
sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to be
steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with
contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious in its
debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated
little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that
human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity,
fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms,
and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God
has all the rights, humanity is nothing.
This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:
"The idea of God implies the abdication of human
reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty,
and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and
in practice.
"Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and
degradation of mankind . . . we may not, must not make the slightest
concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics.
He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end
with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no childish
illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and
humanity.
"If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be
free; then, God does not exist." [God and the State, p. 25]
For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of
religion. "To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and
beautiful in humanity," Bakunin argued, "is to tacitly admit that
humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it -- that is,
that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous,
base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion -- in
other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater glory of
divinity." As such, to do justice to our humanity and the potential it
has, anarchists argue that we must do without the harmful myth of god
and all it entails and so on behalf of "human liberty, dignity, and
prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods
which it has stolen and return them to earth." [Op. Cit., p. 37 and p.
36]
As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty,
religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist
point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of inequality and
oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example, has always been a
force for repression whenever it holds any political or social sway
(believing you have a direct line to god is a sure way of creating an
authoritarian society). The Church has been a force of social
repression, genocide, and the justification for every tyrant for nearly
two millennia. When given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any
monarch or dictator. This is unsurprising:
"God being everything, the real world and man are
nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life,
man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God
being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth,
and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a
divine revelation. But whoever says revelation, says revealers,
messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself;
and these, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself
to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute
power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against
the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of
God no terrestrial justice holds." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]
Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is
powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for the
powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the church
for when not being the source of oppression, the church has justified
it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working class in
bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly authorities
and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight against those
same authorities. Earthly rulers received their legitimisation from the
heavenly lord, whether political (claiming that rulers are in power due
to god's will) or economic (the rich having been rewarded by god). The
bible praises obedience, raising it to a great virtue. More recent
innovations like the Protestant work ethic also contribute to the
subjugation of working people.
That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can
quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed to
humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be meek
and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, Christianity
(like religion in general) "contains nothing dangerous to the regime of
authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation,
for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every
[in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind." [Red Emma Speaks, p.
234]
Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This
is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis
of the real world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from
above and contained in a few holy books. Theism is then "the theory of
speculation" while atheism is "the science of demonstration." The "one
hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its
roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must
rescue if he is truly to be saved." Atheism, then, "expresses the
expansion and growth of the human mind" while theism "is static and
fixed." It is "the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon
humanity, its paralysing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism
is fighting with all its power." [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p.
245 and pp. 246-7]
As the Bible says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." We anarchists
agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well.
That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive
role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organised
monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries,
religion "is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness
against light, of submission and slavery against independence and
freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation
of the joy and glory of life." [Op. Cit., p. 240]
So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to
uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty.
That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important
ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for strong
and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary from the
alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide to action
in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of, say, Jesus'
or Buddha's life and teachings are inspiring and worth following. If
this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool of the
powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather, they have a
dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live a good life as
well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the oppressed would not
believe and the powerful would suppress them as dangerous heresies.
And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has
preached a radical message. In the middle ages numerous revolutionary
Christian movements and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that
be with the firm support of the mainstream church. During the Spanish
Civil War the Catholic church supported Franco's fascists, denouncing
the killing of pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while
remaining silent about Franco's murder of Basque priests who had
supported the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is
seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while the
pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop of El
Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative but after
seeing the way in which the political and economic powers were
exploiting the people became their outspoken champion. He was
assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because of this, a
fate which has befallen many other supporters of liberation theology, a
radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to reconcile
socialist ideas and Christian social thinking.
Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious
people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far
from it. Religious people, including members of the church hierarchy,
played a key role in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s. The
religious belief within Zapata's army of peasants during the Mexican
revolution did not stop anarchists taking part in it (indeed, it had
already been heavily influenced by the ideas of anarchist militant
Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion which explains
why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have
taken used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects
of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice. For anarchists, it
is the willingness to fight against injustice which counts, not whether
someone believes in god or not. We just think that the social role of
religion is to dampen down revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of
radical priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right
suggests the validity of our analysis.
It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to
the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to
people practising religious belief on their own or in groups, so long
as that practice doesn't impinge on the liberties of others. For
example, a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be
antithetical to anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful
systems of belief could exist in harmony within in anarchist society.
The anarchist view is that religion is a personal matter, above all
else -- if people want to believe in something, that's their business,
and nobody else's as long as they do not impose those ideas on others.
All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their
errors.
To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is
somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in
section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some form
of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a
devote Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon's, influences
the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists Dorothy Day and
Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The anarchist activist
Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalisation movement, has no
problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most anarchists,
their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it,
"in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation
of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty."
[Red Emma Speaks, p. 248]
A.3 What types of anarchism are there?
Anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into
broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they
consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, all types of
anarchists share a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker:
"In common with the founders of Socialism,
Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the
common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use
of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and
social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic
advantages for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the
Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must
be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power,
for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with
political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the
domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition
of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 17-18]
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main
differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists,
although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually
exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists,
anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority,
with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United
States. In this section we indicate the differences between these main
trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear, while
social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and
capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to
get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions
to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a
society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist
anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and
have a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we
must not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common,
namely a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and
capitalist domination and exploitation.
In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over
such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights and
a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are only
different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas, the anarchist
movement (like life itself) is in a constant state of change,
discussion and thought -- as would be expected in a movement that
values freedom so highly.
To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves
firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we
ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist
anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for
modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom,
and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to
live in.
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind
of state, the differences between individualists and social anarchists
are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and
anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now (and
so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative
institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually
support strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as
rent strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out of
government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, not
revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action to
create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being in
contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they
seek to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property
by means of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around
mutual banks and co-operatives). In this way a general "social
liquidation" would be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by
reform and not by expropriation.
Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create
alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of
reforms by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within
capitalism. Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with
anarchist principles as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority
(be it state or capitalist). Thus the expropriation of the capitalist
class and the destruction of the state by social revolution is a
libertarian, not authoritarian, act by its very nature as it is
directed against those who govern and exploit the vast majority. In
short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists and revolutionists,
trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within capitalism while
trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However, as some
social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is not
the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity). In
effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is Property?
and argue that possession must replace property in a free society (see
section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property).
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them. Thus "your watch is your own, but the watch factory
belongs to the people." "Actual use," continues Berkman, "will be
considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The
organisation of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the
coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective
possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the community,
will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for
profit." [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]
This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work
and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of
that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
"in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of industry
is untenable." Given this, it is impossible to "estimate the share of
each in the riches which all contribute to amass" and, moreover, the
"common possession of the instruments of labour must necessarily bring
with it the enjoyment in common of the fruits of common labour."
[Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 45 and p. 46] By this social
anarchists simply mean that the social product which is produced by all
would be available to all and each individual who has contributed
productively to society can take what they need (how quickly we can
reach such an ideal is a moot point, as we discuss in section I.2.2).
Some social anarchists, like mutualists for example, are against such a
system of libertarian (or free) communism, but, in general, the vast
majority of social anarchists look forward to the end of money and,
therefore, of buying and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will
see "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere" and
"the wage system abolished" whether by "equal and just exchange" (like
Proudhon) or by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, The
General Idea of the Revolution, p. 281]
In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies
that this system of use-rights should include the product of the
workers labour. Instead of social ownership, individualist anarchists
propose a more market based system in which workers would possess their
own means of production and exchange the product of their labour freely
with other workers. They argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly
free market. Rather, by means of the state, capitalists have placed
fetters on the market to create and protect their economic and social
power (market discipline for the working class, state aid for the
ruling class in other words). These state created monopolies (of money,
land, tariffs and patents) and state enforcement of capitalist property
rights are the source of economic inequality and exploitation. With the
abolition of government, real free competition would result and ensure
the end of capitalism and capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin
Tucker's essay State Socialism and Anarchism for an excellent summary
of this argument).
The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar
land) are the product of individual labour and so they accept that
people should be able to sell the means of production they use, if they
so desire. However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead
favour an "occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say
land, is not in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is
available to others for use. They think this system, called mutualism,
will result in workers control of production and the end of capitalist
exploitation and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a
regime of "occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a
workplace needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the
group who use it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in
fact, used by more than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and
use" is violated. Equally, if an owner employs others to use the
workplace then the boss can appropriate the product of the workers'
labour, so violating the maxim that labour should receive its full
product. Thus the principles of individualist anarchism point to
anti-capitalist conclusions (see section G.3).
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more
into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity .
. . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign
power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I
experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the
might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity." [The Ego and Its
Own, p. 257] Proudhon also argued against communism, stating that the
community becomes the proprietor under communism and so capitalism and
communism are based on property and so authority (see the section
"Characteristics of communism and of property" in What is Property?).
Thus the Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places
the individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well as
dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced
with that of "society."
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that Stirner's
and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but only about
authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before and in 1848, the
theory [of communism] was put forward in such a shape as to fully
account for Proudhon's distrust as to its effect upon liberty. The old
idea of Communism was the idea of monastic communities under the severe
rule of elders or of men of science for directing priests. The last
vestiges of liberty and of individual energy would be destroyed, if
humanity ever had to go through such a communism." [Act for Yourselves,
p. 98] Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's and
Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed against it as
they could not be familiar with it.
Rather than subject the individual to the community, social anarchists
argue that communal ownership would provide the necessary framework to
protect individual liberty in all aspects of life by abolishing the
power of the property owner, in whatever form it takes. In addition,
rather than abolish all individual "property," communist anarchism
acknowledges the importance of individual possessions and individual
space. Thus we find Kropotkin arguing against forms of communism that
"desire to manage the community after the model of a family . . . [to
live] all in the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet
the same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to
guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual." [Small
Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9] The aim of
anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the product
reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the
liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home." [The Place of
Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought, p. 7] This ensures
individual expression of tastes and desires and so individuality --
both in consumption and in production, as social anarchists are firm
supporters of workers' self-management.
Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition to
communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather use
community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society" control
the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social anarchism
is based on importance of individuality and individual expression:
"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of
all conquests -- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and
gives it a solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political
liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected
god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding -- god
the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her] independence,
his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew the vow of
asceticism which he formally made before the crucified god. It says to
him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long as the individual is
not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]
In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread,
p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social
anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles or
the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions are
rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see section I.6.2
for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists an
association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their
common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance of
free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
anarchists agree with Bakunin:
"Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and
this kind of collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a
free community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200]
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods with
others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments that
the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individuals not to join a commune while
Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to pool
their possessions as they see fit, including communistic associations.
However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual wished to claim
property rights so as to exploit the labour of others, social
anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism in the
name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to be a
ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who,
under the comfortable cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome
the idea of domination . . . But the heralds of domination presume to
practice individualism in the name of their ego, over the obedient,
resigned, or inert ego of others." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As
Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious as
those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
affected.
Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist
anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into
capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are
forced into unemployment they may have to sell their labour to the
"successful" in order to survive. This would create authoritarian
social relationships and the domination of the few over the many via
"free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts (and others like
them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for reconstituting under
the heading of 'defence' all the functions of the State." [Peter
Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 297]
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and free
market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all schools of
abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance of
authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty." This is
due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker argued that the
state was marked by two things, aggression and "the assumption of
authority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for
the double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and
extension of its boundaries." [Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the
boss and landlord also has authority over a given area (the property in
question) and all within it (workers and tenants). The former control
the actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the same social
relationships as that created by the state, as it comes from the same
source (monopoly of power over a given area and those who use it).
Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance of
individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation of
social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in
nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [The Anarchist
Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the worker in
the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places the citizen to
the state, namely of one of domination and subjection. Similarly with
the tenant and the landlord.
Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects of
the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to break
strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this school of
so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of the police
force, hence for government, and the prime definition of anarchism is
no government." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 8] It is
partly for this reason social anarchists support social ownership as
the best means of protecting individual liberty.
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round" by
accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of Tucker's economic ideas),
the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require more than one
worker. This naturally complements their support for "occupancy and
use" for land, which would effectively abolish landlords. Only when the
people who use a resource own it can individual ownership not result in
hierarchical authority (i.e. statism/capitalism). This solution, as we
argue in section G, is the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to
accept. For example, we find Joseph Labadie writing to his son urging
him to get away from wage earning and "the dominion of others." [quoted
by Carlotta Abderson, All American Anarchist, p. 222] As Wm. Gary Kline
correctly points out, the US Individualist anarchists "expected a
society of largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity
of wealth between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104]
It is this vision of a self-employed society that ensures that their
ideas are truly anarchist.
Moreover, while the individualists attack "usury," they usually ignore
the problem of capital accumulation, which results in natural barriers
of entry into markets and so recreates usury in new forms (see section
C.4 "Why does the market become dominated by big business?"). Hence a
"free market" in banks, as advocated by Tucker and other Individualist
Anarchists, could result in a few big banks dominating, with a direct
economic interest in supporting capitalist rather than co-operative
investment (as they would ensure higher returns than co-operatives).
The only real solution to this problem would be to ensure community
ownership and management of banks, as originally desired by Proudhon.
It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist
economy which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism in
favour of communalising, and so decentralising, production by freely
associated and co-operative labour. (For more discussion on the ideas
of the Individualist anarchists, see section G - "Is individualist
anarchism capitalistic?")
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does
exist is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism.
Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism -- workers'
co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour via a system of
community banks. This mutual bank network would be "formed by the whole
community, not for the especial advantage of any individual or class,
but for the benefit of all . . . [with] no interest . . . exacted on
loans, except enough to cover risks and expenses." Such a system would
end capitalist exploitation and oppression for by "introducing
mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it everywhere, and
labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Charles
A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45 and p. 45]
The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the
individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the local
community (or commune) instead of being independent co-operatives. This
would ensure that they provided investment funds to co-operatives
rather than to capitalistic enterprises. Another difference is that
some social anarchist mutualists support the creation of what Proudhon
termed an "agro-industrial federation" to complement the federation of
libertarian communities (called communes by Proudhon). This is a
"confederation . . . intended to provide reciprocal security in
commerce and industry" and large scale developments such as roads,
railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal arrangements is to
protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist and
financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." This is
because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right."
Thus the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the
anarchist nature of society from the destabilising effects of market
exchanges (which can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so
power). Such a system would be a practical example of solidarity, as
"industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot
suffer without the others sharing in its suffering. They should
therefore federate, not to be absorbed and confused together, but in
order to guarantee mutually the conditions of common prosperity . . .
Making such an agreement will not detract from their liberty; it will
simply give their liberty more security and force." [The Principle of
Federation, p. 70, p. 67 and p. 72]
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom
is best served by communalising production and sharing information and
products freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms
of social anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by
federations of producers' associations and communes rather than
mutualism's system of individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the
"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom
upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in
their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a
great federation, international and universal" and "the land, the
instruments of work and all other capital may become the collective
property of the whole of society and be utilised only by the workers,
in other words by the agricultural and industrial associations."
