|
| 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, 1917-45 for more details of
libertarian communism in the UK). Otto Ruhle and Karl Korsch are also
important thinkers in this tradition.
Building upon the ideas of council communism, the Situationists
developed their ideas in important new directions. Working in the late
1950s and 1960s, they combined council communist ideas with surrealism
and other forms of radical art to produce an impressive critique of
post-war capitalism. Unlike Castoriadis, whose ideas influenced them,
the Situationists continued to view themselves as Marxists, developing
Marx's critique of capitalist economy into a critique of capitalist
society as alienation had shifted from being located in capitalist
production into everyday life. They coined the expression "The
Spectacle" to describe a social system in which people become alienated
from their own lives and played the role of an audience, of spectators.
Thus capitalism had turned being into having and now, with the
spectacle, it turned having into appearing. They argued that we could
not wait for a distant revolution, but rather should liberate ourselves
in the here and now, creating events ("situations") which would disrupt
the ordinary and normal to jolt people out of their allotted roles
within society. A social revolution based on sovereign rank and file
assemblies and self-managed councils would be the ultimate "situation"
and the aim of all Situationists.
While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories
are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism
cannot be underestimated. Many anarchists embraced their critique of
modern capitalist society, their subversion of modern art and culture
for revolutionary purposes and call for revolutionising everyday life.
Ironically, while Situationism viewed itself as an attempt to transcend
tradition forms of Marxism and anarchism, it essentially became
subsumed by anarchism. The classic works of situationism are Guy
Debord's Society of the Spectacle and Raoul Veneigem's The Revolution
of Everyday Life. The Situationist International Anthology (edited by
Ken Knabb) is essential reading for any budding Situationists, as is
Knabb's own Public Secrets.
Lastly there is Autonomist Marxism. Drawing on the works of the council
communism, Castoriadis, situationism and others, it places the class
struggle at the heart of its analysis of capitalism. It initially
developed in Italy during the 1960s and has many currents, some closer
to anarchism than others. While the most famous thinker in the
Autonomist tradition is probably Antonio Negri (who coined the
wonderful phrase "money has only one face, that of the boss" in Marx
Beyond Marx) his ideas are more within traditional Marxist. For an
Autonomist whose ideas are closer to anarchism, we need to turn to the
US thinker and activist who has written the one of the best summaries
of Kropotkin's ideas in which he usefully indicates the similarities
between anarcho-communism and Autonomist Marxism ("Kropotkin,
Self-valorisation and the Crisis of Marxism," Anarchist Studies, vol.
2, no. 3). His book Reading Capital Politically is an essential text
for understanding Autonomism and its history.
For Cleaver, "autonomist Marxism" as generic name for a variety of
movements, politics and thinkers who have emphasized the autonomous
power of workers -- autonomous from capital, obviously, but also from
their official organisations (e.g. the trade unions, the political
parties) and, moreover, the power of particular groups of working class
people to act autonomously from other groups (e.g. women from men). By
"autonomy" it is meant the ability of working class people to define
their own interests and to struggle for them and, critically, to go
beyond mere reaction to exploitation and to take the offensive in ways
that shape the class struggle and define the future. Thus they place
working class power at the centre of their thinking about capitalism,
how it develops and its dynamics as well as in the class conflicts
within it. This is not limited to just the workplace and just as
workers resist the imposition of work inside the factory or office, via
slowdowns, strikes and sabotage, so too do the non-waged resist the
reduction of their lives to work. For Autonomists, the creation of
communism is not something that comes later but is something which is
repeatedly created by current developments of new forms of working
class self-activity.
The similarities with social anarchism are obvious. Which probably
explains why Autonomists spend so much time analysing and quoting Marx
to justify their ideas for otherwise other Marxists will follow Lenin's
lead on the council communists and label them anarchists and ignore
them! For anarchists, all this Marx quoting seems amusing. Ultimately,
if Marx really was an Autonomist Marxist then why do Autonomists have
to spend so much time re-constructing what Marx "really" meant? Why did
he not just say it clearly to begin with? Similarly, why root out
(sometimes obscure) quotes and (sometimes passing) comments from Marx
to justify your insights? Does something stop being true if Marx did
not mention it first? Whatever the insights of Autonomism its Marxism
will drag it backwards by rooting its politics in the texts of two long
dead Germans. Like the surreal debate between Trotsky and Stalin in the
1920s over "Socialism in One Country" conducted by means of Lenin
quotes, all that will be proved is not whether a given idea is right
but simply that the mutually agreed authority figure (Lenin or Marx)
may have held it. Thus anarchists suggest that Autonomists practice
some autonomy when it comes to Marx and Engels.
Other libertarian Marxists close to anarchism include Erich Fromm and
Wilhelm Reich. Both tried to combine Marx with Freud to produce a
radical analysis of capitalism and the personality disorders it causes.
Erich Fromm, in such books as The Fear of Freedom, Man for Himself, The
Sane Society and To Have or To Be? developed a powerful and insightful
analysis of capitalism which discussed how it shaped the individual and
built psychological barriers to freedom and authentic living. His works
discuss many important topics, including ethics, the authoritarian
personality (what causes it and how to change it), alienation, freedom,
individualism and what a good society would be like.
Fromm's analysis of capitalism and the "having" mode of life are
incredibly insightful, especially in context with today's consumerism.
For Fromm, the way we live, work and organise together influence how we
develop, our health (mental and physical), our happiness more than we
suspect. He questions the sanity of a society which covets property
over humanity and adheres to theories of submission and domination
rather than self-determination and self-actualisation. His scathing
indictment of modern capitalism shows that it is the main source of the
isolation and alienation prevalent in today. Alienation, for Fromm, is
at the heart of the system (whether private or state capitalism). We
are happy to the extent that we realise ourselves and for this to occur
our society must value the human over the inanimate (property).
Fromm rooted his ideas in a humanistic interpretation of Marx,
rejecting Leninism and Stalinism as an authoritarian corruption of his
ideas ("the destruction of socialism . . . began with Lenin.").
Moreover, he stressed the need for a decentralised and libertarian form
of socialism, arguing that the anarchists had been right to question
Marx's preferences for states and centralisation. As he put it, the
"errors of Marx and Engels . . . [and] their centralistic orientation,
were due to the fact they were much more rooted in the middle-class
tradition of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, both
psychologically and intellectually, than men like Fourier, Owen,
Proudhon and Kropotkin." As the "contradiction" in Marx between "the
principles of centralisation and decentralisation," for Fromm "Marx and
Engels were much more 'bourgeois' thinkers than were men like Proudhon,
Bakunin, Kropotkin and Landauer. Paradoxical as it sounds, the Leninist
development of Socialism represented a regression to the bourgeois
concepts of the state and of political power, rather than the new
socialist concept as it was expressed so much clearer by Owen, Proudhon
and others." [The Sane Society, p. 265, p. 267 and p. 259] Fromm's
Marxism, therefore, was fundamentally of a libertarian and humanist
type and his insights of profound importance for anyone interested in
changing society for the better.
Wilheim Reich, like Fromm, set out to elaborate a social psychology
based on both Marxism and psychoanalysis. For Reich, sexual repression
led to people amenable to authoritarianism and happy to subject
themselves to authoritarian regimes. While he famously analysed Nazism
in this way (in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, his insights also apply
to other societies and movements (it is no co-incidence, for example,
that the religious right in America oppose pre-martial sex and use
scare tactics to get teenagers to associate it with disease, dirt and
guilt).
His argument is that due to sexual repression we develop what he called
"character armour" which internalises our oppressions and ensures that
we can function in a hierarchical society. This social conditioning is
produced by the patriarchal family and its net results is a powerful
reinforcement and perpetuation of the dominant ideology and the mass
production of individuals with obedience built into them, individuals
ready to accept the authority of teacher, priest, employer and
politician as well as to endorse the prevailing social structure. This
explains how individuals and groups can support movements and
institutions which exploit or oppress them. In other words, act think,
feel and act against themselves and, moreover, can internalise their
own oppression to such a degree that they may even seek to defend their
subordinate position.
Thus, for Reich, sexual repression produces an individual who is
adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite
of all misery and degradation it causes them. The net result is fear of
freedom, and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression
aids political power, not only through the process which makes the mass
individual passive and unpolitical, but also by creating in their
character structure an interest in actively supporting the
authoritarian order.
While his uni-dimensional focus on sex is misplaced, his analysis of
how we internalise our oppression in order to survive under hierarchy
is important for understanding why so many of the most oppressed people
seem to love their social position and those who rule over them. By
understanding this collective character structure and how it forms also
provides humanity with new means of transcending such obstacles to
social change. Only an awareness of how people's character structure
prevents them from becoming aware of their real interests can it be
combated and social self-emancipation assured.
Maurice Brinton's The Irrational in Politics is an excellent short
introduction to Reich's ideas which links their insights to libertarian
socialism.
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?
Anarchism, more than anything else, is about the efforts of millions of
revolutionaries changing the world in the last two centuries. Here we
will discuss some of the high points of this movement, all of them of a
profoundly anti-capitalist nature.
Anarchism is about radically changing the world, not just making the
present system less inhuman by encouraging the anarchistic tendencies
within it to grow and develop. While no purely anarchist revolution has
taken place yet, there have been numerous ones with a highly anarchist
character and level of participation. And while these have all been
destroyed, in each case it has been at the hands of outside force
brought against them (backed either by Communists or Capitalists), not
because of any internal problems in anarchism itself. These
revolutions, despite their failure to survive in the face of
overwhelming force, have been both an inspiration for anarchists and
proof that anarchism is a viable social theory and can be practised on
a large scale.