[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206 and p. 174] Only by
extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual workplaces
can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see section I.1.3
for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial
confederations would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of
production which are the property of each of these groups and which
will by a reciprocal contract become the collective property of the
whole . . . federation. In this way, the federation of groups will be
able to . . . regulate the rate of production to meet the fluctuating
needs of society." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 376]
These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers'
self-management of production within co-operatives but see
confederations of these associations as being the focal point for
expressing mutual aid, not a market. Workplace autonomy and
self-management would be the basis of any federation, for "the workers
in the various factories have not the slightest intention of handing
over their hard-won control of the tools of production to a superior
power calling itself the 'corporation.'" [Guillaume, Op. Cit., p. 364]
In addition to this industry-wide federation, there would also be
cross-industry and community confederations to look after tasks which
are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any particular
industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this has
similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the
means of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and
reject the individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who
use them. The reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be
done, capitalism and statism could regain a foothold in the free
society. In addition, other social anarchists do not agree with the
mutualist idea that capitalism can be reformed into libertarian
socialism by introducing mutual banking. For them capitalism can only
be replaced by a free society by social revolution.
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists
consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be
the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a
state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in
common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of
retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise,
would be settled by each group for itself." [Anarchism, p. 295] Thus,
while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via
producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be
distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while
collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods
according to the labour contributed. However, most
anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases
and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both
agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested
by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to
each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this
will come about (see section I.2.2).
For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial
-- has more chances of being established than collectivism" after a
revolution. [Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism
are essential as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership
of the means of production and immediately reverses itself by returning
to the system of remuneration according to work performed which means
the re-introduction of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, What is
Anarchism?, p. 230] The quicker the move to communism, the less chances
of new inequalities developing. Needless to say, these positions are
not that different and, in practice, the necessities of a social
revolution and the level of political awareness of those introducing
anarchism will determine which system will be applied in each area.
worker carrying the boss around
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like other syndicalists, want to create an
industrial union movement based on anarchist ideas. Therefore they
advocate decentralised, federated unions that use direct action to get
reforms under capitalism until they are strong enough to overthrow it.
In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered as a new version of
collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the importance of
anarchists working within the labour movement and creating unions which
prefigure the future free society.
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
associations of free producers." They think that these associations
would serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very
seriously Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create
"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the
pre-revolutionary period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is,
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the
producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants,
and branches of industry are independent members of the general
economic organism and systematically carry on production and the
distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the
basis of free mutual agreements." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism,
p. 55]
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that building
libertarian unions is important and that work within the labour
movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge the
importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in
struggle, and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more
important than creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join
them. They also do not place as great an emphasis on the workplace,
considering struggles within it to be equal in importance to other
struggles against hierarchy and domination outside the workplace (most
anarcho-syndicalists would agree with this, however, and often it is
just a question of emphasis). A few communist-anarchists reject the
labour movement as hopelessly reformist in nature and so refuse to work
within it, but these are a small minority.
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations. They
think it is essential that anarchists work together as anarchists to
clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists often deny the
importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing that
revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the
fusion of anarchism and unionism a source of potential confusion that
would result in the two movements failing to do their respective work
correctly.
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally
anti-syndicalist. For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist
and anarcho-syndicalist ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin,
Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman were all sympathetic to
anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.
For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the works
of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's,
Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat
different, as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than
the work of a "famous" name (although this does not stop academics
calling George Sorel the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote
about a syndicalist movement that already existed. The idea that
working class people can develop their own ideas, by themselves, is
usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker is often considered a
leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the work's of Fernand
Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand
anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social
anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's
excellent anthology No Gods No Masters cannot be bettered.
A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis
is a common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes
back to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin
and Elisee Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a "secret
harmony exists between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and
when imprudent societies let themselves violate this harmony, they
always end up regretting it." Similarly, no contemporary ecologist
would disagree with his comments that the "truly civilised man [and
women] understands that his [or her] nature is bound up with the
interest of all and with that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage
caused by his predecessors and works to improve his domain." [quoted by
George Woodcock, "Introduction", Marie Fleming, The Geography of
Freedom, p. 15]
With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be
based on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and
brain work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and
agriculture (see his classic work Fields, Factories, and Workshops).
This idea of an economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title
of E.F. Schumacher's Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before
it was taken up by what was to become the green movement. In addition,
in Mutual Aid Kropotkin documented how co-operation within species and
between them and their environment is usually of more benefit to them
than competition. Kropotkin's work, combined with that of William
Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of whom, like Kropotkin, were
world-renowned geographers), and many others laid the foundations for
the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within
classical anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the
similarities between ecological thought and anarchism has come to the
fore (essentially from the publication of Murray Bookchin's classic
essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought" in 1965). Indeed, it would be
no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and work of Murray
Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at the heart of
anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects of the
green movement.
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called
eco-anarchism) it would be worthwhile to explain exactly what anarchism
and ecology have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the
ecologist and the anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and
"to both the ecologist and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is
achieved by growing differentiation. An expanding whole is created by
the diversification and enrichment of its parts." Moreover, "[j]ust as
the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an eco-system and promote
free interplay between species, so the anarchist seeks to expand the
range of social experiments and remove all fetters to its development."
[Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 72 and p. 78]
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation,
diversity and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and
concerns. Hierarchy, centralisation, the state and concentrations of
wealth reduce diversity and the free development of individuals and
their communities by their very nature, and so weakens the social
eco-system as well as the actual eco-systems human societies are part
of. As Bookchin argues, "the reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is
that] we must conserve and promote variety" but within modern
capitalist society "[a]ll that is spontaneous, creative and
individuated is circumscribed by the standardised, the regulated and
the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 76 and p. 65] So, in many ways, anarchism
can be considered the application of ecological ideas to society, as
anarchism aims to empower individuals and communities, decentralise
political, social and economic power so ensuring that individuals and
social life develops freely and so becomes increasingly diverse in
nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris argues that "the only
political tradition that complements and, as it were, integrally
connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic way -- is that of
anarchism." [Ecology and Anarchism, p. 132]
So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of
modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main
focal points, Social Ecology and "primitivist". In addition, some
anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology, although not many.
Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of
Murray Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the
1950's and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with
revolutionary social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity
Anarchism, Toward an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a
host of others.
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is
seen as a product of domination within society, but this domination
only reaches crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of
Murray Bookchin:
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges
directly from the domination of man by man. . . But it was not until
organic community relations. . . dissolved into market relationships
that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This
centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in
modern capitalism. Owing to its inherently competitive nature,
bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also pits
the mass of humanity against the natural world. Just as men are
converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is converted into
a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised wantonly .
. . The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is
paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital." [Op. Cit., p.
63]
"Only insofar," Bookchin stresses, "as the ecology consciously
cultivates an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility,
structure, and strategy for social change can it retain its very
identity as the voice for a new balance between humanity and nature and
its goal for a truly ecological society." Social ecologists contrast
this to what Bookchin labels "environmentalism" for while social
ecology "seeks to eliminate the concept of the domination of nature by
humanity by eliminating domination of human by human, environmentalism
reflects an 'instrumentalist' or technical sensibility in which nature
is viewed merely as a passive habit, an agglomeration of external
objects and forces, that must be made more 'serviceable' for human use,
irrespective of what these uses may be. Environmentalism . . . does not
bring into question the underlying notions of the present society,
notably that man must dominate nature. On the contrary, it seeks to
facilitate that domination by developing techniques for diminishing the
hazards caused by domination." [Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological
Society, p. 77]
Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
one which "involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
-- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
beings." Such an ecotopia "establish entirely new eco-communities that
are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."
Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that "[s]uch an eco-community . . .
would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by
fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
rotation or diversification of vocational tasks." This society would be
based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a "new kind of
technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . .
. Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities
of nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature
differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
wastes that could be recycled." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 68-9]
However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society
"is more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium
that exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple
technical or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's
function degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads
them to purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological
problems. Social ecology is, first of all, a sensibility that includes
not only a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive
outlook . . . guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without
structuring differences into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts
for such an ethics . . . [are] participation and differentiation." [The
Modern Crisis, pp. 24-5]
Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of
ecological problems. This is one of the key areas in which they
disagree with "Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more
critical of all aspects of modern life, with some going so far as
calling for "the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms
of technology and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in
section A.3.9.
We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing with
its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social
Ecologists see this as a means of creating popular self-managing
assemblies and creating a counter power to the state, few anarchists
agree. Rather they see it as inherently reformist as well as being
hopelessly naive about the possibilities of using elections to bring
about social change (see section J.5.14 for a fuller discussion of
this). Instead they propose direct action as the means to forward
anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering as a dead-end
which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting the people
involved (see section J.2 -- What is Direct Action?).
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric
nature, many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists
who think that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological
crisis, which many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin,
for example, has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep
ecology and the anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see
Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, for example). David Watson has
also argued against Deep Ecology (see his How Deep is Deep Ecology?
written under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue
that it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and
that only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an
authoritarian streak in a crude biologism that uses 'natural law' to
conceal an ever-diminishing sense of humanity and papers over a
profound ignorance of social reality by ignoring the fact it is
capitalism we are talking about, not an abstraction called 'Humanity'
and 'Society.'" [The Philosophy of Social Ecology, p. 160]
Thus, as Morris stresses, "by focusing entirely on the category of
'humanity' the Deep Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social
origins of ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are
essentially social problems." To submerge ecological critique and
analysis into a simplistic protest against the human race ignores the
real causes and dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore,
ensures an end to this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is
hardly "people" who are to blame when the vast majority have no real
say in the decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries
and eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that
places profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on
"Humanity" (and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men
and women, whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited,
oppressors and oppressed) the system we live under is effectively
ignored, and so are the institutional causes of ecological problems.
This can be "both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications,
and substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study
of real social issues and concerns." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 135]
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their
spokes-persons ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the
anti-human ideas associated with their movement. Deep ecology,
particularly the organisation Earth First! (EF!), has changed
considerably over time, and EF! now has a close working relationship
with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a syndicalist union.
While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it shares many
ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects its
few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book Defending the Earth).
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy being
one of its major figures. This strand is usually called
"anarcho-pacifism" (the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes used,
but this term is unfortunate because it implies the rest of the
movement are "violent," which is not the case!). The union of anarchism
and pacifism is not surprising given the fundamental ideals and
arguments of anarchism. After all, violence, or the threat of violence
or harm, is a key means by which individual freedom is destroyed. As
Peter Marshall points out, "[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the
sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is non-violence and
not violence which is implied by anarchist values." [Demanding the
Impossible, p.637] Malatesta is even more explicit when he wrote that
the "main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human
relations" and that anarchists "are opposed to violence." [Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim
pacifism, the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in
the sense of opposed all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is
anti-militarist, being against the organised violence of the state but
recognising that there are important differences between the violence
of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed. This explains why
the anarchist movement has always placed a lot of time and energy in
opposing the military machine and capitalist wars while, at the same
time, supporting and organising armed resistance against oppression (as
in the case of the Makhnovist army during the Russian Revolution which
resisted both Red and White armies and the militias the anarchists
organised to resist the fascists during the Spanish Revolution -- see
sections A.5.4 and A.5.6, respectively).
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist
anarchists support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do
the Mutualists. However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as
such, as many support the idea of violence in self-defence against
aggression. Most social anarchists, on the other hand, do support the
use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical force will be
required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state and
capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist, Bart de
Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence). As
Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is
"justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others
from violence" and that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate
defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, against the
oppressor, is always morally justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp.
53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use the words of Bakunin, since
social oppression "stems far less from individuals than from the
organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim to
"ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the
aim of an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes
"not as individuals, but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman,
The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and
p. 122]
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most
anarchists, as they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept
to a minimum during any social struggle or revolution. All anarchists
would agree with the Dutch pacifist anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt
when he argued that "the violence and warfare which are characteristic
conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the liberation of the
individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited classes. The
greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where violence
has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." [The
Conquest of Violence, p. 75]
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name
of one of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism."
For de Ligt, and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist
system and any attempt to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to
failure. This is because, on the one hand, war is often just economic
competition carried out by other means. Nations often go to war when
they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in economic
struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, "violence
is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling
class would be completely unable to maintain its privileged position
with regard to the exploited masses in each country. The army is used
first and foremost to hold down the workers. . . when they become
discontented." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit., p. 62] As long as the state and
capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so, for anarcho-pacifists,
the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the consistent
anarchist must be a pacifist.
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an
unavoidable and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as
well as the only means by which the privileged classes will renounce
their power and wealth. Those in authority rarely give up their power
and so must be forced. Hence the need for "transitional" violence "to
put an end to the far greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the
majority of mankind in servitude." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To
concentrate on the issue of violence versus non-violence is to ignore
the real issue, namely how do we change society for the better. As
Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists who are pacifists
confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same as if rolling up
your sleeves for work should be considered the work itself." To the
contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely rolling up your
sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [What is Anarchism?, p. 183]
And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions start relatively
peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and only degenerate into
violence when those in power try to maintain their position (a classic
example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the occupation of factories
by their workers was followed by fascist terror -- see section A.5.5).
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the
military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as
statist/capitalist wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker
and Sam Dolgoff, supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the
second world war as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of
anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the
start of the first world war, with syndicalists and anarchists in
Britain and North America reprinting a French CGT leaflet urging
soldiers not to follow orders and repress their striking fellow
workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both arrested and
deported from America for organising a "No-Conscription League" in 1917
while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the
armed forces in the first and second world wars. The
anarcho-syndicalist influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of
government repression due to the threat its organising and anti-war
message presented to the powerful elites who favoured war. More
recently, anarchists, (including people like Noam Chomsky and Paul
Goodman) have been active in the peace movement as well as contributing
to the resistance to conscription where it still exists. Anarchists
took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War, the
Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in
Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest against it).
And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the
slogan "No war but the class war" which nicely sums up the anarchist
opposition to war -- namely an evil consequence of any class system, in
which the oppressed classes of different countries kill each other for
the power and profits of their rulers. Rather than take part in this
organised slaughter, anarchists urge working people to fight for their
own interests, not those of their masters:
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the
chasm between capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled;
preach expropriation of private property and the destruction of states
such as the only means of guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and
Justice and Liberty for all; and we must prepare to accomplish these
things." [Malatesta,Op. Cit., p. 251]
We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected
everything he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the
First World War as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and
Imperialism. Of course, as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and
all capitalist classes" do "misdeeds . . . against the workers and
rebels of their own countries." [Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with
Berkman, Goldman and a host of other anarchists, put their name to
International Anarchist Manifesto against the First World War. It
expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist movement (at the
time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is worth quoting
from:
"The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests
solely in the existence of the State, which is the form of privilege .