What these revolutions share is the fact they are, to use Proudhon's
term, a "revolution from below" -- they were examples of "collective
activity, of popular spontaneity." It is only a transformation of
society from the bottom up by the action of the oppressed themselves
that can create a free society. As Proudhon asked, "[w]hat serious and
lasting Revolution was not made from below, by the people?" For this
reason an anarchist is a "revolutionary from below." Thus the social
revolutions and mass movements we discuss in this section are examples
of popular self-activity and self-liberation (as Proudhon put it in
1848, "the proletariat must emancipate itself"). [quoted by George
Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography, p. 143 and p. 125] All
anarchists echo Proudhon's idea of revolutionary change from below, the
creation of a new society by the actions of the oppressed themselves.
Bakunin, for example, argued that anarchists are "foes . . . of all
State organisations as such, and believe that the people can only be
happy and free, when, organised from below by means of its own
autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of
any guardians, it will create its own life." [Marxism, Freedom and the
State, p. 63] In section J.7 we discuss what anarchists think a social
revolution is and what it involves.
Many of these revolutions and revolutionary movements are relatively
unknown to non-anarchists. Most people will have heard of the Russian
revolution but few will know of the popular movements which were its
life-blood before the Bolsheviks seized power or the role that the
anarchists played in it. Few will have heard of the Paris Commune, the
Italian factory occupations or the Spanish collectives. This is
unsurprising for, as Hebert Read notes, history "is of two kinds -- a
record of events that take place publicly, that make the headlines in
the newspapers and get embodied in official records -- we might call
this overground history" but "taking place at the same time, preparing
for these public events, anticipating them, is another kind of history,
that is not embodied in official records, an invisible underground
history." [quoted by William R. McKercher, Freedom and Authority, p.
155] Almost by definition, popular movements and revolts are part of
"underground history", the social history which gets ignored in favour
of elite history, the accounts of the kings, queens, politicians and
wealthy whose fame is the product of the crushing of the many.
This means our examples of "anarchy in action" are part of what the
Russian anarchist Voline called "The Unknown Revolution." Voline used
that expression as the title of his classic account of the Russian
revolution he was an active participant of. He used it to refer to the
rarely acknowledged independent, creative actions of the people
themselves. As Voline put it, "it is not known how to study a
revolution" and most historians "mistrust and ignore those developments
which occur silently in the depths of the revolution . . . at best,
they accord them a few words in passing . . . [Yet] it is precisely
these hidden facts which are important, and which throw a true light on
the events under consideration and on the period." [The Unknown
Revolution, p. 19] Anarchism, based as it is on revolution from below,
has contributed considerably to both the "underground history" and the
"unknown revolution" of the past few centuries and this section of the
FAQ will shed some light on its achievements.
It is important to point out that these examples are of wide-scale
social experiments and do not imply that we ignore the undercurrent of
anarchist practice which exists in everyday life, even under
capitalism. Both Peter Kropotkin (in Mutual Aid) and Colin Ward (in
Anarchy in Action) have documented the many ways in which ordinary
people, usually unaware of anarchism, have worked together as equals to
meet their common interests. As Colin Ward argues, "an anarchist
society, a society which organises itself without authority, is always
in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of
the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and
its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious
differences and their superstitious separatism." [Anarchy in Action, p.
14]
Anarchism is not only about a future society, it is also about the
social struggle happening today. It is not a condition but a process,
which we create by our self-activity and self-liberation.
By the 1960's, however, many commentators were writing off the
anarchist movement as a thing of the past. Not only had fascism
finished off European anarchist movements in the years before and
during the war, but in the post-war period these movements were
prevented from recovering by the capitalist West on one hand and the
Leninist East on the other. Over the same period of time, anarchism had
been repressed in the US, Latin America, China, Korea (where a social
revolution with anarchist content was put down before the Korean War),
and Japan. Even in the one or two countries that escaped the worst of
the repression, the combination of the Cold War and international
isolation saw libertarian unions like the Swedish SAC become reformist.
But the 60's were a decade of new struggle, and all over the world the
'New Left' looked to anarchism as well as elsewhere for its ideas. Many
of the prominent figures of the massive explosion of May 1968 in France
considered themselves anarchists. Although these movements themselves
degenerated, those coming out of them kept the idea alive and began to
construct new movements. The death of Franco in 1975 saw a massive
rebirth of anarchism in Spain, with up to 500,000 people attending the
CNT's first post-Franco rally. The return to a limited democracy in
some South American countries in the late 70's and 80's saw a growth in
anarchism there. Finally, in the late 80's it was anarchists who struck
the first blows against the Leninist USSR, with the first protest march
since 1928 being held in Moscow by anarchists in 1987.
Today the anarchist movement, although still weak, organises tens of
thousands of revolutionaries in many countries. Spain, Sweden and Italy
all have libertarian union movements organising some 250,000 between
them. Most other European countries have several thousand active
anarchists. Anarchist groups have appeared for the first time in other
countries, including Nigeria and Turkey. In South America the movement
has recovered massively. A contact sheet circulated by the Venezuelan
anarchist group Corrio A lists over 100 organisations in just about
every country.
Perhaps the recovery is slowest in North America, but there, too, all
the libertarian organisations seem to be undergoing significant growth.
As this growth accelerates, many more examples of anarchy in action
will be created and more and more people will take part in anarchist
organisations and activities, making this part of the FAQ less and less
important.
However, it is essential to highlight mass examples of anarchism
working on a large scale in order to avoid the specious accusation of
"utopianism." As history is written by the winners, these examples of
anarchy in action are often hidden from view in obscure books. Rarely
are they mentioned in the schools and universities (or if mentioned,
they are distorted). Needless to say, the few examples we give are just
that, a few.
Anarchism has a long history in many countries, and we cannot attempt
to document every example, just those we consider to be important. We
are also sorry if the examples seem Eurocentric. We have, due to space
and time considerations, had to ignore the syndicalist revolt (1910 to
1914) and the shop steward movement (1917-21) in Britain, Germany
(1919-21), Portugal (1974), the Mexican revolution, anarchists in the
Cuban revolution, the struggle in Korea against Japanese (then US and
Russian) imperialism during and after the Second World War, Hungary
(1956), the "the refusal of work" revolt in the late 1960's
(particularly in "the hot Autumn" in Italy, 1969), the UK miner's
strike (1984-85), the struggle against the Poll Tax in Britain
(1988-92), the strikes in France in 1986 and 1995, the Italian COBAS
movement in the 80's and 90's, the popular assemblies and self-managed
occupied workplaces during the Argentine revolt at the start of the
21st century and numerous other major struggles that have involved
anarchist ideas of self-management (ideas that usually develop from the
movement themselves, without anarchists necessarily playing a major, or
"leading", role).
For anarchists, revolutions and mass struggles are "festivals of the
oppressed," when ordinary people start to act for themselves and change
both themselves and the world.
A.5.1 The Paris Commune
The Paris Commune of 1871 played an important role in the development
of both anarchist ideas and the movement. As Bakunin commented at the
time,
"revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] has just
attempted its first striking and practical demonstration in the Paris
Commune . . . [It] show[ed] to all enslaved peoples (and are there any
masses that are not slaves?) the only road to emancipation and health;
Paris inflict[ed] a mortal blow upon the political traditions of
bourgeois radicalism and [gave] a real basis to revolutionary
socialism." [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 263-4]
The Paris Commune was created after France was defeated by Prussia in
the Franco-Prussian war. The French government tried to send in troops
to regain the Parisian National Guard's cannon to prevent it from
falling into the hands of the population. "Learning that the Versailles
soldiers were trying to seize the cannon," recounted participant Louise
Michel, "men and women of Montmarte swarmed up the Butte in surprise
manoeuvre. Those people who were climbing up the Butte believed they
would die, but they were prepared to pay the price." The soldiers
refused to fire on the jeering crowd and turned their weapons on their
officers. This was March 18th; the Commune had begun and "the people
wakened . . . The eighteenth of March could have belonged to the allies
of kings, or to foreigners, or to the people. It was the people's."
[Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 64]
In the free elections called by the Parisian National Guard, the
citizens of Paris elected a council made up of a majority of Jacobins
and Republicans and a minority of socialists (mostly Blanquists --
authoritarian socialists -- and followers of the anarchist Proudhon).
This council proclaimed Paris autonomous and desired to recreate France
as a confederation of communes (i.e. communities). Within the Commune,
the elected council people were recallable and paid an average wage. In
addition, they had to report back to the people who had elected them
and were subject to recall by electors if they did not carry out their
mandates.
Why this development caught the imagination of anarchists is clear --
it has strong similarities with anarchist ideas. In fact, the example
of the Paris Commune was in many ways similar to how Bakunin had
predicted that a revolution would have to occur -- a major city
declaring itself autonomous, organising itself, leading by example, and
urging the rest of the planet to follow it. (See "Letter to Albert
Richards" in Bakunin on Anarchism). The Paris Commune began the process
of creating a new society, one organised from the bottom up. It was "a
blow for the decentralisation of political power." [Voltairine de
Cleyre, "The Paris Commune," Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's
Mother Earth, p. 67]
Many anarchists played a role within the Commune -- for example Louise
Michel, the Reclus brothers, and Eugene Varlin (the latter murdered in
the repression afterwards). As for the reforms initiated by the
Commune, such as the re-opening of workplaces as co-operatives,
anarchists can see their ideas of associated labour beginning to be
realised. By May, 43 workplaces were co-operatively run and the Louvre
Museum was a munitions factory run by a workers' council. Echoing
Proudhon, a meeting of the Mechanics Union and the Association of Metal
Workers argued that "our economic emancipation . . . can only be
obtained through the formation of workers' associations, which alone
can transform our position from that of wage earners to that of
associates." They instructed their delegates to the Commune's
Commission on Labour Organisation to support the following objectives:
"The abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the last vestige of slavery;
"The organisation of labour in mutual associations and inalienable capital."
In this way, they hoped to ensure that "equality must not be an empty
word" in the Commune. [The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the
Left, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 164] The Engineers Union voted at a
meeting on 23rd of April that since the aim of the Commune should be
"economic emancipation" it should "organise labour through associations
in which there would be joint responsibility" in order "to suppress the
exploitation of man by man." [quoted by Stewart Edwards, The Paris
Commune 1871, pp. 263-4]
As well as self-managed workers' associations, the Communards practised
direct democracy in a network popular clubs, popular organisations
similar to the directly democratic neighbourhood assemblies
("sections") of the French Revolution. "People, govern yourselves
through your public meetings, through your press" proclaimed the
newspaper of one Club. The commune was seen as an expression of the
assembled people, for (to quote another Club) "Communal power resides
in each arrondissement [neighbourhood] wherever men are assembled who
have a horror of the yoke and of servitude." Little wonder that Gustave
Courbet, artist friend and follower of Proudhon, proclaimed Paris as "a
true paradise . . . all social groups have established themselves as
federations and are masters of their own fate." [quoted by Martin
Phillip Johnson, The Paradise of Association, p. 5 and p. 6]
In addition the Commune's "Declaration to the French People" which
echoed many key anarchist ideas. It saw the "political unity" of
society as being based on "the voluntary association of all local
initiatives, the free and spontaneous concourse of all individual
energies for the common aim, the well-being, the liberty and the
security of all." [quoted by Edwards, Op. Cit., p. 218] The new society
envisioned by the communards was one based on the "absolute autonomy of
the Commune. . . assuring to each its integral rights and to each
Frenchman the full exercise of his aptitudes, as a man, a citizen and a
labourer. The autonomy of the Commune will have for its limits only the
equal autonomy of all other communes adhering to the contract; their
association must ensure the liberty of France." ["Declaration to the
French People", quoted by George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A
Biography, pp. 276-7] With its vision of a confederation of communes,
Bakunin was correct to assert that the Paris Commune was "a bold,
clearly formulated negation of the State." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p.
264]
Moreover, the Commune's ideas on federation obviously reflected the
influence of Proudhon on French radical ideas. Indeed, the Commune's
vision of a communal France based on a federation of delegates bound by
imperative mandates issued by their electors and subject to recall at
any moment echoes Proudhon's ideas (Proudhon had argued in favour of
the "implementation of the binding mandate" in 1848 [No Gods, No
Masters, p. 63] and for federation of communes in his work The
Principle of Federation).
Thus both economically and politically the Paris Commune was heavily
influenced by anarchist ideas. Economically, the theory of associated
production expounded by Proudhon and Bakunin became consciously
revolutionary practice. Politically, in the Commune's call for
federalism and autonomy, anarchists see their "future social
organisation. . . [being] carried out from the bottom up, by the free
association or federation of workers, starting with associations, then
going into the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally,
culminating in a great international and universal federation."
[Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 270]
However, for anarchists the Commune did not go far enough. It did not
abolish the state within the Commune, as it had abolished it beyond it.
The Communards organised themselves "in a Jacobin manner" (to use
Bakunin's cutting term). As Peter Kropotkin pointed out, while
"proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an
essential anarchist principle . . . they stopped mid-course" and gave
"themselves a Communal Council copied from the old municipal councils."
Thus the Paris Commune did not "break with the tradition of the State,
of representative government, and it did not attempt to achieve within
the Commune that organisation from the simple to the complex it
inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and free federation of the
Communes." This lead to disaster as the Commune council became
"immobilised . . . by red tape" and lost "the sensitivity that comes
from continued contact with the masses . . . Paralysed by their
distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people -- they
themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Words of a Rebel, p. 97,
p. 93 and p. 97]
In addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough,
making no attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives (i.e. to
expropriate capital) and forming associations of these co-operatives to
co-ordinate and support each other's economic activities. Paris,
stressed Voltairine de Cleyre, "failed to strike at economic tyranny,
and so came of what it could have achieved" which was a "free community
whose economic affairs shall be arranged by the groups of actual
producers and distributors, eliminating the useless and harmful element
now in possession of the world's capital." [Op. Cit., p. 67] As the
city was under constant siege by the French army, it is understandable
that the Communards had other things on their minds. However, for
Kropotkin such a position was a disaster:
"They treated the economic question as a secondary
one, which would be attended to later on, after the triumph of the
Commune . . . But the crushing defeat which soon followed, and the
blood-thirsty revenge taken by the middle class, proved once more that
the triumph of a popular Commune was materially impossible without a
parallel triumph of the people in the economic field." [Op. Cit., p.
74]
Anarchists drew the obvious conclusions, arguing that "if no central
government was needed to rule the independent Communes, if the national
Government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by free
federation, then a central municipal Government becomes equally useless
and noxious. The same federative principle would do within the
Commune." [Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 75] Instead of
abolishing the state within the commune by organising federations of
directly democratic mass assemblies, like the Parisian "sections" of
the revolution of 1789-93 (see Kropotkin's Great French Revolution for
more on these), the Paris Commune kept representative government and
suffered for it. "Instead of acting for themselves . . . the people,
confiding in their governors, entrusted them the charge of taking the
initiative. This was the first consequence of the inevitable result of
elections." The council soon became "the greatest obstacle to the
revolution" thus proving the "political axiom that a government cannot
be revolutionary." [Anarchism, p. 240, p. 241 and p. 249]
The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected
it, and thus more and more irrelevant. And as its irrelevance grew, so
did its authoritarian tendencies, with the Jacobin majority creating a
"Committee of Public Safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution."
The Committee was opposed by the libertarian socialist minority and
was, fortunately, ignored in practice by the people of Paris as they
defended their freedom against the French army, which was attacking
them in the name of capitalist civilisation and "liberty." On May 21st,
government troops entered the city, followed by seven days of bitter
street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of the
bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over
25,000 people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after
they had surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves. As a
final insult, Sacré Coeur was built by the bourgeoisie on the birth
place of the Commune, the Butte of Montmarte, to atone for the radical
and atheist revolt which had so terrified them.
For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold.
Firstly, a decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary
political form of a free society ("This was the form that the social
revolution must take -- the independent commune." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit.,
p. 163]). Secondly, "there is no more reason for a government inside a
Commune than for government above the Commune." This means that an
anarchist community will be based on a confederation of neighbourhood
and workplace assemblies freely co-operating together. Thirdly, it is
critically important to unify political and economic revolutions into a
social revolution. "They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put
off the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed
was to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!"
[Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel , p. 97]
For more anarchist perspectives on the Paris Commune see Kropotkin's
essay "The Paris Commune" in Words of a Rebel (and The Anarchist
Reader) and Bakunin's "The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State" in
Bakunin on Anarchism.
A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs
May 1st is a day of special significance for the labour movement. While
it has been hijacked in the past by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the
Soviet Union and elsewhere, the labour movement festival of May Day is
a day of world-wide solidarity. A time to remember past struggles and
demonstrate our hope for a better future. A day to remember that an
injury to one is an injury to all.
The history of Mayday is closely linked with the anarchist movement and
the struggles of working people for a better world. Indeed, it
originated with the execution of four anarchists in Chicago in 1886 for
organising workers in the fight for the eight-hour day. Thus May Day is
a product of "anarchy in action" -- of the struggle of working people
using direct action in labour unions to change the world.
It began in the 1880s in the USA. In 1884, the Federation of Organised
Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada (created in
1881, it changed its name in 1886 to the American Federation of Labor)
passed a resolution which asserted that "eight hours shall constitute a
legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to
labour organisations throughout this district that they so direct their
laws as to conform to this resolution." A call for strikes on May 1st,
1886 was made in support of this demand.
In Chicago the anarchists were the main force in the union movement,
and partially as a result of their presence, the unions translated this
call into strikes on May 1st. The anarchists thought that the eight
hour day could only be won through direct action and solidarity. They
considered that struggles for reforms, like the eight hour day, were
not enough in themselves. They viewed them as only one battle in an
ongoing class war that would only end by social revolution and the
creation of a free society. It was with these ideas that they organised
and fought.
In Chicago alone, 400 000 workers went out and the threat of strike
action ensured that more than 45 000 were granted a shorter working day
without striking. On May 3, 1886, police fired into a crowd of pickets
at the McCormick Harvester Machine Company, killing at least one
striker, seriously wounding five or six others, and injuring an
undetermined number. Anarchists called for a mass meeting the next day
in Haymarket Square to protest the brutality. According to the Mayor,
"nothing had occurred yet, or looked likely to occur to require
interference." However, as the meeting was breaking up a column of 180
police arrived and ordered the meeting to end. At this moment a bomb
was thrown into the police ranks, who opened fire on the crowd. How
many civilians were wounded or killed by the police was never exactly
ascertained.
A reign of terror swept over Chicago. Meeting halls, union offices,
printing shops and private homes were raided (usually without
warrants). Such raids into working-class areas allowed the police to
round up all known anarchists and other socialists. Many suspects were
beaten up and some bribed. "Make the raids first and look up the law
afterwards" was the public statement of J. Grinnell, the States
Attorney, when a question was raised about search warrants. ["Editor's
Introduction", The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 7]
Eight anarchists were put on trial for accessory to murder. No pretence
was made that any of the accused had carried out or even planned the
bomb. Instead the jury were told "Law is on trial. Anarchy is on trial.