. . Whatever the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised
oppression for the advantage of a privileged minority . . .
"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply
attached to peace, is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their
confidence in the State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy,
and in political parties . . . This confidence has been deliberately
betrayed, and continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the
whole of the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a
war of liberation.
"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples,
and . . . have been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed
to war.
"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to
proclaim that there is only one war of liberation: that which in all
countries is waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the
exploited against the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to
revolt against their masters.
"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously
and perseveringly aim at weakening and dissolving the various States,
at cultivating the spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples
and armies. . .
"We must take advantage of all the movements of
revolt, of all the discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to
organise the revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs.
. . Social justice realised through the free organisation of producers:
war and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won, by
the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."
["International Anarchist Manifesto on the War," Anarchy! An Anthology
of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 386-8]
Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist
principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he
argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this
reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as
possible." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists
who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they
argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people
and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement
and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support
non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide
better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept
the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its
use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will
just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is
not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist
violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most
reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the
minimum.
A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a
strong voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more
recent feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon
anarchist practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from,
referring to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and
anarchist movements to remind them of their principles.
The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have
always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been
anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of A
Vindication of the Rights of Woman), the Communard Louise Michel, and
the American anarchists Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays "The Traffic in
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation",
"Marriage and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). Freedom,
the world's oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson
in 1886. Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played
important roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The
"Mujeres Libres" ("Free Women") movement in Spain during the Spanish
revolution is a classic example of women anarchists organising
themselves to defend their basic freedoms and create a society based on
women's freedom and equality (see Free Women of Spain by Martha
Ackelsberg for more details on this important organisation). In
addition, all the male major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were
firm supporters of women's equality. For example, Bakunin opposed
patriarchy and how the law "subjects [women] to the absolute domination
of the man." He argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to men and
women" so that women can "become independent and be free to forge their
own way of life." He looked forward to the end of "the authoritarian
juridical family" and "the full sexual freedom of women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, p. 396 and p. 397]
Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of
patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria
Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it, women
"will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the legislator
who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces you to an
object is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is a man; that the
capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid work and the
speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body, are men." Little
has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists and, to quote the
anarchist paper La Questione Sociale, it is still usually the case that
women "are slaves both in social and private life. If you are a
proletarian, you have two tyrants: the man and the boss. If bourgeois,
the only sovereignty left to you is that of frivolity and coquetry."
[quoted by Jose Moya, Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement,
pp. 197-8 and p. 200]
Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy
is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. To quote
Louise Michel:
"The first thing that must change is the
relationship between the sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women,
and we ought to be walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism,
and it will last as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its
controls, the 'weaker' half." [The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise
Michel, p. 139]
Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's
equality. Both share much common history and a concern about individual
freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female sex (although,
as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have always been
very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going far enough).
Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism of the
sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No
accident, either." ["The Tyranny of Tyranny," Quiet Rumours: An
Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist
scholars have noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical
society, which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and
ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn French
argues (in Beyond Power) that the first major social stratification of
the human race occurred when men began dominating women, with women
becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social class.
The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both ideas and
action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes that her
"discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian and patriarchal
basis] owes something to" libertarian ideas, that is the "anarchist
wing of the socialist movement." [The Sexual Contract, p. 14] Moreover,
she noted in the 1980s how the "major locus of criticism of
authoritarian, hierarchical, undemocratic forms of organisation for the
last twenty years has been the women's movement . . . After Marx
defeated Bakunin in the First International, the prevailing form of
organisation in the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in
the left sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The
women's movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged
idea [of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments
in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social
organisation." [The Disorder of Women, p. 201]
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical
feminist perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic
theory postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian
systems. The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to
god, is to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate
from childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton,
incapable of questioning or even of thinking clearly." ["Anarchism: The
Feminist Connection," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 26]
Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists
in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing
it." ["Anarchism/Feminism," pp. 3-7, The Raven, no. 21, p. 6] Organize
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values, for
example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations
and are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast,
non-authoritarian traits and values such as co-operation, sharing,
compassion, sensitivity, warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as
"feminine" and are devalued. Feminist scholars have traced this
phenomenon back to the growth of patriarchal societies during the early
Bronze Age and their conquest of co-operatively based "organic"
societies in which "feminine" traits and values were prevalent and
respected. Following these conquests, however, such values came to be
regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since men were in charge
of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See e.g. Riane
Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade; Elise Boulding, The Underside of
History). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the creation of a
non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation, sharing,
mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be
achieved without both self-management and decentralisation. This is
because the patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish
to overthrow are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism
implies decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many
feminists have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with
collective forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical
structure and competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have
even argued that directly democratic organisations are specifically
female political forms [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and
the Development of Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed.,
Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, pp. 56-77].
Like all anarchists, anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation
is the key to women's equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:
"Her development, her freedom, her independence,
must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a
personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right
of anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants
them, by refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the
husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and
richer. That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life
in all its complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public
opinion and public condemnation." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 211]
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the
so-called "management science" which women have to learn in order to
become mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of
techniques for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate
hierarchies, whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of
capitalist wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether.
Anarcha-feminists realise that learning how to become an effective
exploiter or oppressor is not the path to equality (as one member of
the Mujeres Libres put it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist
hierarchy for a masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free
Women of Spain. p. 2] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further
discussion on patriarchy and hierarchy).
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's "only
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege" and if
these institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they
will still be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by
Martha A. Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., pp. 90-91 and p. 91] Thus, for
anarchists, women's freedom did not mean an equal chance to become a
boss or a wage slave, a voter or a politician, but rather to be a free
and equal individual co-operating as equals in free associations.
"Feminism," stressed Peggy Kornegger, "doesn't mean female corporate
power or a women President; it means no corporate power and no
Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it
only gives women the 'right' to plug into a hierarchical economy.
Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy -- economic,
political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist
revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 27]
Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis which
is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time, showing an
awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations which eluded the
mainstream socialist movement. This flows from our hatred of hierarchy.
As Mozzoni put it, "Anarchy defends the cause of all the oppressed, and
because of this, and in a special way, it defends your [women's] cause,
oh! women, doubly oppressed by present society in both the social and
private spheres." [quoted by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 203] This means that,
to quote a Chinese anarchist, what anarchists "mean by equality between
the sexes is not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We
also want men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no
longer to be oppressed by other women." Thus women should "completely
overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special privileges
and become equal to women, and make a world with neither the oppression
of women nor the oppression of men." [He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow,
Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, p. 147]
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle could
not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist project as a
whole." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Anarcha-feminism continues this tradition by
arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong, not just patriarchy, and
that feminism is in conflict with its own ideals if it desires simply
to allow women to have the same chance of being a boss as a man does.
They simply state the obvious, namely that they "do not believe that
power in the hands of women could possibly lead to a non-coercive
society" nor do they "believe that anything good can come out of a mass
movement with a leadership elite." The "central issues are always power
and social hierarchy" and so people "are free only when they have power
over their own lives." [Carole Ehrlich, "Socialism, Anarchism and
Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 44] For if, as
Louise Michel put it, "a proletarian is a slave; the wife of a
proletarian is even more a slave" ensuring that the wife experiences an
equal level of oppression as the husband misses the point. [Op. Cit.,
p. 141]
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism as
a denial of liberty. The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
separated from the struggle against hierarchy as such. As L. Susan
Brown puts it:
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the
anarchist sensibility applied to feminist concerns, takes the
individual as its starting point and, in opposition to relations of
domination and subordination, argues for non-instrumental economic
forms that preserve individual existential freedom, for both men and
women." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 144]
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of the
origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
for example, Caroline Merchant, The Death of Nature, 1980). Both women
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of
both radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies
must be dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not only
external constraints but also internal ones.
This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we preach.
Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual equality,
women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the Mujeres Libres
organisation to combat it. They did not believe in leaving their
liberation to some day after the revolution. Their liberation was a
integral part of that revolution and had to be started today. In this
they repeated the conclusions of anarchist women in Illinois Coal towns
who grew tried of hearing their male comrades "shout in favour" of
sexual equality "in the future society" while doing nothing about it in
the here and now. They used a particularly insulting analogy, comparing
their male comrades to priests who "make false promises to the starving
masses . . . [that] there will be rewards in paradise." The argued that
mothers should make their daughters "understand that the difference in
sex does not imply inequality in rights" and that as well as being
"rebels against the social system of today," they "should fight
especially against the oppression of men who would like to retain women
as their moral and material inferior." [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by
Caroline Waldron Merithew, Anarchist Motherhood, p. 227] They formed
the "Luisa Michel" group to fight against capitalism and patriarchy in
the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three decades before their
Spanish comrades organised themselves.
For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle
for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the
rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against
capitalism which would somehow be automatically solved after the
revolution. It is an essential part of the struggle:
"We do not need any of your titles . . . We want
none of them. What we do want is knowledge and education and liberty.
We know what our rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing
next to you fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men,
to make part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women?
And then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."
[Louise Michel, Op. Cit., p. 142]
A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
evil for "the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death
doth part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty
of the man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and
commands." Women are reduced "to the function of man's servant and
bearer of his children." [Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 220-1] Instead of
this, anarchists proposed proposed "free love," that is couples and
families based on free agreement between equals than one partner being
in authority and the other simply obeying.. Such unions would be
without sanction of church or state for "two beings who love each other
do not need permission from a third to go to bed." [Mozzoni, quoted by
Moya, Op. Cit., p. 200]
Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. Neither men
nor state should say what a women does with her body. This means that a
women should control her own body and, of course, also means control
over her own reproductive organs. Thus anarcha-feminists, like
anarchists in general, are pro-choice and pro-reproductive rights (i.e.
the right of a women to control her own reproductive decisions). This
is a long standing position. Emma Goldman was persecuted and
incarcerated because of her public advocacy of birth control methods
and the extremist notion that women should decide when they become
pregnant (as feminist writer Margaret Anderson put it, "In 1916, Emma
Goldman was sent to prison for advocating that 'women need not always
keep their mouth shut and their wombs open.'").
Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it
aims at changing all aspects of society not just what happens in the
home. For, as Goldman asked, "how much independence is gained if the
narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the
narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department
store, or office?" Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought
everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they be
achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is only
possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's
self-activity and self-liberation for while the "right to vote, or
equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins
neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . .
her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches."
[Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 216 and p. 224]
The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has come
from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise Michel put it,
"[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without begging anyone, we are
taking our place in the struggles; otherwise, we could go ahead and
pass motions until the world ends and gain nothing." [Op. Cit., p. 139]
If women waited for others to act for them their social position would
never have changed. This includes getting the vote in the first place.
Faced with the militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British
anarchist Rose Witcop recognised that it was "true that this movement
shows us that women who so far have been so submissive to their
masters, the men, are beginning to wake up at last to the fact they are
not inferior to those masters." Yet she argued that women would not be
freed by votes but "by their own strength." [quoted by Sheila
Rowbotham, Hidden from History, pp. 100-1 and p. 101] The women's
movement of the 1960s and 1970s showed the truth of that analysis. In
spite of equal voting rights, women's social place had remained
unchanged since the 1920s.
Ultimately, as Anarchist Lily Gair Wilkinson stressed, the "call for
'votes' can never be a call to freedom. For what is it to vote? To vote
is to register assent to being ruled by one legislator or another?"
[quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, Op. Cit., p. 102] It does not get to the
heart of the problem, namely hierarchy and the authoritarian social
relationships it creates of which patriarchy is only a subset of. Only
by getting rid of all bosses, political, economic, social and sexual
can genuine freedom for women be achieved and "make it possible for
women to be human in the truest sense. Everything within her that
craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest expression; all
artificial barriers should be broken, and the road towards greater
freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of submission and slavery."
[Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 214]
A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society
traditionally regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather
than "economics" or "politics" -- for example, through art, music,
drama, literature, education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality,
technology, and so forth.
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they
deliberately attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most
traditional cultural forms to promote authoritarian values and
attitudes, particularly domination and exploitation. Thus a novel that
portrays the evils of militarism can be considered as cultural
anarchism if it goes beyond the simple "war-is-hell" model and allows
the reader to see how militarism is connected with authoritarian
institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or methods of authoritarian
conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional patriarchal family).
Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism implies "the
development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that expose
various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with a
system of values based on freedom and community." This "cultural
struggle" would be part of a general struggle "to combat the material
and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic,
political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional
practice of liberation." In other words, an "expanded conception of
class analysis" and "an amplified practice of class struggle" which
includes, but is not limited to, "economic actions like strikes,
boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action
groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and development
of workers' assemblies, collectives and co-operatives" and "political
activity" like the "active interference with implementation of
repressive governmental policies," the "non-compliance and resistance
against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society" and
"participation in movements for increasing direct participation in
decision-making and local control." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 31]
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political
revolution if there it is not also accompanied by profound
psychological changes in the majority of the population. For mass
acquiescence in the current system is rooted in the psychic structure
of human beings (their "character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's
expression), which is produced by many forms of conditioning and
socialisation that have developed with patriarchal-authoritarian
civilisation during the past five or six thousand years.
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their
place. For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to
give orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for
oneself -- are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most
comfortable with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real
freedom, and indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a
long string of failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the
revolutionary ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed
and a new hierarchy and ruling class were quickly created. These
failures are generally attributed to the machinations of reactionary
politicians and capitalists, and to the perfidy of revolutionary
leaders; but reactionary politicians only attract followers because
they find a favourable soil for the growth of their authoritarian
ideals in the character structure of ordinary people.
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be
mitigated or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new
child-rearing and educational methods. We will explore this issue more
fully in section B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis for
authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 (What methods of child rearing do
anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13 (What are Modern Schools?)
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist
thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of
any anarchist movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new
world in the shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating
an anarchist culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however,
consider consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine
cultural anarchist activities with organising, using direct action and
building libertarian alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist
movement is one that combines practical self-activity with cultural
work, with both activities feeding into and supporting the other.
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and that
this is the only 'political anti-political' position in accord with
Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the
Impossible, p. 75]
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious
ideas. As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an
anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient
China from about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in
its Zen form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit.,
p. 53 and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk,
combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist influences.
However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of Christian
Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers that
"kings and governors have domination over men; let there be none like
that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there "is no authority
except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion with the denial of state
authority within society. Thus, for a true Christian, the state is
usurping God's authority and it is up to each individual to govern
themselves and discover that (to use the title of Tolstoy's famous
book) The Kingdom of God is within you.
Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the world was
created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all been taken as the
basis of a socialistic critique of private property and capitalism.
Indeed, the early Christian church (which could be considered as a
liberation movement of slaves, although one that was later co-opted
into a state religion) was based upon communistic sharing of material
goods, a theme which has continually appeared within radical Christian
movements (indeed, the Bible would have been used to express radical
libertarian aspirations of the oppressed, which, in later times, would
have taken the form of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus
clergyman's John Ball's egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter
Marshall [Op. Cit., p. 89]) during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in
England:
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then a gentleman?"
The history of Christian anarchism includes the Heresy of the Free
Spirit in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the Anabaptists
in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within Christianity
surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of William Blake and
the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions in his Practical
Christian Socialism in 1854. However, Christian anarchism became a
clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement with the work of the
famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of the
Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
"ruling means using force, and using force means
doing to him whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who
uses force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently
ruling means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us,
that is, doing wrong." [The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 242]
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society
self-organised from below:
"Why think that non-official people could not
arrange their life for themselves, as well as Government people can
arrange it nor for themselves but for others?" [The Anarchist Reader,
p. 306]
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy is
that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of
solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within ourselves,
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised in our
own behaviour." [A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 251-2]
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon, had
a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land, arguing
that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and its
consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such narrow
spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there is still so
much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for landed property]
it is not those who work in the land, but always those who take part in
government violence, who have the advantage." [Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus
Tolstoy recognised that property rights in anything beyond use require
state violence to protect them (possession is "always protected by
custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and
they do not need to be protected by violence." [Ibid.]). Indeed, he
argues that:
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands
belonging to one proprietor -- while thousands of people close by have
no fuel -- need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works
where several generations of workmen have been defrauded and are still
being defrauded. Yet more do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of
grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back to sell at triple
price in time of famine." [Op. Cit., p. 307]
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined
individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it
impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer
is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers,
and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and
therefore, "he must first give up ruining human lives for his own
profit." [The Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339]
Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social
activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a
party of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op.
Cit., p. 378]
>From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within
society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted . .
. resistance to evil; and to one of the ways of resistance - by active
force - he added another way: resistance through disobedience, the
passive force." [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his ideas of a free society,
Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural Russian life and the works of
Peter Kropotkin (such as Fields, Factories and Workshops), P-J Proudhon
and the non-anarchist Henry George.
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain out
of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation of
peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a free
society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). The
Catholic Worker Group in the United States was also heavily influenced
by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch Christian
pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy
and religious anarchism in general can also be found in Liberation
Theology movements in Latin and South America who combine Christian
ideas with social activism amongst the working class and peasantry
(although we should note that Liberation Theology is more generally
inspired by state socialist ideas rather than anarchist ones).
So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws anarchist
conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in section A.2.20, most
anarchists disagree, arguing that anarchism implies atheism and it is
no coincidence that the biblical thought has, historically, been
associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly rulers. Thus the vast
majority of anarchists have been and are atheists, for "to worship or
revere any being, natural or supernatural, will always be a form of
self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise to social
domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human beings fall on
their knees before anything that is 'higher' than themselves, hierarchy
will have made its first triumph over freedom.'" [Brian Morris, Ecology
and Anarchism, p. 137] This means that most anarchists agree with
Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom
and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible says, few anarchists
think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas rather than support
authoritarian ones.
Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for
advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist
reconcile this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality,
or adherence to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at
all. If the Bible is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the
more extreme positions it takes while claiming to believe in God, his
authority and his laws?
For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working on the
Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have been
happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in
spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death ("Six days shall
work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day,
a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be
put to death." Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such
a punishment for breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a
woman to be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night
would, rightly, be considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate
specified in the "good book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital
sex by women be considered a capital crime by a Christian anarchist?
Or, for that matter, should "a stubborn and rebellious son, which will
not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother" also
suffer the fate of having "all the men of his city . . . stone him with
stones, that he die"? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Or what of the Bible's
treatment of women: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands."
(Colossians 3:18) They are also ordered to "keep silence in the
churches." (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly stated: "I
would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head
of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians
11:3)
Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as
non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the
Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for
themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty
a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy
to ignore Jesus' admonition that "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the
Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for
that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to "Give to
every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods
ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they
hold "all things common" as practised by the first Christian believers.
(Acts 4:32) So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as
ignoring the teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be
said of them by those they attack.
Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to
reconcile with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice
far more than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches
hold de facto political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South
America, in nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth,
typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has
the power to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role
of the Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.
In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as
dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to
resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with
Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as a
key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance of
non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that few
anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence, when no
other option is available).
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without
adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form of
anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as
communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, . . .
[it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
coexistence of different anarchist schools." [Anarchist Ideology and
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898, p. 135]
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain who
at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of their two
theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt to show greater
tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists
should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone -- even in
theory. Thus the economic preferences of anarchists should be of
"secondary importance" to abolishing capitalism and the state, with
free experimentation the one rule of a free society.
Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives"
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New
Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see
their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as
Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist
Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo
Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as
the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major
issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella
this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and
tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the
Communist Anarchists stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist
militants, generally opposed trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not
one of these as he saw the importance of militant workers
organisations) as well as being somewhat anti-organisation as well.
Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot
of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported
working class organisation and struggle.
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many
anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right
for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses."
[quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over
time, most anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot
foresee the economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and
so started to stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism
and the state) rather than the different visions of how a free society
would operate. As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that
ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the
working class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their
commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than
later, after a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work
together as there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools,
in our eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to
variation in time and place, of the society of the future, which is too
remote from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and
possible combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and
the individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation
of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at
this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them."
[Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]
Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between
anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of
qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no matter
the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being, which will
make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just as legal slavery
and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this happens then,
"whatever the specific forms of society may turn out to be, the basis
of social organisation will be communist." As long as we "hold to
fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to instil them in the
masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or trifles but give
post-revolutionary society a direction towards justice, equality and
liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173 and p. 174]
Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There
Benjamin Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not
anarchists while John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's
ideas. Just as people like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of
tolerance between anarchist groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de
Cleyre "came to label herself simply 'Anarchist,' and called like
Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without Adjectives,' since in the absence
of government many different experiments would probably be tried in
various localities in order to determine the most appropriate form."
[Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 393] In her own words, a
whole range of economic systems would be "advantageously tried in
different localities. I would see the instincts and habits of the
people express themselves in a free choice in every community; and I am
sure that distinct environments would call out distinct adaptations."
Ultimately, only "[l]iberty and experiment alone can determine the best
forms of society" and therefore "I no longer label myself otherwise
than 'Anarchist' simply." [quoted by Paul Avrich, An American
Anarchist, pp. 153-4]
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
adjectives" (see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism, pages 195 to
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types of
anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are flawed.
However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism
(communism, syndicalism, religious etc) are not mutually exclusive and
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance is
reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue that
their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist movement.
Afterall, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid of the state,
economics is of secondary importance. However, such a use of "anarchism
without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly agreed at the time that
the types of economics that were being discussed were anti-capitalist
(i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta, for example, there were "anarchists
who foresee and propose other solution, other future forms of social
organisation" than communist anarchism, but they "desire, just as we
do, to destroy political power and private property." "Let us do away,"
he argued, "with all exclusivism of schools of thinking" and let us
"come to an understanding on ways and means, and go forwards." [quoted
by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 175] In other words, it was agreed that
capitalism had to be abolished along with the state and once this was
the case free experimentation would develop. Thus the struggle against
the state was just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and
exploitation and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As
"anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the abolition of capitalism along
with the state they are not anarchists and so "anarchism without
adjectives" does not apply to the so-called "anarchist" capitalists
(see section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist).
This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist
communities would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted
to form such a system then they could, just as we would expect a
community which supported state socialism or theocracy to live under
that regime. Such enclaves of hierarchy would exist simply because it
is unlikely that everyone on the planet, or even in a given
geographical area, will become anarchists all at the same time. The key
thing to remember is that no such system would be anarchist and,
consequently, is not "anarchism without adjectives."
A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?
As discussed in section A.3.3, most anarchists would agree with
Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that "in a liberated world computers
and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate dangerous or
boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more interesting
activities." Obviously "[c]ertain technologies -- nuclear power is the
most obvious example -- are indeed so insanely dangerous that they will
no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other industries which
produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities will, of course,
cease automatically with the disappearance of their commercial
rationales. But many technologies . . ., however they may presently be
misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. It's simply a matter of
using them more sensibly, bringing them under popular control,
introducing a few ecological improvements, and redesigning them for
human rather than capitalistic ends." [Public Secrets, p. 79 and p. 80]
Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of appropriate technology as the
means of creating a society which lives in balance with nature.
However, a (very) small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green
anarchists disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and David
Watson have expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, aims to
critique every form of power and oppression. This is often called
"anarcho-primitivism," which according to Moore, is simply "a shorthand
term for a radical current that critiques the totality of civilisation
from an anarchist perspective, and seeks to initiate a comprehensive
transformation of human life." [Primitivist Primer]
How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme
elements seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of
labour, domestication, "Progress", industrialism, what they call "mass
society" and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, language,
time and art). They tend to call any system which includes these
features "civilisation" and, consequently, aim for "the destruction of
civilisation". How far back they wish to go is a moot point. Some see
the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution
as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all forms of
technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild, to a
hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist and
dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used to
create an anarchist society based on industrial production which
minimises its impact on ecosystems.
Thus we find the primitivist magazine "Green Anarchy" arguing that
those, like themselves, "who prioritise the values of personal autonomy
or wild existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale
organisations and societies on the grounds that they necessitate
imperialism, slavery and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may
be designed for." They oppose capitalism as it is "civilisation's
current dominant manifestation." However, they stress that it is
"Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was the genesis of systemic
authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social isolation. Hence, an
attack upon capitalism that fails to target civilisation can never
abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels society. To attempt
to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising it is to fail
to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a direction and
form that is independent of its members' intentions." Thus, they argue,
genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for
"[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the
mechanisation of life are all required for the administration and
process of mass production to occur." For primitivists, "[o]nly small
communities of self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other
beings, human or not, without imposing their authority upon them." Such
communities would share essential features with tribal societies,
"[f]or over 99% of human history, humans lived within small and
egalitarian extended family arrangements, while drawing their
subsistence directly from the land." [Against Mass Society]
While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and
had little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists
look (to use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the
"Future Primitive." As John Moore puts it, "the future envisioned by
anarcho-primitivism . . . is without precedent. Although primitive
cultures provide intimations of the future, and that future may well
incorporate elements derived from those cultures, an
anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite different from previous
forms of anarchy." [Op. Cit.]
For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed
alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure,
minus its worse excesses. Hence John Moore's comment that "classical
anarchism" wants "to take over civilisation, rework its structures to
some degree, and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99%
of life in civilisation remains unchanged in their future scenarios,
precisely because the aspects of civilisation they question are minimal
. . . overall life patterns wouldn't change too much." Thus "[f]rom the
perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism
appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as
revolutionary." [Op. Cit.]
In reply, "classical anarchists" point out three things. Firstly, to
claim that the "worst abuses and oppressions" account for 1% of
capitalist society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an
apologist of that system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is
obvious from reading any "classical" anarchist text that Moore's
assertions are nonsense. "Classical" anarchism aims to transform
society radically from top to bottom, not tinker with minor aspects of
it. Do primitivists really think that people who went to the effort to
abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the same things
they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not enough
to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!
Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore's argument ensures that his vision
of a good society would never be achieved without genocide on an
unimaginable scale.
So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the
traditional anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are
simply incompatible, with the ideas of the latter dismissed as
authoritarian by the former. Unsurprisingly, the ideas of primitivism
and other anarchists are hard to reconcile. Equally unsurprisingly,
other anarchists question whether primitivism is practical in the short
term or even desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism
like to portray it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism,
other anarchists are less convinced. They consider it as a confused
ideology which draws its followers into absurd positions and, moreover,
is utterly impractical. They would agree with Ken Knabb comments that
primitivism is rooted in "fantasies [which] contain so many obvious
self-contradictions that it is hardly necessary to criticise them in
any detail. They have questionable relevance to actual past societies
and virtually no relevance to present possibilities. Even supposing
that life was better in one or another previous era, we have to begin
from where we are now. Modern technology is so interwoven with all
aspects of our life that it could not be abruptly discontinued without
causing a global chaos that would wipe out billions of people." [Op.
Cit., p. 79]
The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised
and interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills
required to life in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society.
Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that six billion people could
survive as hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As
Brian Morris notes, "[t]he future we are told is 'primitive.' How this
is to be achieved in a world that presently sustains almost six billion
people (for evidence suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is
only able to support 1 or 2 people per sq. mile)" primitivists like
Zerzan do not tell us. ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41,
Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]
This means that any "primitivist" rebellion has two options. Either it
produces a near instant transformation into a primitivist system and,
as a consequence, kills billions of people by hunger as well as causing
extensive ecological destruction or it involves a lengthy transition
period during which "civilisation" and its industrial legacies are
decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to an
appropriate level and people regain the necessary skills required for
their new existence.
Sadly, option one, namely an almost overnight transformation, is what
appears to be implied by most primitivist writers. Moore, for example,
talks about "when civilisation collapses" ("through its own volition,
through our efforts, or a combination of the two"). This implies an
extremely speedy process, over which mere mortals have little say or
control. This is confirmed when he talks about the need for "positive
alternatives" to be built now as "the social disruption caused by
collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and social
vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships could
flourish." [Op. Cit.] A revolution based on "collapse," "insecurity"
and "social disruption" does not sound like a recipe for a successful
social revolution based on mass participation and social
experimentation.
Then there is the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism.
Moore is typical, asserting that "[o]rganisations, for
anarcho-primitivists, are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular
ideology in power" and reiterates the point by saying primitivists
stand for "the abolition of all power relations, including the State .
. . and any kind of party or organisation." [Op. Cit.] Yet without
organisation, no modern society could function. There would be a total
and instant collapse which would see not only mass starvation but also
ecological destruction as nuclear power stations meltdown, industrial
waste seeps into the surrounding environment, cities and towns decay
and hordes of starving people fighting over what vegetables, fruits and
animals they could find in the countryside. Clearly an
anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea of a near
overnight "collapse" of civilisation, not with a steady progress
towards a long term goal. Equally, how many "positive alternatives"
could exist without organisation?