These men have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and
indicted because they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the
thousands who follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men,
make examples of them, hang them and you save our institutions, our
society." [Op. Cit., p. 8] The jury was selected by a special bailiff,
nominated by the State's Attorney and was composed of businessmen and a
relative of one of the cops killed. The defence was not allowed to
present evidence that the special bailiff had publicly claimed "I am
managing this case and I know what I am about. These fellows are going
to be hanged as certain as death." [Ibid.] Not surprisingly, the
accused were convicted. Seven were sentenced to death, one to 15 years'
imprisonment.
An international campaign resulted in two of the death sentences being
commuted to life, but the world wide protest did not stop the US state.
Of the remaining five, one (Louis Lingg) cheated the executioner and
killed himself on the eve of the execution. The remaining four (Albert
Parsons, August Spies, George Engel and Adolph Fischer) were hanged on
November 11th 1887. They are known in Labour history as the Haymarket
Martyrs. Between 150,000 and 500,000 lined the route taken by the
funeral cortege and between 10,000 to 25,000 were estimated to have
watched the burial.
In 1889, the American delegation attending the International Socialist
congress in Paris proposed that May 1st be adopted as a workers'
holiday. This was to commemorate working class struggle and the
"Martyrdom of the Chicago Eight". Since then Mayday has became a day
for international solidarity. In 1893, the new Governor of Illinois
made official what the working class in Chicago and across the world
knew all along and pardoned the Martyrs because of their obvious
innocence and because "the trial was not fair".
The authorities had believed at the time of the trial that such
persecution would break the back of the labour movement. They were
wrong. In the words of August Spies when he addressed the court after
he had been sentenced to die:
"If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out
the labour movement . . . the movement from which the downtrodden
millions, the millions who toil in misery and want, expect salvation --
if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread on a spark,
but there and there, behind you -- and in front of you, and everywhere,
flames blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out."
[Op. Cit., pp. 8-9]
At the time and in the years to come, this defiance of the state and
capitalism was to win thousands to anarchism, particularly in the US
itself. Since the Haymarket event, anarchists have celebrated May Day
(on the 1st of May -- the reformist unions and labour parties moved its
marches to the first Sunday of the month). We do so to show our
solidarity with other working class people across the world, to
celebrate past and present struggles, to show our power and remind the
ruling class of their vulnerability. As Nestor Makhno put it:
"That day those American workers attempted, by
organising themselves, to give expression to their protest against the
iniquitous order of the State and Capital of the propertied . . .
"The workers of Chicago . . . had gathered to
resolve, in common, the problems of their lives and their struggles. . .
"Today too . . . the toilers . . . regard the first
of May as the occasion of a get-together when they will concern
themselves with their own affairs and consider the matter of their
emancipation." [The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, pp.
59-60]
Anarchists stay true to the origins of May Day and celebrate its birth
in the direct action of the oppressed. Oppression and exploitation
breed resistance and, for anarchists, May Day is an international
symbol of that resistance and power -- a power expressed in the last
words of August Spies, chiselled in stone on the monument to the
Haymarket martyrs in Waldheim Cemetery in Chicago:
"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you are throttling today."
To understand why the state and business class were so determined to
hang the Chicago Anarchists, it is necessary to realise they were
considered the "leaders" of a massive radical union movement. In 1884,
the Chicago Anarchists produced the world's first daily anarchist
newspaper, the Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeiting. This was written, read,
owned and published by the German immigrant working class movement. The
combined circulation of this daily plus a weekly (Vorbote) and a Sunday
edition (Fackel) more than doubled, from 13,000 per issues in 1880 to
26,980 in 1886. Anarchist weekly papers existed for other ethnic groups
as well (one English, one Bohemian and one Scandinavian).
Anarchists were very active in the Central Labour Union (which included
the eleven largest unions in the city) and aimed to make it, in the
words of Albert Parsons (one of the Martyrs), "the embryonic group of
the future 'free society.'" The anarchists were also part of the
International Working People's Association (also called the "Black
International") which had representatives from 26 cities at its
founding convention. The I.W.P.A. soon "made headway among trade
unions, especially in the mid-west" and its ideas of "direct action of
the rank and file" and of trade unions "serv[ing] as the instrument of
the working class for the complete destruction of capitalism and the
nucleus for the formation of a new society" became known as the
"Chicago Idea" (an idea which later inspired the Industrial Workers of
the World which was founded in Chicago in 1905). ["Editor's
Introduction," The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 4]
This idea was expressed in the manifesto issued at the I.W.P.A.'s Pittsburgh Congress of 1883:
"First -- Destruction of the existing class rule, by
all means, i.e. by energetic, relentless, revolutionary and
international action.
"Second -- Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative organisation of production.
"Third -- Free exchange of equivalent products by
and between the productive organisations without commerce and
profit-mongery.
"Fourth -- Organisation of education on a secular, scientific and equal basis for both sexes.
"Fifth -- Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race.
"Sixth -- Regulation of all public affairs by free
contracts between autonomous (independent) communes and associations,
resting on a federalistic basis." [Op. Cit., p. 42]
In addition to their union organising, the Chicago anarchist movement
also organised social societies, picnics, lectures, dances, libraries
and a host of other activities. These all helped to forge a distinctly
working-class revolutionary culture in the heart of the "American
Dream." The threat to the ruling class and their system was too great
to allow it to continue (particularly with memories of the vast
uprising of labour in 1877 still fresh. As in 1886, that revolt was
also meet by state violence -- see Strike! by J. Brecher for details of
this strike movement as well as the Haymarket events). Hence the
repression, kangaroo court, and the state murder of those the state and
capitalist class considered "leaders" of the movement.
For more on the Haymarket Martyrs, their lives and their ideas, the The
Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs is essential reading. Albert
Parsons, the only American born Martyr, produced a book which explained
what they stood for called Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific
Basis. Historian Paul Avrich's The Haymarket Tragedy is a useful in
depth account of the events.
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions
Just before the turn of the century in Europe, the anarchist movement
began to create one of the most successful attempts to apply anarchist
organisational ideas in everyday life. This was the building of mass
revolutionary unions (also known as syndicalism or
anarcho-syndicalism). The syndicalist movement, in the words of a
leading French syndicalist militant, was "a practical schooling in
anarchism" for it was "a laboratory of economic struggles" and
organised "along anarchic lines." By organising workers into
"libertarian organisations," the syndicalist unions were creating the
"free associations of free producers" within capitalism to combat it
and, ultimately, replace it. [Fernand Pelloutier, No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 2, p. 57, p. 55 and p. 56]
While the details of syndicalist organisation varied from country to
country, the main lines were the same. Workers should form themselves
into unions (or syndicates, the French for union). While organisation
by industry was generally the preferred form, craft and trade
organisations were also used. These unions were directly controlled by
their members and would federate together on an industrial and
geographical basis. Thus a given union would be federated with all the
local unions in a given town, region and country as well as with all
the unions within its industry into a national union (of, say, miners
or metal workers). Each union was autonomous and all officials were
part-time (and paid their normal wages if they missed work on union
business). The tactics of syndicalism were direct action and solidarity
and its aim was to replace capitalism by the unions providing the basic
framework of the new, free, society.
Thus, for anarcho-syndicalism, "the trade union is by no means a mere
transitory phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist society,
it is the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, the elementary
school of Socialism in general." The "economic fighting organisation of
the workers" gives their members "every opportunity for direct action
in their struggles for daily bread, it also provides them with the
necessary preliminaries for carrying through the reorganisation of
social life on a [libertarian] Socialist plan by them own strength."
[Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 59 and p. 62]
Anarcho-syndicalism, to use the expression of the I.W.W., aims to build
the new world in the shell of the old.
In the period from the 1890's to the outbreak of World War I,
anarchists built revolutionary unions in most European countries
(particularly in Spain, Italy and France). In addition, anarchists in
South and North America were also successful in organising syndicalist
unions (particularly Cuba, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil). Almost all
industrialised countries had some syndicalist movement, although Europe
and South America had the biggest and strongest ones. These unions were
organised in a confederal manner, from the bottom up, along anarchist
lines. They fought with capitalists on a day-to-day basis around the
issue of better wages and working conditions and the state for social
reforms, but they also sought to overthrow capitalism through the
revolutionary general strike.
Thus hundreds of thousands of workers around the world were applying
anarchist ideas in everyday life, proving that anarchy was no utopian
dream but a practical method of organising on a wide scale. That
anarchist organisational techniques encouraged member participation,
empowerment and militancy, and that they also successfully fought for
reforms and promoted class consciousness, can be seen in the growth of
anarcho-syndicalist unions and their impact on the labour movement. The
Industrial Workers of the World, for example, still inspires union
activists and has, throughout its long history, provided many union
songs and slogans.
However, as a mass movement, syndicalism effectively ended by the
1930s. This was due to two factors. Firstly, most of the syndicalist
unions were severely repressed just after World War I. In the immediate
post-war years they reached their height. This wave of militancy was
known as the "red years" in Italy, where it attained its high point
with factory occupations (see section A.5.5). But these years also saw
the destruction of these unions in country after county. In the USA,
for example, the I.W.W. was crushed by a wave of repression backed
whole-heartedly by the media, the state, and the capitalist class.
Europe saw capitalism go on the offensive with a new weapon -- fascism.
Fascism arose (first in Italy and, most infamously, in Germany) as an
attempt by capitalism to physically smash the organisations the working
class had built. This was due to radicalism that had spread across
Europe in the wake of the war ending, inspired by the example of
Russia. Numerous near revolutions had terrified the bourgeoisie, who
turned to fascism to save their system.