Faced with the horrors that such a "collapse" would entail, those few
primitivists who have thought the issue through end up accepting the
need for a transition period. However, to do so exposes the
contradictions within primitivism. For if you accept that there is a
need for a transition from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism
automatically excludes itself from the anarchist tradition. The reason
is simple. Moore asserts that "mass society" involves "people working,
living in artificial, technologised environments, and [being] subject
to forms of coercion and control." [Op. Cit.] If this is true then any
primitivist transition would, by definition, not be libertarian. For it
is an obvious fact that the human population size cannot be reduced
significantly by voluntary means in a short period of time. This means
that agriculture and most industries will have to continue for some
time. Similarly with large cities and towns as an instant and general
exodus from the cities would be impossible. Then there is the legacy of
industrial society which simply cannot be left to decay on its own. To
take just one obvious example, leaving nuclear power plants to melt
down would hardly be eco-friendly. Moreover, it is doubtful that the
ruling elite will just surrender its power without resistance and,
consequently, any social revolution would need to defend itself against
attempts to reintroduce hierarchy. Needless to say, a revolution which
shunned all organisation and industry as inherently authoritarian would
not be able to do this (it would have been impossible to produce the
necessary military supplies to fight Franco's fascist forces during the
Spanish Revolution if the workers had not converted and used their
workplaces to do so, to note another obvious example).
As such, "mass society" will have to remain for some time after a
successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective,
be based on "forms of coercion and control." There is an ideology which
proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based on
coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into a
stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry
and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and
authority. That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to
"classical" anarchists to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating
Engels arguments against Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy" (see
section H.4 for a discussion of Engels' claims that industry excludes
autonomy).
Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no
practical means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As
Knabb summarises, "[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive
faith in science and technology ends up as a desperate and even less
justified faith in the return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a
failure to engage the present system in any but an abstract,
apocalyptical way." To avoid this, it is necessary to take into account
where we are now and, consequently, we will have to "seriously consider
how we will deal with all the practical problems that will be posed in
the interim." [Knabb, Op. Cit., p. 80 and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist
ideology excludes this possibility by dismissing the starting point any
real revolution would begin from as being inherently authoritarian. As
any transition period towards primitivism would involve people working
and living in "mass society," it condemns itself as utterly impractical.
Given that a hierarchical society will misuse many technologies, it is
understandable that some people can come see "technology" as the main
problem and seek its end. However, those who talk about simply
abolishing all forms of injustice and oppression overnight without
discussing how it will be achieved may sound extremely radical, but, in
reality, they are not. In fact they are building blocks to genuine
social change by ensuring that no mass movement would ever be
revolutionary enough to satisfy their critique and, as such, there is
no point even trying. As Ken Knabb puts it:
"Those who proudly proclaim their 'total opposition'
to all compromise, all authority, all organisation, all theory, all
technology, etc., usually turn out to have no revolutionary perspective
whatsoever -- no practical conception of how the present system might
be overthrown or how a post-revolutionary society might work. Some even
attempt to justify this lack by declaring that a mere revolution could
never be radical enough to satisfy their eternal ontological
rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing bombast may temporarily impress a
few spectators, but its ultimate effect is simply to make people
blasé." [Op. Cit., pp. 31-32]
Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving
primitivism. Moore argues that the "kind of world envisaged by
anarcho-primitivism is one unprecedented in human experience in terms
of the degree and types of freedom anticipated ... so there can't be
any limits on the forms of resistance and insurgency that might
develop." [Op. Cit.] Non-primitivists reply by saying that this implies
primitivists don't know what they want nor how to get there. Equally,
they stress that there must be limits on what are considered acceptable
forms of resistance. This is because means shape the ends created and
so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian ends. Tactics are
not neutral and support for certain tactics betray an authoritarian
perspective.
This can be seen from the UK magazine "Green Anarchist," part of the
extreme end of "Primitivism" and which argued in favour of a return to
"Hunter-Gatherer" forms of human society, opposing technology as being
hierarchical by its very nature. Due to the inherent unattractiveness
of such "primitivist" ideas for most people, it could never come about
by libertarian means (i.e. by the free choice of individuals who create
it by their own acts) and so cannot be anarchist as very few people
would actually voluntarily embrace such a situation. This led to "Green
Anarchist" developing a form of eco-vanguardism in order, to use
Rousseau's expression, to "force people to be free." This reached its
logical conclusion when the magazine supported the actions and ideas of
the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and published an article ("The
Irrationalists") by one of the then two editors stating that "the
Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not
blast any more government offices . . . The Tokyo sarin cult had the
right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the
attack they gave themselves away." [Green Anarchist, no. 51, p. 11] A
defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a
subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other "Green
Anarchist" editor (at the time) justify this sick, authoritarian
nonsense as simply nonsense as simply examples of "unmediated
resistance" conducted "under conditions of extreme repression."
Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that means shape the ends?
This means there are "limits" on tactics, as some tactics are not and
can never be libertarian.
However, few eco-anarchists take such an extreme position. Most
"primitivist" anarchists rather than being anti-technology and
anti-civilisation as such instead (to use David Watson's expression)
believe it is a case of the "affirmation of aboriginal lifeways" and of
taking a far more critical approach to issues such as technology,
rationality and progress than that associated with Social Ecology.
These eco-anarchists reject "a dogmatic primitivism which claims we can
return in some linear way to our primordial roots" just as much as the
idea of "progress," "superseding both Enlightenment and
Counter-Enlightenment" ideas and traditions. For these eco-anarchists,
Primitivism "reflects not only a glimpse at life before the rise of the
state, but also a legitimate response to real conditions of life under
civilisation" and so we should respect and learn from "palaeolithic and
neolithic wisdom traditions" (such as those associated with Native
American tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While we "cannot, and
would not want to abandon secular modes of thinking and experiencing
the world. . . we cannot reduce the experience of life, and the
fundamental, inescapable questions why we live, and how we live, to
secular terms. . . Moreover, the boundary between the spiritual and the
secular is not so clear. A dialectical understanding that we are our
history would affirm an inspirited reason that honours not only
atheistic Spanish revolutionaries who died for el ideal, but also
religious pacifist prisoners of conscience, Lakota ghost dancers,
taoist hermits and executed sufi mystics." [David Watson, Beyond
Bookchin: Preface for a future social ecology, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240
and pp. 66-67]
Such "primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines,
mostly US-based, like Fifth Estate. For example, on the question of
technology, such eco-anarchists argue that "[w]hile market capitalism
was a spark that set the fire, and remains at the centre of the
complex, it is only part of something larger: the forced adaptation of
organic human societies to an economic-instrumental civilisation and
its mass technics, which are not only hierarchical and external but
increasingly 'cellular' and internal. It makes no sense to layer the
various elements of this process in a mechanistic hierarchy of first
cause and secondary effects." [David Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127-8] For
this reason "Primitivist" anarchists are more critical of all aspects
of technology, including calls by social ecologists for the use of
appropriate technology essential in order to liberate humanity and the
planet. As Watson argues:
"To speak of technological society is in fact to
refer to the technics generated within capitalism, which in turn
generate new forms of capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social
relations that determine this technology is not only ahistorical and
undialectical, it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure
schema." [Op. Cit., p. 124]
Thus it is not a case of who uses technology which determines its
effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large
degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is
selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those in
power who generally select which technology is introduced within
society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of
turning technology against the powerful and technological change and
social struggle are inter-related -- see section D.10). Thus even the
use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from the
range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have
certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of
critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and
rejecting it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment
and happiness. Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach,
though, and differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than
a deep political point.
However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian
Morris notes, dismisses the "last eight thousand years or so of human
history" as little more than a source "of tyranny, hierarchical
control, mechanised routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those
products of the human creative imagination -- farming, art, philosophy,
technology, science, urban living, symbolic culture -- are viewed
negatively by Zerzan -- in a monolithic sense." While there is no
reason to worship progress, there is just as little need to dismiss all
change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are they
convinced by Zerzan's "selective culling of the anthropological
literature." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 38] In addition, a position of
"turning back the clock" is deeply flawed, for while aboriginal
societies are generally very anarchistic, certain of these societies
did develop into statist, propertarian ones implying that a future
anarchist society that are predominantly inspired by and seek to
reproduce key elements of prehistoric forms of anarchy is not the
answer.
Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support
for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from
primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would
disagree with the second position as they recognise that current does
not equal better and, consequently, past cultures and societies can
have positive (as well as negative) aspects to them which can shed like
on what a genuinely human society can be life. Similarly if
"primitivism" simply involved questioning technology along with
authority, few would disagree. However, this sensible position is, in
the main, subsumed within the first one, the idea that an anarchist
society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer society. That this
is the case can be seen from primitivist writings. Some primitivists
stress that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model for their
desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they seem to
exclude any other options by their critique.
So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of
"anarchist speculation" (to use John Moore's term) seems incredulous.
If you demonise technology, organisation, "mass society" and
"civilisation" as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and
advocate their use in a transition period or even in a free society. As
such, the critique points to a mode of action and a vision of a free
society and to suggest otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you
praise foraging bands and shifting horticultural communities of past
and present as examples of anarchy then critics are entitled to
conclude that primitivists desire a similar system for the future. This
is reinforced by the critiques of industry, technology, "mass society"
and agriculture.
Until such time as "primitivists" clearly state which of the two forms
of primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their
ideas that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic
questions of how they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass
starvation without the workers' control, international links and
federal organisation they habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms
of "governance," other anarchists do not hold much hope that it will
happen soon. Ultimately, we are faced with the fact that a revolution
will start in society as it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests
a means of transforming it. Primitivism shies away from such minor
problems and, consequently, has little to recommend it. It is for this
reason that most anarchists actually argue that such forms of
"primitivism" are not anarchist at all, as the return to a
"Hunter-Gatherer" society would result in mass starvation in almost all
countries as the social infrastructure collapses so that the "lucky"
few that survive can be "wild" and free from such tyrannies as
hospitals, books and electricity.
For more on "primitivist" anarchism see John Zerzan's Future Primitive
as well as David Watson's Beyond Bookchin and Against the Mega-Machine.
Ken Knabb's essay The Poverty of Primitivism is an excellent critique
of primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's Anarchism vs. Primitivism.
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?
Although Gerard Winstanley (The New Law of Righteousness, 1649) and
William Godwin (Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1793) had begun
to unfold the philosophy of anarchism in the 17th and 18th centuries,
it was not until the second half of the 19th century that anarchism
emerged as a coherent theory with a systematic, developed programme.
This work was mainly started by four people -- a German, Max Stirner
(1806-1856), a Frenchman, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), and two
Russians, Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921).
They took the ideas in common circulation within sections of the
working population and expressed them in written form.
Born in the atmosphere of German romantic philosophy, Stirner's
anarchism (set forth in The Ego and Its Own) was an extreme form of
individualism, or egoism, which placed the unique individual above all
else -- state, property, law or duty. His ideas remain a cornerstone of
anarchism. Stirner attacked both capitalism and state socialism, laying
the foundations of both social and individualist anarchism by his
egoist critique of capitalism and the state that supports it. In place
of the state and capitalism, Max Stirner urges the "union of egoists,"
free associations of unique individuals who co-operate as equals in
order to maximise their freedom and satisfy their desires (including
emotional ones for solidarity, or "intercourse" as Stirner called it).
Such a union would be non-hierarchical, for, as Stirner wonders, "is an
association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as
regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an
Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded
together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?" [No Gods, No
Masters, vol. 1, p. 24]
Individualism by definition includes no concrete programme for changing
social conditions. This was attempted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the
first to describe himself openly as an anarchist. His theories of
mutualism, federalism and workers' self-management and association had
a profound effect on the growth of anarchism as a mass movement and
spelled out clearly how an anarchist world could function and be
co-ordinated. It would be no exaggeration to state that Proudhon's work
defined the fundamental nature of anarchism as both an anti-state and
anti-capitalist movement and set of ideas. Bakunin, Kropotkin and
Tucker all claimed inspiration from his ideas and they are the
immediate source for both social and individualist anarchism, with each
thread emphasising different aspects of mutualism (for example, social
anarchists stress the associational aspect of them while individualist
anarchists the non-capitalist market side). Proudhon's major works
include What is Property, System of Economical Contradictions, The
Principle of Federation and, and The Political Capacity of the Working
Classes. His most detailed discussion of what mutualism would look like
can be found in his The General Idea of the Revolution. His ideas
heavily influenced both the French Labour movement and the Paris
Commune of 1871.
Proudhon's ideas were built upon by Michael Bakunin, who humbly
suggested that his own ideas were simply Proudhon's "widely developed
and pushed right to . . . [their] final consequences." [Michael
Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198] However, he is doing a disservice
to his own role in developing anarchism. For Bakunin is the central
figure in the development of modern anarchist activism and ideas. He
emphasised the importance of collectivism, mass insurrection,
revolution and involvement in the militant labour movement as the means
of creating a free, classless society. Moreover, he repudiated
Proudhon's sexism and added patriarchy to the list of social evils
anarchism opposes. Bakunin also emphasised the social nature of
humanity and individuality, rejecting the abstract individualism of
liberalism as a denial of freedom. His ideas become dominant in the
20th century among large sections of the radical labour movement.
Indeed, many of his ideas are almost identical to what would later be
called syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism. Bakunin influenced many
union movements -- especially in Spain, where a major anarchist social
revolution took place in 1936. His works include Anarchy and Statism
(his only book), God and the State, The Paris Commune and the Idea of
the State, and many others. Bakunin on Anarchism, edited by Sam Dolgoff
is an excellent collection of his major writings. Brian Morris'
Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom is an excellent introduction to
Bakunin's life and ideas.
Peter Kropotkin, a scientist by training, fashioned a sophisticated and
detailed anarchist analysis of modern conditions linked to a
thorough-going prescription for a future society -- communist-anarchism
-- which continues to be the most widely-held theory among anarchists.
He identified mutual aid as the best means by which individuals can
develop and grow, pointing out that competition within humanity (and
other species) was often not in the best interests of those involved.
Like Bakunin, he stressed the importance of direct, economic, class
struggle and anarchist participation in any popular movement,
particularly in labour unions. Taking Proudhon's and Bakunin's idea of
the commune, he generalised their insights into a vision of how the
social, economic and personal life of a free society would function. He
aimed to base anarchism "on a scientific basis by the study of the
tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its
further evolution" towards anarchy while, at the same time, urging
anarchists to "promote their ideas directly amongst the labour
organisations and to induce those union to a direct struggle against
capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation."
[Anarchism, p. 298 and p. 287] Like Bakunin, he was a revolutionary
and, like Bakunin, his ideas inspired those struggle for freedom across
the globe. His major works included Mutual Aid, The Conquest of Bread,
Field, Factories, and Workshops, Modern Science and Anarchism, Act for
Yourselves, The State: Its Historic Role, Words of a Rebel, and many
others. A collection of his revolutionary pamphlets is available under
the title Anarchism and is essential reading for anyone interested in
his ideas.
The various theories proposed by these "founding anarchists" are not,
however, mutually exclusive: they are interconnected in many ways, and
to some extent refer to different levels of social life. Individualism
relates closely to the conduct of our private lives: only by
recognising the uniqueness and freedom of others and forming unions
with them can we protect and maximise our own uniqueness and liberty;
mutualism relates to our general relations with others: by mutually
working together and co-operating we ensure that we do not work for
others. Production under anarchism would be collectivist, with people
working together for their own, and the common, good, and in the wider
political and social world decisions would be reached communally.
It should also be stressed that anarchist schools of thought are not
named after individual anarchists. Thus anarchists are not
"Bakuninists", "Proudhonists" or "Kropotkinists" (to name three
possibilities). Anarchists, to quote Malatesta, "follow ideas and not
men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle in a man."
This did not stop him calling Bakunin "our great master and
inspiration." [Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas, p. 199 and p. 209]
Equally, not everything written by a famous anarchist thinker is
automatically libertarian. Bakunin, for example, only became an
anarchist in the last ten years of his life (this does not stop
Marxists using his pre-anarchists days to attack anarchism!). Proudhon
turned away from anarchism in the 1850s before returning to a more
anarchistic (if not strictly anarchist) position just before his death
in 1865. Similarly, Kropotkin's or Tucker's arguments in favour of
supporting the Allies during the First World War had nothing to do with
anarchism. Thus to say, for example, that anarchism is flawed because
Proudhon was a sexist pig simply does not convince anarchists. No one
would dismiss democracy, for example, because Rousseau opinion's on
women were just as sexist as Proudhon's. As with anything, modern
anarchists analyse the writings of previous anarchists to draw
inspiration, but a dogma. Consequently, we reject the non-libertarian
ideas of "famous" anarchists while keeping their positive contributions
to the development of anarchist theory. We are sorry to belabour the
point, but much of Marxist "criticism" of anarchism basically involves
pointing out the negative aspects of dead anarchist thinkers and it is
best simply to state clearly the obvious stupidity of such an approach.
Anarchist ideas of course did not stop developing when Kropotkin died.
Neither are they the products of just four men. Anarchism is by its
very nature an evolving theory, with many different thinkers and
activists. When Bakunin and Kropotkin were alive, for example, they
drew aspects of their ideas from other libertarian activists. Bakunin,
for example, built upon the practical activity of the followers of
Proudhon in the French labour movement in the 1860s. Kropotkin, while
the most associated with developing the theory communist-anarchism, was
simply the most famous expounder of the ideas that had developed after
Bakunin's death in the libertarian wing of the First International and
before he became an anarchist. Thus anarchism is the product of tens of
thousands of thinkers and activists across the globe, each shaping and
developing anarchist theory to meet their needs as part of the general
movement for social change. Of the many other anarchists who could be
mentioned here, we can mention but a few.
Stirner is not the only famous anarchist to come from Germany. It also
produced a number of original anarchist thinkers. Gustav Landauer was
expelled from the Marxist Social-Democratic Party for his radical views
and soon after identified himself as an anarchist. For him, anarchy was
"the expression of the liberation of man from the idols of state, the
church and capital" and he fought "State socialism, levelling from
above, bureaucracy" in favour of "free association and union, the
absence of authority." His ideas were a combination of Proudhon's and
Kropotkin's and he saw the development of self-managed communities and
co-operatives as the means of changing society. He is most famous for
his insight that the "state is a condition, a certain relationship
among human beings, a mode of behaviour between them; we destroy it by
contracting other relationships, by behaving differently towards one
another." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 410
and p. 411] He took a leading part in the Munich revolution of 1919 and
was murdered during its crushing by the German state. His book For
Socialism is an excellent summary of his main ideas.
Other notable German anarchists include Johann Most, originally a
Marxist and an elected member of the Reichstag, he saw the futility of
voting and became an anarchist after being exiled for writing against
the Kaiser and clergy. He played an important role in the American
anarchist movement, working for a time with Emma Goldman. More a
propagandist than a great thinker, his revolutionary message inspired
numerous people to become anarchists. Then there is Rudolf Rocker, a
bookbinder by trade who played an important role in the Jewish labour
movement in the East End of London (see his autobiography, The London
Years, for details). He also produced the definite introduction to
Anarcho-syndicalism as well as analysing the Russian Revolution in
articles like Anarchism and Sovietism and defending the Spanish
revolution in pamphlets like The Tragedy of Spain. His Nationalism and
Culture is a searching analysis of human culture through the ages, with
an analysis of both political thinkers and power politics. He dissects
nationalism and explains how the nation is not the cause but the result
of the state as well as repudiating race science for the nonsense it is.
In the United States Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were two of the
leading anarchist thinkers and activists. Goldman united Stirner's
egoism with Kropotkin's communism into a passionate and powerful theory
which combined the best of both. She also placed anarchism at the
centre of feminist theory and activism as well as being an advocate of
syndicalism (see her book Anarchism and Other Essays and the collection
of essays, articles and talks entitled Red Emma Speaks). Alexander
Berkman, Emma's lifelong companion, produced a classic introduction to
anarchist ideas called What is Anarchism? (also known as What is
Communist Anarchism? and the ABC of Anarchism). Like Goldman, he
supported anarchist involvement in the labour movement was a prolific
writer and speaker (the book Life of An Anarchist gives an excellent
selection of his best articles, books and pamphlets). In December 1919,
both he and Goldman were expelled by the US government to Russia after
the 1917 revolution had radicalised significant parts of the American
population. There as they were considered too dangerous to be allowed
to remain in the land of the free. Exactly two years later, their
passports arrived to allow them to leave Russia. The Bolshevik
slaughter of the Kronstadt revolt in March 1921 after the civil war
ended had finally convinced them that the Bolshevik dictatorship meant
the death of the revolution there. The Bolshevik rulers were more than
happy to see the back of two genuine revolutionaries who stayed true to
their principles. Once outside Russia, Berkman wrote numerous articles
on the fate of the revolution (including the The Russian Tragedy and
The Kronstadt Rebellion) as well as publishing his diary in book from
as The Bolshevik Myth. Goldman produced her classic work My
Disillusionment in Russia as well as publishing her famous
autobiography Living My Life. She also found time to refute Trotsky's
lies about the Kronstadt rebellion in Trotsky Protests Too Much.
As well as Berkman and Goldman, the United States also produced other
notable activists and thinkers. Voltairine de Cleyre played an
important role in the US anarchist movement, enriching both US and
international anarchist theory with her articles, poems and speeches.
Her work includes such classics as Anarchism and American Traditions
and Direct Action. These are included, along with other articles and
some of her famous poems, in the The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader. In
addition, the book Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth
contains a good selection of her writings as well as other anarchists
active at the time. Also of interest is the collection of the speeches
she made to mark the state murder of the Chicago Martyrs in 1886 (see
the First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910). Every November the
11th, except when illness made it impossible, she spoke in their
memory. For those interested in the ideas of that previous generation
of anarchists which the Chicago Martyrs represented, Albert Parsons'
Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis is essential reading.
Elsewhere in the Americas, Ricardo Flores Magon helped lay the ground
for the Mexican revolution of 1910 by founding the (strangely named)
Mexican Liberal Party in 1905 which organised two unsuccessful uprising
against the Diaz dictatorship in 1906 and 1908. Through his paper
Tierra y Libertad ("Land and Liberty") he influenced the developing
labour movement as well as Zapata's peasant army. He continually
stressed the need to turn the revolution into a social revolution which
will "give the lands to the people" as well as "possession of the
factories, mines, etc." Only this would ensure that the people "will
not be deceived." Talking of the Agrarians (the Zapatista army),
Ricardo's brother Enrique he notes that they "are more or less inclined
towards anarchism" and they can work together because both are "direct
actionists" and "they act perfectly revolutionary. They go after the
rich, the authorities and the priestcraft" and have "burnt to ashes
private property deeds as well as all official records" as well as
having "thrown down the fences that marked private properties." Thus
the anarchists "propagate our principles" while the Zapatista's "put
them into practice." [quoted by David Poole, Land and Liberty, p. 17
and p. 25] Ricardo died as a political prisoner in an American jail and
is, ironically, considered a hero of the revolution by the Mexican
state.
Italy, with its strong and dynamic anarchist movement, has produced
some of the best anarchist writers. Errico Malatesta spent over 50
years fighting for anarchism across the world and his writings are
amongst the best in anarchist theory. For those interested in his
practical and inspiring ideas then his short pamphlet Anarchy cannot be
beaten. Collections of his articles can be found in The Anarchist
Revolution and Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, both edited by
Vernon Richards. His dialogue Fra Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy was
translated into many languages, with 100,000 copies printed in Italy in
1920 when the revolution Malatesta had fought for all his life looked
likely. At this time Malatesta edited Umanita Nova (the first Italian
daily anarchist paper, it soon gained a circulation of 50 000) as well
as writing the programme for the Unione Anarchica Italiana, a national
anarchist organisation of some 20000. For his activities during the
factory occupations he was arrested at the age of 67 along with 80
other anarchists activists. Other Italian anarchists of note include
Malatesta's friend Luigi Fabbri (sadly little of his work has been
translated into English bar Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism and
Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism) Luigi Galleani produced a very
powerful anti-organisational anarchist-communism which proclaimed (in
The End of Anarchism?) that "Communism is simply the economic
foundation by which the individual has the opportunity to regulate
himself and carry out his functions." Camillo Berneri, before being
murdered by the Communists during the Spanish Revolution, continued the
fine tradition of critical, practical anarchism associated with Italian
anarchism. His study of Kropotkin's federalist ideas is a classic
(Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist Ideas). His daughter Marie-Louise
Berneri, before her tragic early death, contributed to the British
anarchist press (see her Neither East Nor West: Selected Writings
1939-48 and Journey Through Utopia).
In Japan, Hatta Shuzo developed Kropotkin's communist-anarchism in new
directions between the world wars. Called "true anarchism," he created
an anarchism which was a concrete alternative to the mainly peasant
country he and thousands of his comrades were active in. While
rejecting certain aspects of syndicalism, they organised workers into
unions as well as working with the peasantry for the "foundation stones
on which to build the new society that we long for are none other than
the awakening of the tenant farmers" who "account for a majority of the
population." Their new society was based on decentralised communes
which combined industry and agriculture for, as one of Hatta's
comrade's put it, "the village will cease to be a mere communist
agricultural village and become a co-operative society which is a
fusion of agriculture and industry." Hatta rejected the idea that they
sought to go back to an ideal past, stating that the anarchists were
"completely opposite to the medievalists. We seek to use machines as
means of production and, indeed, hope for the invention of yet more
ingenious machines." [quoted by John Crump, Hatta Shuzo and Pure
Anarchism in Interwar Japan, p. 122-3, and p. 144]
As far as individualist anarchism goes, the undoubted "pope" was
Benjamin Tucker. Tucker, in his Instead of Book, used his intellect and
wit to attack all who he considered enemies of freedom (mostly
capitalists, but also a few social anarchists as well! For example,
Tucker excommunicated Kropotkin and the other communist-anarchists from
anarchism. Kropotkin did not return the favour). Tucker built on the
such notable thinkers as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl
Andrews and William B. Greene, adapting Proudhon's mutualism to the
conditions of pre-capitalist America (see Rudolf Rocker's Pioneers of
American Freedom for details). Defending the worker, artisan and
small-scale farmer from a state intent on building capitalism by means
of state intervention, Tucker argued that capitalist exploitation would
be abolished by creating a totally free non-capitalist market in which
the four state monopolies used to create capitalism would be struck
down by means of mutual banking and "occupancy and use" land and
resource rights. Placing himself firmly in the socialist camp, he
recognised (like Proudhon) that all non-labour income was theft and so
opposed profit, rent and interest. he translated Proudhon's What is
Property and System of Economical Contradictions as well as Bakunin's
God and the State. Tucker's compatriot, Joseph Labadie was an active
trade unionist as well as contributor to Tucker's paper Liberty. His
son, Lawrence Labadie carried the individualist-anarchist torch after
Tucker's death, believing that "that freedom in every walk of life is
the greatest possible means of elevating the human race to happier
conditions."
Undoubtedly the Russian Leo Tolstoy is the most famous writer
associated with religious anarchism and has had the greatest impact in
spreading the spiritual and pacifistic ideas associated with that
tendency. Influencing such notable people as Gandhi and the Catholic
Worker Group around Dorothy Day, Tolstoy presented a radical
interpretation of Christianity which stressed individual responsibility
and freedom above the mindless authoritarianism and hierarchy which
marks so much of mainstream Christianity. Tolstoy's works, like those
of that other radical libertarian Christian William Blake, have
inspired many Christians towards a libertarian vision of Jesus' message
which has been hidden by the mainstream churches. Thus Christian
Anarchism maintains, along with Tolstoy, that "Christianity in its true
sense puts an end to government" (see, for example, Tolstoy's The
Kingdom of God is within you and Peter Marshall's William Blake:
Visionary Anarchist).
More recently, Noam Chomsky (in such works as Deterring Democracy,
Necessary Illusions, World Orders, Old and New, Rogue States, Hegemony
or Survival and many others) and Murray Bookchin (Post-Scarcity
Anarchism, The Ecology of Freedom, Towards an Ecological Society, and
Remaking Society, among others) have kept the social anarchist movement
at the front of political theory and analysis. Bookchin's work has
placed anarchism at the centre of green thought and has been a constant
threat to those wishing to mystify or corrupt the movement to create an
ecological society. The Murray Bookchin Reader contains a
representative selection of his writings. Chomsky's well documented
critiques of U.S. imperialism and how the media operates are his most
famous works, but he has also written extensively about the anarchist
tradition and its ideas, most famously in "Notes on Anarchism" in For
Reasons of State and his defence of the anarchist social revolution
against bourgeois historians in "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship"
in American Power and the New Mandarins. His more explicitly anarchist
essays can be found in Radical Priorities and Language and Politics.
Both Understanding Power and The Chomsky Reader are excellent
introductions to his thought.
Britain has also seen an important series of anarchist thinkers. Hebert
Read (probably the only anarchist to ever accept a knighthood!) wrote
several works on anarchist philosophy and theory (see his Anarchy and
Order compilation of essays). His anarchism flowered directly from his
aesthetic concerns and he was a committed pacifist. As well as giving
fresh insight and expression to the tradition themes of anarchism, he
contributed regularly to the anarchist press (see the collection of
articles A One-Man Manifesto and other writings from Freedom Press).
Another pacifist anarchist was Alex Comfort. As well as writing the Joy
of Sex, Comfort was an active pacifist and anarchist. He wrote
particularly on pacifism, psychiatry and sexual politics from a
libertarian perspective. His most famous anarchist book was Authority
and Delinquency and a collection of his anarchist pamphlets and
articles was published under the title Writings against Power and Death.