In country after country, anarchists were forced to flee into exile,
vanish from sight, or became victims of assassins or concentration
camps after their (often heroic) attempts at fighting fascism failed.
In Portugal, for example, the 100,000 strong anarcho-syndicalist CGT
union launched numerous revolts in the late 1920s and early 1930s
against fascism. In January 1934, the CGT called for a revolutionary
general strike which developed into a five day insurrection. A state of
siege was declared by the state, which used extensive force to crush
the rebellion. The CGT, whose militants had played a prominent and
courageous role in the insurrection, was completely smashed and
Portugal remained a fascist state for the next 40 years. [Phil Mailer,
Portugal: The Impossible Revolution, pp. 72-3] In Spain, the CNT (the
most famous anarcho-syndicalist union) fought a similar battle. By
1936, it claimed one and a half million members. As in Italy and
Portugal, the capitalist class embraced fascism to save their power
from the dispossessed, who were becoming confident of their power and
their right to manage their own lives (see section A.5.6).
As well as fascism, syndicalism also faced the negative influence of
Leninism. The apparent success of the Russian revolution led many
activists to turn to authoritarian politics, particularly in English
speaking countries and, to a lesser extent, France. Such notable
syndicalist activists as Tom Mann in England, William Gallacher in
Scotland and William Foster in the USA became Communists (the last two,
it should be noted, became Stalinist). Moreover, Communist parties
deliberately undermined the libertarian unions, encouraging fights and
splits (as, for example, in the I.W.W.). After the end of the Second
World War, the Stalinists finished off what fascism had started in
Eastern Europe and destroyed the anarchist and syndicalist movements in
such places as Bulgaria and Poland. In Cuba, Castro also followed
Lenin's example and did what the Batista and Machado dictatorship's
could not, namely smash the influential anarchist and syndicalist
movements (see Frank Fernandez's Cuban Anarchism for a history of this
movement from its origins in the 1860s to the 21st century).
So by the start of the second world war, the large and powerful
anarchist movements of Italy, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria and Portugal had
been crushed by fascism (but not, we must stress, without a fight).
When necessary, the capitalists supported authoritarian states in order
to crush the labour movement and make their countries safe for
capitalism. Only Sweden escaped this trend, where the syndicalist union
the SAC is still organising workers. It is, in fact, like many other
syndicalist unions active today, growing as workers turn away from
bureaucratic unions whose leaders seem more interested in protecting
their privileges and cutting deals with management than defending their
members. In France, Spain and Italy and elsewhere, syndicalist unions
are again on the rise, showing that anarchist ideas are applicable in
everyday life.
Finally, it must be stressed that syndicalism has its roots in the
ideas of the earliest anarchists and, consequently, was not invented in
the 1890s. It is true that development of syndicalism came about, in
part, as a reaction to the disastrous "propaganda by deed" period, in
which individual anarchists assassinated government leaders in attempts
to provoke a popular uprising and in revenge for the mass murders of
the Communards and other rebels (see section A.2.18 for details). But
in response to this failed and counterproductive campaign, anarchists
went back to their roots and to the ideas of Bakunin. Thus, as
recognised by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, syndicalism was
simply a return to the ideas current in the libertarian wing of the
First International.
Thus we find Bakunin arguing that "it is necessary to organise the
power of the proletariat. But this organisation must be the work of the
proletariat itself . . . Organise, constantly organise the
international militant solidarity of the workers, in every trade and
country, and remember that however weak you are as isolated individuals
or districts, you will constitute a tremendous, invincible power by
means of universal co-operation." As one American activist commented,
this is "the same militant spirit that breathes now in the best
expressions of the Syndicalist and I.W.W. movements" both of which
express "a strong world wide revival of the ideas for which Bakunin
laboured throughout his life." [Max Baginski, Anarchy! An Anthology of
Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, p. 71] As with the syndicalists, Bakunin
stressed the "organisation of trade sections, their federation . . .
bear in themselves the living germs of the new social order, which is
to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas
but also the facts of the future itself." [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op.
Cit., p. 50]
Such ideas were repeated by other libertarians. Eugene Varlin, whose
role in the Paris Commune ensured his death, advocated a socialism of
associations, arguing in 1870 that syndicates were the "natural
elements" for the rebuilding of society: "it is they that can easily be
transformed into producer associations; it is they that can put into
practice the retooling of society and the organisation of production."
[quoted by Martin Phillip Johnson, The Paradise of Association, p. 139]
As we discussed in section A.5.2, the Chicago Anarchists held similar
views, seeing the labour movement as both the means of achieving
anarchy and the framework of the free society. As Lucy Parsons (the
wife of Albert) put it "we hold that the granges, trade-unions, Knights
of Labour assemblies, etc., are the embryonic groups of the ideal
anarchistic society . . ." [contained in Albert R. Parsons, Anarchism:
Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, p. 110] These ideas fed into the
revolutionary unionism of the I.W.W. As one historian notes, the
"proceedings of the I.W.W.'s inaugural convention indicate that the
participants were not only aware of the 'Chicago Idea' but were
conscious of a continuity between their efforts and the struggles of
the Chicago anarchists to initiate industrial unionism." The Chicago
idea represented "the earliest American expression of syndicalism."
[Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November, p. 71]
Thus, syndicalism and anarchism are not differing theories but, rather,
different interpretations of the same ideas (see for a fuller
discussion section H.2.8). While not all syndicalists are anarchists
(some Marxists have proclaimed support for syndicalism) and not all
anarchists are syndicalists (see section J.3.9 for a discussion why),
all social anarchists see the need for taking part in the labour and
other popular movements and encouraging libertarian forms of
organisation and struggle within them. By doing this, inside and
outside of syndicalist unions, anarchists are showing the validity of
our ideas. For, as Kropotkin stressed, the "next revolution must from
its inception bring about the seizure of the entire social wealth by
the workers in order to transform it into common property. This
revolution can succeed only through the workers, only if the urban and
rural workers everywhere carry out this objective themselves. To that
end, they must initiate their own action in the period before the
revolution; this can happen only if there is a strong workers'
organisation." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 20]
Such popular self-managed organisations cannot be anything but "anarchy
in action."
A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.
The Russian revolution of 1917 saw a huge growth in anarchism in that
country and many experiments in anarchist ideas. However, in popular
culture the Russian Revolution is seen not as a mass movement by
ordinary people struggling towards freedom but as the means by which
Lenin imposed his dictatorship on Russia. The truth is radically
different. The Russian Revolution was a mass movement from below in
which many different currents of ideas existed and in which millions of
working people (workers in the cities and towns as well as peasants)
tried to transform their world into a better place. Sadly, those hopes
and dreams were crushed under the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party
-- first under Lenin, later under Stalin.
The Russian Revolution, like most history, is a good example of the
maxim "history is written by those who win." Most capitalist histories
of the period between 1917 and 1921 ignore what the anarchist Voline
called "the unknown revolution" -- the revolution called forth from
below by the actions of ordinary people. Leninist accounts, at best,
praise this autonomous activity of workers so long as it coincides with
their own party line but radically condemn it (and attribute it with
the basest motives) as soon as it strays from that line. Thus Leninist
accounts will praise the workers when they move ahead of the Bolsheviks
(as in the spring and summer of 1917) but will condemn them when they
oppose Bolshevik policy once the Bolsheviks are in power. At worse,
Leninist accounts portray the movement and struggles of the masses as
little more than a backdrop to the activities of the vanguard party.
For anarchists, however, the Russian Revolution is seen as a classic
example of a social revolution in which the self-activity of working
people played a key role. In their soviets, factory committees and
other class organisations, the Russian masses were trying to transform
society from a class-ridden, hierarchical statist regime into one based
on liberty, equality and solidarity. As such, the initial months of the
Revolution seemed to confirm Bakunin's prediction that the "future
social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the
free associations or federations of workers, firstly in their unions,
then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great
federation, international and universal." [Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 206] The soviets and factory committees expressed
concretely Bakunin's ideas and Anarchists played an important role in
the struggle.
The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of the
masses. In February 1917, the women of Petrograd erupted in bread
riots. On February 18th, the workers of the Putilov Works in Petrograd
went on strike. By February 22nd, the strike had spread to other
factories. Two days later, 200 000 workers were on strike and by
February 25th the strike was virtually general. The same day also saw
the first bloody clashes between protestors and the army. The turning
point came on the 27th, when some troops went over to the revolutionary
masses, sweeping along other units. This left the government without
its means of coercion, the Tsar abdicated and a provisional government
was formed.
So spontaneous was this movement that all the political parties were
left behind. This included the Bolsheviks, with the "Petrograd
organisation of the Bolsheviks oppos[ing] the calling of strikes
precisely on the eve of the revolution destined to overthrow the Tsar.
Fortunately, the workers ignored the Bolshevik 'directives' and went on
strike anyway . . . Had the workers followed its guidance, it is
doubtful that the revolution would have occurred when it did." [Murray
Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 194]
The revolution carried on in this vein of direct action from below
until the new, "socialist" state was powerful enough to stop it.
For the Left, the end of Tsarism was the culmination of years of effort
by socialists and anarchists everywhere. It represented the progressive
wing of human thought overcoming traditional oppression, and as such
was duly praised by leftists around the world. However, in Russia
things were progressing. In the workplaces and streets and on the land,
more and more people became convinced that abolishing feudalism
politically was not enough. The overthrow of the Tsar made little real
difference if feudal exploitation still existed in the economy, so
workers started to seize their workplaces and peasants, the land. All
across Russia, ordinary people started to build their own
organisations, unions, co-operatives, factory committees and councils
(or "soviets" in Russian). These organisations were initially organised
in anarchist fashion, with recallable delegates and being federated
with each other.
Needless to say, all the political parties and organisations played a
role in this process. The two wings of the Marxist social-democrats
were active (the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks), as were the Social
Revolutionaries (a populist peasant based party) and the anarchists.
The anarchists participated in this movement, encouraging all
tendencies to self-management and urging the overthrow of the
provisional government. They argued that it was necessary to transform
the revolution from a purely political one into an economic/social one.
Until the return of Lenin from exile, they were the only political
tendency who thought along those lines.
Lenin convinced his party to adopt the slogan "All Power to the
Soviets" and push the revolution forward. This meant a sharp break with
previous Marxist positions, leading one ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik
to comment that Lenin had "made himself a candidate for one European
throne that has been vacant for thirty years -- the throne of Bakunin!"
[quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution, p. 40] The
Bolsheviks now turned to winning mass support, championing direct
action and supporting the radical actions of the masses, policies in
the past associated with anarchism ("the Bolsheviks launched . . .
slogans which until then had been particularly and insistently been
voiced by the Anarchists." [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 210]).
Soon they were winning more and more votes in the soviet and factory
committee elections. As Alexander Berkman argues, the "Anarchist
mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not fail to bring results. The
masses relied to their flag." [What is Anarchism?, p. 120]
The anarchists were also influential at this time. Anarchists were
particularly active in the movement for workers self-management of
production which existed around the factory committees (see M. Brinton,
The Bolsheviks and Workers Control for details). They were arguing for
workers and peasants to expropriate the owning class, abolish all forms
of government and re-organise society from the bottom up using their
own class organisations -- the soviets, the factory committees,
co-operatives and so on. They could also influence the direction of
struggle. As Alexander Rabinowitch (in his study of the July uprising
of 1917) notes:
"At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the
[Petrograd] garrison and at the Kronstadt naval base, there was in fact
very little to distinguish Bolshevik from Anarchist. . . The
Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks competed for the support of the
same uneducated, depressed, and dissatisfied elements of the
population, and the fact is that in the summer of 1917, the
Anarchist-Communists, with the support they enjoyed in a few important
factories and regiments, possessed an undeniable capacity to influence
the course of events. Indeed, the Anarchist appeal was great enough in
some factories and military units to influence the actions of the
Bolsheviks themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 64]
Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June, 1917 (in response to a
rise in anarchist influence), "[b]y fencing ourselves off from the
Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the masses." [quoted by
Alexander Rabinowitch, Op. Cit., p. 102]
The anarchists operated with the Bolsheviks during the October
Revolution which overthrew the provisional government. But things
changed once the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party had
seized power. While both anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the
same slogans, there were important differences between the two. As
Voline argued, "[f]rom the lips and pens of the Anarchists, those
slogans were sincere and concrete, for they corresponded to their
principles and called for action entirely in conformity with such
principles. But with the Bolsheviks, the same slogans meant practical
solutions totally different from those of the libertarians and did not
tally with the ideas which the slogans appeared to express." [The
Unknown Revolution, p. 210]
Take, for example, the slogan "All power to the Soviets." For
anarchists it meant exactly that -- organs for the working class to run
society directly, based on mandated, recallable delegates. For the
Bolsheviks, that slogan was simply the means for a Bolshevik government
to be formed over and above the soviets. The difference is important,
"for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should belong to the
soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, and if it should
belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong
to the soviets." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 213] Reducing the soviets to
simply executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) government and
having their All-Russian Congress be able to recall the government
(i.e. those with real power) does not equal "all power," quite the
reverse.
Similarly with the term "workers' control of production." Before the
October Revolution Lenin saw "workers' control" purely in terms of the
"universal, all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists." [Will
the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 52] He did not see it in terms of
workers' management of production itself (i.e. the abolition of wage
labour) via federations of factory committees. Anarchists and the
workers' factory committees did. As S.A. Smith correctly notes, Lenin
used "the term ['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that
of the factory committees." In fact Lenin's "proposals . . . [were]
thoroughly statist and centralist in character, whereas the practice of
the factory committees was essentially local and autonomous." [Red
Petrograd, p. 154] For anarchists, "if the workers' organisations were
capable of exercising effective control [over their bosses], then they
also were capable of guaranteeing all production. In such an event,
private industry could be eliminated quickly but progressively, and
replaced by collective industry. Consequently, the Anarchists rejected
the vague nebulous slogan of 'control of production.' They advocated
expropriation -- progressive, but immediate -- of private industry by
the organisations of collective production." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 221]
Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the popular
meaning of workers' control and replaced it with their own, statist
conception. "On three occasions," one historian notes, "in the first
months of Soviet power, the [factory] committee leaders sought to bring
their model into being. At each point the party leadership overruled
them. The result was to vest both managerial and control powers in
organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities,
and formed by them." [Thomas F. Remington, Building Socialism in
Bolshevik Russia, p. 38] This process ultimately resulted in Lenin
arguing for, and introducing, "one-man management" armed with
"dictatorial" power (with the manager appointed from above by the
state) in April 1918. This process is documented in Maurice Brinton's
The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, which also indicates the clear
links between Bolshevik practice and Bolshevik ideology as well as how
both differed from popular activity and ideas.
Hence the comments by Russian Anarchist Peter Arshinov:
"Another no less important peculiarity is that [the]
October [revolution of 1917] has two meanings -- that which the
working' masses who participated in the social revolution gave it, and
with them the Anarchist-Communists, and that which was given it by the
political party [the Marxist-Communists] that captured power from this
aspiration to social revolution, and which betrayed and stifled all
further development. An enormous gulf exists between these two
interpretations of October. The October of the workers and peasants is
the suppression of the power of the parasite classes in the name of
equality and self-management. The Bolshevik October is the conquest of
power by the party of the revolutionary intelligentsia, the
installation of its 'State Socialism' and of its 'socialist' methods of
governing the masses." [The Two Octobers]
Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks, since the Bolshevik
leaders had hidden their state-building ideology behind support for the
soviets (as socialist historian Samuel Farber notes, the anarchists
"had actually been an unnamed coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in
the October Revolution." [Before Stalinism, p. 126]). However, this
support quickly "withered away" as the Bolsheviks showed that they
were, in fact, not seeking true socialism but were instead securing
power for themselves and pushing not for collective ownership of land
and productive resources but for government ownership. The Bolsheviks,
as noted, systematically undermined the workers'
control/self-management movement in favour of capitalist-like forms of
workplace management based around "one-man management" armed with
"dictatorial powers."
As regards the soviets, the Bolsheviks systematically undermining what
limited independence and democracy they had. In response to the "great
Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during the spring and summer
of 1918 "Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results of these
provincial elections." Also, the "government continually postponed the
new general elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had
ended in March 1918. Apparently, the government feared that the
opposition parties would show gains." [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit., p. 24
and p. 22] In the Petrograd elections, the Bolsheviks "lost the
absolute majority in the soviet they had previously enjoyed" but
remained the largest party. However, the results of the Petrograd
soviet elections were irrelevant as a "Bolshevik victory was assured by
the numerically quite significant representation now given to trade
unions, district soviets, factory-shop committees, district workers
conferences, and Red Army and naval units, in which the Bolsheviks had
overwhelming strength." [Alexander Rabinowitch, "The Evolution of Local
Soviets in Petrograd", pp. 20-37, Slavic Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, p.
36f] In other words, the Bolsheviks had undermined the democratic
nature of the soviet by swamping it by their own delegates. Faced with
rejection in the soviets, the Bolsheviks showed that for them "soviet
power" equalled party power. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks had to
destroy the soviets, which they did. The soviet system remained
"soviet" in name only. Indeed, from 1919 onwards Lenin, Trotsky and
other leading Bolsheviks were admitting that they had created a party
dictatorship and, moreover, that such a dictatorship was essential for
any revolution (Trotsky supported party dictatorship even after the
rise of Stalinism).
The Red Army, moreover, no longer was a democratic organisation. In
March of 1918 Trotsky had abolished the election of officers and
soldier committees:
"the principle of election is politically
purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice,
abolished by decree." [Work, Discipline, Order]
As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:
"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs
after Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The
death penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So, more
gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate living
quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic forms of
organisation, including the election of officers, had been quickly
dispensed with." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 37]
Unsurprisingly, Samuel Farber notes that "there is no evidence
indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders
lamented the loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets,
or at least referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared
with the replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921." [Before
Stalinism, p. 44]
Thus after the October Revolution, anarchists started to denounce the
Bolshevik regime and call for a "Third Revolution" which would finally
free the masses from all bosses (capitalist or socialist). They exposed
the fundamental difference between the rhetoric of Bolshevism (as
expressed, for example, in Lenin's State and Revolution) with its
reality. Bolshevism in power had proved Bakunin's prediction that the
"dictatorship of the proletariat" would become the "dictatorship over
the proletariat" by the leaders of the Communist Party.
The influence of the anarchists started to grow. As Jacques Sadoul (a French officer) noted in early 1918:
"The anarchist party is the most active, the most
militant of the opposition groups and probably the most popular . . .
The Bolsheviks are anxious." [quoted by Daniel Guerin, Anarchism, pp.
95-6]
By April 1918, the Bolsheviks began the physical suppression of their
anarchist rivals. On April 12th, 1918, the Cheka (the secret police
formed by Lenin in December, 1917) attacked anarchist centres in
Moscow. Those in other cities were attacked soon after. As well as
repressing their most vocal opponents on the left, the Bolsheviks were
restricting the freedom of the masses they claimed to be protecting.