However, the most famous and influential British anarchist must be
Colin Ward. He became an anarchist when stationed in Glasgow during the
Second World War and came across the local anarchist group there. Once
an anarchist, he has contributed to the anarchist press extensively. As
well as being an editor of Freedom, he also edited the influential
monthly magazine Anarchy during the 1960s (a selection of articles
picked by Ward can be found in the book A Decade of Anarchy). However,
his most famous single book is Anarchy in Action where he has updated
Kropotkin's Mutual Aid by uncovering and documenting the anarchistic
nature of everyday life even within capitalism. His extensive writing
on housing has emphasised the importance of collective self-help and
social management of housing against the twin evils of privatisation
and nationalisation (see, for example, his books Talking Houses and
Housing: An Anarchist Approach). He has cast an anarchist eye on
numerous other issues, including water use (Reflected in Water: A
Crisis of Social Responsibility), transport (Freedom to go: after the
motor age) and the welfare state (Social Policy: an anarchist
response). His Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction is a good starting
point for discovering anarchism and his particular perspective on it
while Talking Anarchy provides an excellent overview of both his ideas
and life. Lastly we must mention both Albert Meltzer and Nicolas
Walter, both of whom contributed extensively to the anarchist press as
well as writing two well known short introductions to anarchism
(Anarchism: Arguments for and against and About Anarchism,
respectively).
We could go on; there are many more writers we could mention. But
besides these, there are the thousands of "ordinary" anarchist
militants who have never written books but whose common sense and
activism have encouraged the spirit of revolt within society and helped
build the new world in the shell of the old. As Kropotkin put it,
"anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full
of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the
people." [Anarchism, p. 146]
So we hope that this concentration on anarchist thinkers should not be
taken to mean that there is some sort of division between activists and
intellectuals in the movement. Far from it. Few anarchists are purely
thinkers or activists. They are usually both. Kropotkin, for example,
was jailed for his activism, as was Malatesta and Goldman. Makhno, most
famous as an active participate in the Russian Revolution, also
contributed theoretical articles to the anarchist press during and
after it. The same can be said of Louise Michel, whose militant
activities during the Paris Commune and in building the anarchist
movement in France after it did not preclude her writing articles for
the libertarian press. We are simply indicating key anarchists thinkers
so that those interested can read about their ideas directly.
A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?
Yes. There are numerous thinkers who are close to anarchism. They come
from both the liberal and socialist traditions. While this may be
considered surprising, it is not. Anarchism has links with both
ideologies. Obviously the individualist anarchists are closest to the
liberal tradition while social anarchists are closest to the socialist.
Indeed, as Nicholas Walter put it, "Anarchism can be seen as a
development from either liberalism or socialism, or from both
liberalism and socialism. Like liberals, anarchists want freedom; like
socialists, anarchists want equality." However, "anarchism is not just
a mixture of liberalism and socialism . . . we differ fundamentally
from them." [About Anarchism, p. 29 and p. 31] In this he echoes
Rocker's comments in Anarcho-Syndicalism. And this can be a useful tool
for seeing the links between anarchism and other theories however it
must be stressed that anarchism offers an anarchist critique of both
liberalism and socialism and we should not submerge the uniqueness of
anarchism into other philosophies.
Section A.4.2 discusses liberal thinkers who are close to anarchism,
while section A.4.3 highlights those socialists who are close to
anarchism. There are even Marxists who inject libertarian ideas into
their politics and these are discussed in section A.4.4. And, of
course, there are thinkers who cannot be so easily categorised and will
be discussed here.
Economist David Ellerman has produced an impressive body of work
arguing for workplace democracy. Explicitly linking his ideas the early
British Ricardian socialists and Proudhon, in such works as The
Democratic Worker-Owned Firm and Property and Contract in Economics he
has presented both a rights based and labour-property based defence of
self-management against capitalism. He argues that "[t]oday's economic
democrats are the new abolitionists trying to abolish the whole
institution of renting people in favour of democratic self-management
in the workplace" for his "critique is not new; it was developed in the
Enlightenment doctrine of inalienable rights. It was applied by
abolitionists against the voluntary self-enslavement contract and by
political democrats against the voluntary contraction defence of
non-democratic government." [The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm, p. 210]
Anyone, like anarchists, interested in producer co-operatives as
alternatives to wage slavery will find his work of immense interest.
Ellerman is not the only person to stress the benefits of co-operation.
Alfie Kohn's important work on the benefits of co-operation builds upon
Kropotkin's studies of mutual aid and is, consequently, of interest to
social anarchists. In No Contest: the case against competition and
Punished by Rewards, Kohn discusses (with extensive empirical evidence)
the failings and negative impact of competition on those subject to it.
He addresses both economic and social issues in his works and shows
that competition is not what it is cracked up to be.
Within feminist theory, Carole Pateman is the most obvious libertarian
influenced thinker. Independently of Ellerman, Pateman has produced a
powerful argument for self-managed association in both the workplace
and society as a whole. Building upon a libertarian analysis of
Rousseau's arguments, her analysis of contract theory is ground
breaking. If a theme has to be ascribed to Pateman's work it could be
freedom and what it means to be free. For her, freedom can only be
viewed as self-determination and, consequently, the absence of
subordination. Consequently, she has advocated a participatory form of
democracy from her first major work, Participation and Democratic
Theory onwards. In that book, a pioneering study of in participatory
democracy, she exposed the limitations of liberal democratic theory,
analysed the works of Rousseau, Mill and Cole and presented empirical
evidence on the benefits of participation on the individuals involved.
In the Problem of Political Obligation, Pateman discusses the "liberal"
arguments on freedom and finds them wanting. For the liberal, a person
must consent to be ruled by another but this opens up the "problem"
that they might not consent and, indeed, may never have consented. Thus
the liberal state would lack a justification. She deepens her analysis
to question why freedom should be equated to consenting to be ruled and
proposed a participatory democratic theory in which people collectively
make their own decisions (a self-assumed obligation to your fellow
citizens rather to a state). In discussing Kropotkin, she showed her
awareness of the social anarchist tradition to which her own theory is
obviously related.
Pateman builds on this analysis in her The Sexual Contract, where she
dissects the sexism of classical liberal and democratic theory. She
analyses the weakness of what calls 'contractarian' theory (classical
liberalism and right-wing "libertarianism") and shows how it leads not
to free associations of self-governing individuals but rather social
relationships based on authority, hierarchy and power in which a few
rule the many. Her analysis of the state, marriage and wage labour are
profoundly libertarian, showing that freedom must mean more than
consenting to be ruled. This is the paradox of capitalist liberal, for
a person is assumed to be free in order to consent to a contract but
once within it they face the reality subordination to another's
decisions (see section A.4.2 for further discussion).
Her ideas challenge some of Western culture's core beliefs about
individual freedom and her critiques of the major Enlightenment
political philosophers are powerful and convincing. Implicit is a
critique not just of the conservative and liberal tradition, but of the
patriarchy and hierarchy contained within the Left as well. As well as
these works, a collection of her essays is available called The
Disorder of Women.
Within the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement Naomi Klein shows an
awareness of libertarian ideas and her own work has a libertarian
thrust to it (we call it "so-called" as its members are
internationalists, seeking a globalisation from below not one imposed
from above by and for a few). She first came to attention as the author
of No Logo, which charts the growth of consumer capitalism, exposing
the dark reality behind the glossy brands of capitalism and, more
importantly, highlighting the resistance to it. No distant academic,
she is an active participant in the movement she reports on in Fences
and Windows, a collection of essays on globalisation, its consequences
and the wave of protests against it.
Klein's articles are well written and engaging, covering the reality of
modern capitalism, the gap, as she puts it, "between rich and power but
also between rhetoric and reality, between what is said and what is
done. Between the promise of globalisation and its real effects." She
shows how we live in a world where the market (i.e. capital) is made
"freer" while people suffer increased state power and repression. How
an unelected Argentine President labels that country's popular
assemblies "antidemocratic." How rhetoric about liberty is used as a
tool to defend and increase private power (as she reminds us, "always
missing from [the globalisation] discussion is the issue of power. So
many of the debates that we have about globalisation theory are
actually about power: who holds it, who is exercising it and who is
disguising it, pretending it no longer matters"). [Fences and Windows,
pp 83-4 and p. 83]
And how people across the world are resisting. As she puts it, "many
[in the movement] are tired of being spoken for and about. They are
demanding a more direct form of political participation." She reports
on a movement which she is part of, one which aims for a globalisation
from below, one "founded on principles of transparency, accountability
and self-determination, one that frees people instead of liberating
capital." This means being against a "corporate-driven globalisation .
. . that is centralising power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands"
while presenting an alternative which is about "decentralising power
and building community-based decision-making potential -- whether
through unions, neighbourhoods, farms, villages, anarchist collectives
or aboriginal self-government." All strong anarchist principles and,
like anarchists, she wants people to manage their own affairs and
chronicles attempts around the world to do just that (many of which, as
Klein notes, are anarchists or influenced by anarchist ideas, sometimes
knowing, sometimes not). [Op. Cit., p. 77, p. 79 and p. 16]
While not an anarchist, she is aware that real change comes from below,
by the self-activity of working class people fighting for a better
world. Decentralisation of power is a key idea in the book. As she puts
it, the "goal" of the social movements she describes is "not to take
power for themselves but to challenge power centralisation on
principle" and so creating "a new culture of vibrant direct democracy .
. . one that is fuelled and strengthened by direct participation." She
does not urge the movement to invest itself with new leaders and
neither does she (like the Left) think that electing a few leaders to
make decisions for us equals "democracy" ("the goal is not better
faraway rules and rulers but close-up democracy on the ground"). Klein,
therefore, gets to the heart of the matter. Real social change is based
on empowering the grassroots, "the desire for self-determination,
economic sustainability and participatory democracy." Given this, Klein
has presented libertarian ideas to a wide audience. [Op. Cit., p. xxvi,
p. xxvi-xxvii, p. 245 and p. 233]
Other notable libertarian thinkers include Henry D. Thoreau, Albert
Camus, Aldous Huxley, Lewis Mumford, Lewis Mumford and Oscar Wilde.
Thus there are numerous thinkers who approach anarchist conclusions and
who discuss subjects of interest to libertarians. As Kropotkin noted a
hundred years ago, these kinds of writers "are full of ideas which show
how closely anarchism is interwoven with the work that is going on in
modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement of man from the
bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism." [Anarchism, p.
300] The only change since then is that more names can be added to the
list.
Peter Marshall discusses the ideas of most, but not all, of the
non-anarchist libertarians we mention in this and subsequent sections
in his book history of anarchism, Demanding the Impossible. Clifford
Harper's Anarchy: A Graphic Guide is also a useful guide for finding
out more.
A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?
As noted in the last section, there are thinkers in both the liberal
and socialist traditions who approach anarchist theory and ideals. This
understandable as anarchism shares certain ideas and ideals with both.
However, as will become clear in sections A.4.3 and A.4.4, anarchism
shares most common ground with the socialist tradition it is a part of.
This is because classical liberalism is a profoundly elitist tradition.
The works of Locke and the tradition he inspired aimed to justify
hierarchy, state and private property. As Carole Pateman notes,
"Locke's state of nature, with its father-rulers and capitalist
economy, would certainly not find favour with anarchists" any more than
his vision of the social contract and the liberal state it creates. A
state, which as Pateman recounts, in which "only males who own
substantial amounts of material property are [the] politically relevant
members of society" and exists "precisely to preserve the property
relationships of the developing capitalist market economy, not to
disturb them." For the majority, the non-propertied, they expressed
"tacit consent" to be ruled by the few by "choosing to remain within
the one's country of birth when reaching adulthood." [The Problem of
Political Obligation, p. 141, p. 71, p. 78 and p. 73]
Thus anarchism is at odds with what can be called the pro-capitalist
liberal tradition which, flowing from Locke, builds upon his rationales
for hierarchy. As David Ellerman notes, "there is a whole liberal
tradition of apologising for non-democratic government based on consent
-- on a voluntary social contract alienating governing rights to a
sovereign." In economics, this is reflected in their support for wage
labour and the capitalist autocracy it creates for the "employment
contract is the modern limited workplace version" of such contracts.
[The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm, p. 210] This pro-capitalist
liberalism essentially boils down to the liberty to pick a master or,
if you are among the lucky few, to become a master yourself. The idea
that freedom means self-determination for all at all times is alien to
it. Rather it is based on the idea of "self-ownership," that you "own"
yourself and your rights. Consequently, you can sell (alienate) your
rights and liberty on the market. As we discuss in section B.4, in
practice this means that most people are subject to autocratic rule for
most of their waking hours (whether in work or in marriage).
The modern equivalent of classical liberalism is the right-wing
"libertarian" tradition associated with Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick,
von Hayek and so forth. As they aim to reduce the state to simply the
defender to private property and enforcer of the hierarchies that
social institution creates, they can by no stretch of the imagination
be considered near anarchism. What is called "liberalism" in, say, the
United States is a more democratic liberal tradition and has, like
anarchism, little in common with the shrill pro-capitalist defenders of
the minimum state. While they may (sometimes) be happy to denounce the
state's attacks on individual liberty, they are more than happy to
defend the "freedom" of the property owner to impose exactly the same
restrictions on those who use their land or capital.
Given that feudalism combined ownership and rulership, that the
governance of people living on land was an attribute of the ownership
of that land, it would be no exaggeration to say that the right-wing
"libertarian" tradition is simply its modern (voluntary) form. It is no
more libertarian than the feudal lords who combated the powers of the
King in order to protect their power over their own land and serfs. As
Chomsky notes, "the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the
US and UK particularly . . . seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or
another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny."
[Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 777] Moreover, as
Benjamin Tucker noted with regards their predecessors, while they are
happy to attack any state regulation which benefits the many or limits
their power, they are silent on the laws (and regulations and "rights")
which benefit the few.
However there is another liberal tradition, one which is essentially
pre-capitalist which has more in common with the aspirations of
anarchism. As Chomsky put it:
"These ideas [of anarchism] grow out the
Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality,
Humbolt's The Limits of State Action, Kant's insistence, in his defence
of the French Revolution, that freedom is the precondition for
acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such
maturity is achieved . . . With the development of industrial
capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is
libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical
humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals
that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social
order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led classical
liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life,
capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, for
example, from the classic work of [Wilhelm von] Humboldt, The Limits of
State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired [John Stuart] Mill
. . . This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its
essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must
be attenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of
industrial capitalism." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of State, p.
156]
Chomsky discusses this in more detail in his essay "Language and
Freedom" (contained in both Reason of State and The Chomsky Reader). As
well as Humbolt and Mill, such "pre-capitalist" liberals would include
such radicals as Thomas Paine, who envisioned a society based on
artisan and small farmers (i.e. a pre-capitalist economy) with a rough
level of social equality and, of course, a minimal government. His
ideas inspired working class radicals across the world and, as E.P.
Thompson reminds us, Paine's Rights of Man was "a foundation-text of
the English [and Scottish] working-class movement." While his ideas on
government are "close to a theory of anarchism," his reform proposals
"set a source towards the social legislation of the twentieth century."
[The Making of the English Working Class, p. 99, p. 101 and p. 102] His
combination of concern for liberty and social justice places him close
to anarchism.
Then there is Adam Smith. While the right (particularly elements of the
"libertarian" right) claim him as a classic liberal, his ideas are more
complex than that. For example, as Noam Chomsky points out, Smith
advocated the free market because "it would lead to perfect equality,
equality of condition, not just equality of opportunity." [Class
Warfare, p. 124] As Smith himself put it, "in a society where things
were left to follow their natural course, where there is perfect
liberty" it would mean that "advantages would soon return to the level
of other employments" and so "the different employments of labour and
stock must . . . be either perfectly equal or continually tending to
equality." Nor did he oppose state intervention or state aid for the
working classes. For example, he advocated public education to counter
the negative effects of the division of labour. Moreover, he was
against state intervention because whenever "a legislature attempts to
regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors
are always the masters. When regulation, therefore, is in favour of the
workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is otherwise when in
favour of the masters." He notes how "the law" would "punish" workers'
combinations "very severely" while ignoring the masters' combinations
("if it dealt impartially, it would treat the masters in the same
manner"). [The Wealth of Nations, p. 88 and p. 129] Thus state
intervention was to be opposed in general because the state was run by
the few for the few, which would make state intervention benefit the
few, not the many. It is doubtful Smith would have left his ideas on
laissez-faire unchanged if he had lived to see the development of
corporate capitalism. It is this critical edge of Smith's work are
conveniently ignored by those claiming him for the classical liberal
tradition.
Smith, argues Chomsky, was "a pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist person
with roots in the Enlightenment." Yes, he argues, "the classical
liberals, the [Thomas] Jeffersons and the Smiths, were opposing the
concentrations of power that they saw around them . . . They didn't see
other forms of concentration of power which only developed later. When
they did see them, they didn't like them. Jefferson was a good example.
He was strongly opposed to the concentrations of power that he saw
developing, and warned that the banking institutions and the industrial
corporations which were barely coming into existence in his day would
destroy the achievements of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 125]
As Murray Bookchin notes, Jefferson "is most clearly identified in the
early history of the United States with the political demands and
interests of the independent farmer-proprietor." [The Third Revolution,
vol. 1, pp. 188-9] In other words, with pre-capitalist economic forms.
We also find Jefferson contrasting the "aristocrats" and the
"democrats." The former are "those who fear and distrust the people,
and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher
classes." The democrats "identify with the people, have confidence in
them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe . . .
depository of the public interest," if not always "the most wise."
[quoted by Chomsky, Powers and Prospects, p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the
"aristocrats" were "the advocates of the rising capitalist state, which
Jefferson regarded with dismay, recognising the obvious contradiction
between democracy and the capitalism." [Op. Cit., p. 88]
Jefferson even went so far as to argue that "a little rebellion now and
then is a good thing . . . It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." [quoted by Howard
Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 94] However, his
libertarian credentials are damaged by him being both a President of
the United States and a slave owner but compared to the other "founding
fathers" of the American state, his liberalism is of a democratic form.
As Chomsky reminds us, "all the Founding Fathers hated democracy --
Thomas Jefferson was a partial exception, but only partial." The
American state, as a classical liberal state, was designed (to quote
James Madison) "to protect the minority of the opulent from the
majority." Or, to repeat John Jay's principle, the "people who own the
country ought to govern it." [Understanding Power, p. 315] If American
is a (formally) democracy rather than an oligarchy, it is in spite of
rather than because of classical liberalism.
Then there is John Stuart Mill who recognised the fundamental
contradiction in classical liberalism. How can an ideology which
proclaims itself for individual liberty support institutions which
systematically nullify that liberty in practice? For this reason Mill
attacked patriarchal marriage, arguing that marriage must be a
voluntary association between equals, with "sympathy in equality . . .
living together in love, without power on one side or obedience on the
other." Rejecting the idea that there had to be "an absolute master" in
any association, he pointed out that in "partnership in business . . .
it is not found or thought necessary to enact that in every
partnership, one partner shall have entire control over the concern,
and the others shall be bound to obey his rule." ["The Subjection of
Women," quoted by Susan L. Brown, The Politics of Individualism, pp.
45-6]
Yet his own example showed the flaw in liberal support for capitalism,
for the employee is subject to a relationship in which power accrues to
one party and obedience to another. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he
argued that the "form of association . . . which is mankind continue to
improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which
can exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice
in management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms
of equality, collectively owning the capital . . . and working under
managers elected and removable by themselves." [The Principles of
Political Economy, p. 147] Autocratic management during working hours
is hardly compatible with Mill's maxim that "[o]ver himself, over his
own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill's opposition to
centralised government and wage slavery brought his ideas closer to
anarchism than most liberals, as did his comment that the "social
principle of the future" was "how to unite the greatest individual
liberty of action with a common ownership in the raw materials of the
globe, and equal participation of all in the benefits of combined
labour." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 164]
His defence of individuality, On Liberty, is a classic, if flawed, work
and his analysis of socialist tendencies ("Chapters on Socialism") is
worth reading for its evaluation of their pros and cons from a
(democratic) liberal perspective.
Like Proudhon, Mill was a forerunner of modern-day market socialism and
a firm supporter of decentralisation and social participation. This,
argues Chomsky, is unsurprising for pre-capitalist classical liberal
thought "is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a
consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty,
diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, capitalist
relations of production, wage labour, competitiveness, the ideology of
'possessive individualism' -- all must be regarded as fundamentally
antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the
inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment." ["Notes on
Anarchism", Op. Cit., p. 157]
Thus anarchism shares commonality with pre-capitalist and democratic
liberal forms. The hopes of these liberals were shattered with the
development of capitalism. To quote Rudolf Rocker's analysis:
"Liberalism and Democracy were pre-eminently
political concepts, and since the great majority of the original
adherents of both maintained the right of ownership in the old sense,
these had to renounce them both when economic development took a course
which could not be practically reconciled with the original principles
of Democracy, and still less with those of Liberalism. Democracy, with
its motto of 'all citizens equal before the law,' and Liberalism with
its 'right of man over his own person,' both shipwrecked on the
realities of the capitalist economic form. So long as millions of human
beings in every country had to sell their labour-power to a small
minority of owners, and to sink into the most wretched misery if they
could find no buyers, the so-called 'equality before the law' remains
merely a pious fraud, since the laws are made by those who find
themselves in possession of the social wealth. But in the same way
there can also be no talk of a 'right over one's own person,' for that
right ends when one is compelled to submit to the economic dictation of
another if he does not want to starve." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 10]
A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to anarchism?
Anarchism developed in response to the development of capitalism and it
is in the non-anarchist socialist tradition which anarchism finds most
fellow travellers.
The earliest British socialists (the so-called Ricardian Socialists)
following in the wake of Robert Owen held ideas which were similar to
those of anarchists. For example, Thomas Hodgskin expounded ideas
similar to Proudhon's mutualism while William Thompson developed a
non-state, communal form of socialism based on "communities of mutual
co-operative" which had similarities to anarcho-communism (Thompson had
been a mutualist before becoming a communist in light of the problems
even a non-capitalist market would have). John Francis Bray is also of
interest, as is the radical agrarianist Thomas Spence who developed a
communal form of land-based socialism which expounded many ideas
usually associated with anarchism (see "The Agrarian Socialism of
Thomas Spence" by Brian Morris in his book Ecology and Anarchism).
Moreover, the early British trade union movement "developed, stage by
stage, a theory of syndicalism" 40 years before Bakunin and the
libertarian wing of the First International did. [E.P. Thompson, The
Making of the English Working Class, p. 912] Noel Thompson's The Real
Rights of Man is a good summary of all these thinkers and movements, as
is E.P. Thompson's classic social history of working class life (and
politics) of this period, The Making of the English Working Class.
Libertarian ideas did not die out in Britain in the 1840s. There was
also the quasi-syndicalists of the Guild Socialists of the 1910s and
1920s who advocated a decentralised communal system with workers'
control of industry. G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism Restated is the most
famous work of this school, which also included author's S.G. Hobson
and A.R. Orage (Geoffrey Osteregaard's The Tradition of Workers'
Control provides an good summary of the ideas of Guild Socialism).
Bertrand Russell, another supporter of Guild Socialism, was attracted
to anarchist ideas and wrote an extremely informed and thoughtful
discussion of anarchism, syndicalism and Marxism in his classic book
Roads to Freedom.
While Russell was pessimistic about the possibility of anarchism in the
near future, he felt it was "the ultimate idea to which society should
approximate." As a Guild Socialist, he took it for granted that there
could "be no real freedom or democracy until the men who do the work in
a business also control its management." His vision of a good society
is one any anarchist would support: "a world in which the creative
spirit is alive, in which life is an adventure full of joy and hope,
based upon the impulse to construct than upon the desire to retain what
we possess or to seize what is possessed by others. It must be a world
in which affection has free play, in which love is purged of the
instinct for domination, in which cruelty and envy have been dispelled
by happiness and the unfettered development of all the instincts that
build up life and fill it with mental delights." [quoted by Noam
Chomsky, Problems of Knowledge and Freedom, pp. 59-60, p. 61 and p. x]
An informed and interesting writer on many subjects, his thought and
social activism has influenced many other thinkers, including Noam
Chomsky (whose Problems of Knowledge and Freedom is a wide ranging
discussion on some of the topics Russell addressed).
Another important British libertarian socialist thinker and activist
was William Morris. Morris, a friend of Kropotkin, was active in the
Socialist League and led its anti-parliamentarian wing. While stressing
he was not an anarchist, there is little real difference between the
ideas of Morris and most anarcho-communists (Morris said he was a
communist and saw no need to append "anarchist" to it as, for him,
communism was democratic and liberatory). A prominent member of the
"Arts and Crafts" movement, Morris argued for humanising work and it
was, to quoted the title of one of his most famous essays, as case of
Useful Work vrs Useless Toil. His utopia novel News from Nowhere paints
a compelling vision of a libertarian communist society where
industrialisation has been replaced with a communal craft-based
economy. It is a utopia which has long appealed to most social
anarchists. For a discussion of Morris' ideas, placed in the context of
his famous utopia, see William Morris and News from Nowhere: A Vision
for Our Time (Stephen Coleman and Paddy O'Sullivan (eds.))
Also of note is the Greek thinker Cornelius Castoriadis. Originally a
Trotskyist, Castoriadis evaluation of Trotsky's deeply flawed analysis
of Stalinist Russia as a degenerated workers' state lead him to reject
first Leninism and then Marxism itself. This led him to libertarian
conclusions, seeing the key issue not who owns the means of production
but rather hierarchy. Thus the class struggle was between those with
power and those subject to it. This led him to reject Marxist economics
as its value analysis abstracted from (i.e. ignored!) the class
struggle at the heart of production (Autonomist Marxism rejects this
interpretation of Marx, but they are the only Marxists who do).
Castoriadis, like social anarchists, saw the future society as one
based on radical autonomy, generalised self-management and workers'
councils organised from the bottom up. His three volume collected works
(Political and Social Writings) are essential reading for anyone
interested in libertarian socialist politics and a radical critique of
Marxism.
The American radical historian Howard Zinn has sometimes called himself
an anarchist and is well informed about the anarchist tradition (he
wrote an excellent introductory essay on "Anarchism" for a US edition
of a Herbert Read book) . As well as his classic A People's History of
the United States, his writings of civil disobedience and non-violent
direct action are essential. An excellent collection of essays by this
libertarian socialist scholar has been produced under the title The
Zinn Reader. Another notable libertarian socialists close to anarchism
are Edward Carpenter (see, for example, Sheila Rowbotham's Edward
Carpenter: Prophet of the New Life) and Simone Weil (Oppression and
Liberty)
It would also be worthwhile to mention those market socialists who,
like anarchists, base their socialism on workers' self-management.
Rejecting central planning, they have turned back to the ideas of
industrial democracy and market socialism advocated by the likes of
Proudhon (although, coming from a Marxist background, they generally
fail to mention the link which their central-planning foes stress).
Allan Engler (in Apostles of Greed) and David Schweickart (in Against
Capitalism and After Capitalism) have provided useful critiques of
capitalism and presented a vision of socialism rooted in co-operatively
organised workplaces. While retaining an element of government and
state in their political ideas, these socialists have placed economic
self-management at the heart of their economic vision and,
consequently, are closer to anarchism than most socialists.
A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism?
None of the libertarian socialists we highlighted in the last section
were Marxists. This is unsurprising as most forms of Marxism are
authoritarian. However, this is not the case for all schools of
Marxism. There are important sub-branches of Marxism which shares the
anarchist vision of a self-managed society. These include Council
Communism, Situationism and Autonomism. Perhaps significantly, these
few Marxist tendencies which are closest to anarchism are, like the
branches of anarchism itself, not named after individuals. We will
discuss each in turn.
Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when
Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted
by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist
social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist
and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since
Bakunin. Like Marx's libertarian opponent in the First International,
they argued that a federation of workers' councils would form the basis
of a socialist society and, consequently, saw the need to build
militant workplace organisations to promote their formation. Lenin
attacked these movements and their advocates in his diatribe Left-wing
Communism: An Infantile Disorder, which council communist Herman Gortor
demolished in his An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. By 1921, the council
communists broke with the Bolshevism that had already effectively
expelled them from both the national Communist Parties and the
Communist International.
Like the anarchists, they argued that Russia was a state-capitalist
party dictatorship and had nothing to be with socialism. And, again
like anarchists, the council communists argue that the process of
building a new society, like the revolution itself, is either the work
of the people themselves or doomed from the start. As with the
anarchists, they too saw the Bolshevik take-over of the soviets (like
that of the trade unions) as subverting the revolution and beginning
the restoration of oppression and exploitation.
To discover more about council communism, the works of Paul Mattick are
essential reading. While best known as a writer on Marxist economic
theory in such works as Marx and Keynes, Economic Crisis and Crisis
Theory and Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation, Mattick had
been a council communist since the German revolution of 1919/1920. His
books Anti-Bolshevik Communism and Marxism: The Last Refuge of the
Bourgeoisie? are excellent introductions to his political ideas. Also
essential reading is Anton Pannekeok's works. His classic Workers'
Councils explains council communism from first principles while his
Lenin as Philosopher dissects Lenin's claims to being a Marxist (Serge
Bricianer, Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils is the best study of the
development of Panekoek's ideas). In the UK, the militant suffragette
Sylvia Pankhurst became a council communist under the impact of the
Russian Revolution and, along with anarchists like Guy Aldred, led the
opposition to the importation of Leninism into the communist movement
there (see Mark Shipway's Anti-Parliamentary Communism: The Movement
for Workers Councils in Britain, 1917-4 |
|