Democratic soviets, free speech, opposition political parties and
groups, self-management in the workplace and on the land -- all were
destroyed in the name of "socialism." All this happened, we must
stress, before the start of the Civil War in late May, 1918, which most
supporters of Leninism blame for the Bolsheviks' authoritarianism.
During the civil war, this process accelerated, with the Bolsheviks'
systematically repressing opposition from all quarters -- including the
strikes and protests of the very class who they claimed was exercising
its "dictatorship" while they were in power!
It is important to stress that this process had started well before the
start of the civil war, confirming anarchist theory that a "workers'
state" is a contraction in terms. For anarchists, the Bolshevik
substitution of party power for workers power (and the conflict between
the two) did not come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of
power -- as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state"
expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers are
running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then
power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in
the hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state
can be an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to
its basic nature, structure and design. For this reason anarchists have
argued for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the agent of
revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the
state have been abolished.
As we discuss in section H, the degeneration of the Bolsheviks from a
popular working class party into dictators over the working class did
not occur by accident. A combination of political ideas and the
realities of state power (and the social relationships it generates)
could not help but result in such a degeneration. The political ideas
of Bolshevism, with its vanguardism, fear of spontaneity and
identification of party power with working class power inevitably meant
that the party would clash with those whom it claimed to represent.
After all, if the party is the vanguard then, automatically, everyone
else is a "backward" element. This meant that if the working class
resisted Bolshevik policies or rejected them in soviet elections, then
the working class was "wavering" and being influenced by
"petty-bourgeois" and "backward" elements. Vanguardism breeds elitism
and, when combined with state power, dictatorship.
State power, as anarchists have always stressed, means the delegation
of power into the hands of a few. This automatically produces a class
division in society -- those with power and those without. As such,
once in power the Bolsheviks were isolated from the working class. The
Russian Revolution confirmed Malatesta's argument that a "government,
that is a group of people entrusted with making laws and empowered to
use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is
already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any
constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its
powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to
give priority to its special interests. Having been put in a privileged
position, the government is already at odds with the people whose
strength it disposes of." [Anarchy, p. 34] A highly centralised state
such as the Bolsheviks built would reduce accountability to a minimum
while at the same time accelerating the isolation of the rulers from
the ruled. The masses were no longer a source of inspiration and power,
but rather an alien group whose lack of "discipline" (i.e. ability to
follow orders) placed the revolution in danger. As one Russian
Anarchist argued,
"The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the
state. The people are being transformed into servants over whom there
has arisen a new class of administrators -- a new class born mainly
form the womb of the so-called intelligentsia . . . We do not mean to
say . . . that the Bolshevik party set out to create a new class
system. But we do say that even the best intentions and aspirations
must inevitably be smashed against the evils inherent in any system of
centralised power. The separation of management from labour, the
division between administrators and workers flows logically from
centralisation. It cannot be otherwise." [The Anarchists in the Russian
Revolution, pp. 123-4]
For this reason anarchists, while agreeing that there is an uneven
development of political ideas within the working class, reject the
idea that "revolutionaries" should take power on behalf of working
people. Only when working people actually run society themselves will a
revolution be successful. For anarchists, this meant that "[e]ffective
emancipation can be achieved only by the direct, widespread, and
independent action . . . of the workers themselves, grouped . . . in
their own class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete action and
self-government, helped but not governed, by revolutionaries working in
the very midst of, and not above the mass and the professional,
technical, defence and other branches." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 197] By
substituting party power for workers power, the Russian Revolution had
made its first fatal step. Little wonder that the following prediction
(from November 1917) made by anarchists in Russia came true:
"Once their power is consolidated and 'legalised',
the Bolsheviks who are . . . men of centralist and authoritarian action
will begin to rearrange the life of the country and of the people by
governmental and dictatorial methods, imposed by the centre. The[y] . .
. will dictate the will of the party to all Russia, and command the
whole nation. Your Soviets and your other local organisations will
become little by little, simply executive organs of the will of the
central government. In the place of healthy, constructive work by the
labouring masses, in place of free unification from the bottom, we will
see the installation of an authoritarian and statist apparatus which
would act from above and set about wiping out everything that stood in
its way with an iron hand." [quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 235]
The so-called "workers' state" could not be participatory or empowering
for working class people (as the Marxists claimed) simply because state
structures are not designed for that. Created as instruments of
minority rule, they cannot be transformed into (nor "new" ones created
which are) a means of liberation for the working classes. As Kropotkin
put it, Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been
the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising
their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to
destroy these privileges." [Anarchism, p. 170] In the words of an
anarchist pamphlet written in 1918:
"Bolshevism, day by day and step by step, proves
that state power possesses inalienable characteristics; it can change
its label, its 'theory', and its servitors, but in essence it merely
remains power and despotism in new forms." [quoted by Paul Avrich, "The
Anarchists in the Russian Revolution," pp. 341-350, Russian Review,
vol. 26, issue no. 4, p. 347]
For insiders, the Revolution had died a few months after the Bolsheviks
took over. To the outside world, the Bolsheviks and the USSR came to
represent "socialism" even as they systematically destroyed the basis
of real socialism. By transforming the soviets into state bodies,
substituting party power for soviet power, undermining the factory
committees, eliminating democracy in the armed forces and workplaces,
repressing the political opposition and workers' protests, the
Bolsheviks effectively marginalised the working class from its own
revolution. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important
and sometimes decisive factors in the degeneration of the revolution
and the ultimate rise of Stalinism.
As anarchists had predicted for decades previously, in the space of a
few months, and before the start of the Civil War, the Bolshevik's
"workers' state" had become, like any state, an alien power over the
working class and an instrument of minority rule (in this case, the
rule of the party). The Civil War accelerated this process and soon
party dictatorship was introduced (indeed, leading Bolsheviks began
arguing that it was essential in any revolution). The Bolsheviks put
down the libertarian socialist elements within their country, with the
crushing of the uprising at Kronstadt and the Makhnovist movement in
the Ukraine being the final nails in the coffin of socialism and the
subjugation of the soviets.
The Kronstadt uprising of February, 1921, was, for anarchists, of
immense importance (see the appendix "What was the Kronstadt
Rebellion?" for a full discussion of this uprising). The uprising
started when the sailors of Kronstadt supported the striking workers of
Petrograd in February, 1921. They raised a 15 point resolution, the
first point of which was a call for soviet democracy. The Bolsheviks
slandered the Kronstadt rebels as counter-revolutionaries and crushed
the revolt. For anarchists, this was significant as the repression
could not be justified in terms of the Civil War (which had ended
months before) and because it was a major uprising of ordinary people
for real socialism. As Voline puts it:
"Kronstadt was the first entirely independent
attempt of the people to liberate themselves of all yokes and carry out
the Social Revolution: this attempt was made directly . . . by the
working masses themselves, without political shepherds, without leaders
or tutors. It was the first step towards the third and social
revolution." [Voline, Op. Cit., pp. 537-8]
In the Ukraine, anarchist ideas were most successfully applied. In
areas under the protection of the Makhnovist movement, working class
people organised their own lives directly, based on their own ideas and
needs -- true social self-determination. Under the leadership of Nestor
Makhno, a self-educated peasant, the movement not only fought against
both Red and White dictatorships but also resisted the Ukrainian
nationalists. In opposition to the call for "national
self-determination," i.e. a new Ukrainian state, Makhno called instead
for working class self-determination in the Ukraine and across the
world. Makhno inspired his fellow peasants and workers to fight for
real freedom:
"Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces
the Ukrainian peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we
will not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the
error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will
conquer in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct
our lives according to our own will and our own conception of the
truth." [quoted by Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement,
p. 58]
To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up governments in
the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of
free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking
the example of Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the
Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population to participate
in a general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise
the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their
own forces and their own organisations . . . The first conference was
followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to
principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed
with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas
with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step
. . . They formed a committee charged with organising the railway
network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of
Aleksandrovsk began to turn systematically to the problem of creating
organs of self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 149]
The Makhnovists argued that the "freedom of the workers and peasants is
their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers
and peasants themselves to act, to organise themselves, to agree among
themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they see fit and desire .
. . The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In
no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern." [Peter
Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Op. Cit., p. 99] In Alexandrovsk, the
Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of action - their Revkom
(Revolutionary Committee) would handle political affairs and the
Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them "to go and take up some
honest trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the workers."
[Peter Arshinov in The Anarchist Reader, p. 141]
They also organised free agricultural communes which "[a]dmittedly . .
. were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population . .
. But what was most precious was that these communes were formed by the
poor peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on
the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free
communes." [Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 87] Makhno
played an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed
gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional congresses
equalised the use of the land between all sections of the peasant
community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]
Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve the whole
population in discussing the development of the revolution, the
activities of the army and social policy. They organised numerous
conferences of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates to discuss
political and social issues as well as free soviets, unions and
communes. They organised a regional congress of peasants and workers
when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the Makhnovists tried to
convene the third regional congress of peasants, workers and insurgents
in April 1919 and an extraordinary congress of several regions in June
1919 the Bolsheviks viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban
them and declared their organisers and delegates outside the law.
The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway and asking
"[c]an there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves
revolutionaries, which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are
more revolutionary than they are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests
should the revolution defend: those of the Party or those of the people
who set the revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself
stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the workers and
peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call conferences on their
own account, to discuss their affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129]
In addition, the Makhnovists "fully applied the revolutionary
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, and of
political association. In all cities and towns occupied by the
Makhnovists, they began by lifting all the prohibitions and repealing
all the restrictions imposed on the press and on political
organisations by one or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction
that the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks,
the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other statists was a prohibition
on the formation of those 'revolutionary committees' which sought to
impose a dictatorship over the people." [Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]
The Makhnovists rejected the Bolshevik corruption of the soviets and
instead proposed "the free and completely independent soviet system of
working people without authorities and their arbitrary laws." Their
proclamations stated that the "working people themselves must freely
choose their own soviets, which carry out the will and desires of the
working people themselves, that is to say. ADMINISTRATIVE, not ruling
soviets." Economically, capitalism would be abolished along with the
state - the land and workshops "must belong to the working people
themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say, they must be
socialised." [Op. Cit., p. 271 and p. 273]
The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was fundamentally
democratic (although, of course, the horrific nature of the civil war
did result in a few deviations from the ideal -- however, compared to
the regime imposed on the Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were
much more democratic movement).
The anarchist experiment of self-management in the Ukraine came to a
bloody end when the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists (their former
allies against the "Whites," or pro-Tsarists) when they were no longer
needed. This important movement is fully discussed in the appendix "Why
does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to
Bolshevism?" of our FAQ. However, we must stress here the one obvious
lesson of the Makhnovist movement, namely that the dictatorial policies
pursued by the Bolsheviks were not imposed on them by objective
circumstances. Rather, the political ideas of Bolshevism had a clear
influence in the decisions they made. After all, the Makhnovists were
active in the same Civil War and yet did not pursue the same policies
of party power as the Bolsheviks did. Rather, they successfully
encouraged working class freedom, democracy and power in extremely
difficult circumstances (and in the face of strong Bolshevik opposition
to those policies). The received wisdom on the left is that there was
no alternative open to the Bolsheviks. The experience of the
Makhnovists disproves this. What the masses of people, as well as those
in power, do and think politically is as much part of the process
determining the outcome of history as are the objective obstacles that
limit the choices available. Clearly, ideas do matter and, as such, the
Makhnovists show that there was (and is) a practical alternative to
Bolshevism -- anarchism.
The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the funeral
of Kropotkin in 1921, when over 10,000 marched behind his coffin. They
carried black banners declaring "Where there is authority, there is no
freedom" and "The Liberation of the working class is the task of the
workers themselves." As the procession passed the Butyrki prison, the
inmates sang anarchist songs and shook the bars of their cells.
Anarchist opposition within Russia to the Bolshevik regime started in
1918. They were the first left-wing group to be repressed by the new
"revolutionary" regime. Outside of Russia, anarchists continued to
support the Bolsheviks until news came from anarchist sources about the
repressive nature of the Bolshevik regime (until then, many had
discounted negative reports as being from pro-capitalist sources). Once
these reliable reports came in, anarchists across the globe rejected
Bolshevism and its system of party power and repression. The experience
of Bolshevism confirmed Bakunin's prediction that Marxism meant "the
highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small
aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned,
so they will be liberated from the cares of government and included in
entirety in the governed herd." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 178-9]
From about 1921 on, anarchists outside of Russia started describing the
USSR as a "state-capitalist" nation to indicate that although
individual bosses might have been eliminated, the Soviet state
bureaucracy played the same role as individual bosses do in the West
(anarchists within Russia had been calling it that since 1918). For
anarchists, "the Russian revolution . . . is trying to reach . . .
economic equality . . . this effort has been made in Russia under a
strongly centralised party dictatorship . . . this effort to build a
communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralised state
communism under the iron law of a party dictatorship is bound to end in
failure. We are learning to know in Russia how not to introduce
communism." [Anarchism, p. 254]
For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role played by
anarchists, see the appendix on "The Russian Revolution" of the FAQ. As
well as covering the Kronstadt uprising and the Makhnovists, it
discusses why the revolution failed, the role of Bolshevik ideology
played in that failure and whether there were any alternatives to
Bolshevism.
The following books are also recommended: The Unknown Revolution by
Voline; The Guillotine at Work by G.P. Maximov; The Bolshevik Myth and
The Russian Tragedy, both by Alexander Berkman; The Bolsheviks and
Workers Control by M. Brinton; The Kronstadt Uprising by Ida Mett; The
History of the Makhnovist Movement by Peter Arshinov; My
Disillusionment in Russia and Living My Life by Emma Goldman.
Many of these books were written by anarchists active during the
revolution, many imprisoned by the Bolsheviks and deported to the West
due to international pressure exerted by anarcho-syndicalist delegates
to Moscow who the Bolsheviks were trying to win over to Leninism. The
majority of such delegates stayed true to their libertarian politics
and convinced their unions to reject Bolshevism and break with Moscow.
By the early 1920's all the anarcho-syndicalist union confederations
had joined with the anarchists in rejecting the "socialism" in Russia
as state capitalism and party dictatorship.
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
After the end of the First World War there was a massive radicalisation
across Europe and the world. Union membership exploded, with strikes,
demonstrations and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly
due to the war, partly to the apparent success of the Russian
Revolution. This enthusiasm for the Russian Revolution even reached
Individualist Anarchists like Joseph Labadie, who like many other
anti-capitalists, saw "the red in the east [giving] hope of a brighter
day" and the Bolsheviks as making "laudable efforts to at least try
some way out of the hell of industrial slavery." [quoted by Carlotta R.
Anderson, All-American Anarchist p. 225 and p. 241]
Across Europe, anarchist ideas became more popular and
anarcho-syndicalist unions grew in size. For example, in Britain, the
ferment produced the shop stewards' movement and the strikes on
Clydeside; Germany saw the rise of IWW inspired industrial unionism and
a libertarian form of Marxism called "Council Communism"; Spain saw a
massive growth in the anarcho-syndicalist CNT. In addition, it also,
unfortunately, saw the rise and growth of both social democratic and
communist parties. Italy was no exception.
In Turin, a new rank-and-file movement was developing. This movement
was based around the "internal commissions" (elected ad hoc grievance
committees). These new organisations were based directly on the group
of people who worked together in a particular work shop, with a
mandated and recallable shop steward elected for each group of 15 to 20
or so workers. The assembly of all the shop stewards in a given plant
then elected the "internal commission" for that facility, which was
directly and constantly responsible to the body of shop stewards, which
was called the "factory council."
Between November 1918 and March 1919, the internal commissions had
become a national issue within the trade union movement. On February
20, 1919, the Italian Federation of Metal Workers (FIOM) won a contract
providing for the election of "internal commissions" in the factories.
The workers subsequently tried to transform these organs of workers'
representation into factory councils with a managerial function. By May
Day 1919, the internal commissions "were becoming the dominant force
within the metalworking industry and the unions were in danger of
becoming marginal administrative units. Behind these alarming
developments, in the eyes of reformists, lay the libertarians." [Carl
Levy, Gramsci and the Anarchists, p. 135] By November 1919 the internal
commissions of Turin were transformed into factory councils.
The movement in Turin is usually associated with the weekly L'Ordine
Nuovo (The New Order), which first appeared on May 1, 1919. As Daniel
Guerin summarises, it was "edited by a left socialist, Antonio Gramsci,
assisted by a professor of philosophy at Turin University with
anarchist ideas, writing under the pseudonym of Carlo Petri, and also
of a whole nucleus of Turin libertarians. In the factories, the Ordine
Nuovo group was supported by a number of people, especially the
anarcho-syndicalist militants of the metal trades, Pietro Ferrero and
Maurizio Garino. The manifesto of Ordine Nuovo was signed by socialists
and libertarians together, agreeing to regard the factory councils as
'organs suited to future communist management of both the individual
factory and the whole society.'" [Anarchism, p. 109]
The developments in Turin should not be taken in isolation. All across
Italy, workers and peasants were taking action. In late February 1920,
a rash of factory occupations broke out in Liguria, Piedmont and
Naples. In Liguria, the workers occupied the metal and shipbuilding
plants in Sestri Ponente, Cornigliano and Campi after a breakdown of
pay talks. For up to four days, under syndicalist leadership, they ran
the plants through factory councils.
During this period the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) grew in size to
around 800 000 members and the influence of the Italian Anarchist Union
(UAI) with its 20 000 members and daily paper (Umanita Nova) grew
correspondingly. As the Welsh Marxist historian Gwyn A. Williams points
out "Anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists were the most
consistently and totally revolutionary group on the left . . . the most
obvious feature of the history of syndicalism and anarchism in 1919-20:
rapid and virtually continuous growth . . . The syndicalists above all
captured militant working-class opinion which the socialist movement
was utterly failing to capture." [Proletarian Order, pp. 194-195] In
Turin, libertarians "worked within FIOM" and had been "heavily involved
in the Ordine Nuovo campaign from the beginning." [Op. Cit., p. 195]
Unsurprisingly, Ordone Nuovo was denounced as "syndicalist" by other
socialists.
It was the anarchists and syndicalists who first raised the idea of
occupying workplaces. Malatesta was discussing this idea in Umanita
Nova in March, 1920. In his words, "General strikes of protest no
longer upset anyone . . . One must seek something else. We put forward
an idea: take-over of factories. . . the method certainly has a future,
because it corresponds to the ultimate ends of the workers' movement
and constitutes an exercise preparing one for the ultimate act of
expropriation." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 134] In the
same month, during "a strong syndicalist campaign to establish councils
in Mila, Armando Borghi [anarchist secretary of the USI] called for
mass factory occupations. In Turin, the re-election of workshop
commissars was just ending in a two-week orgy of passionate discussion
and workers caught the fever. [Factory Council] Commissars began to
call for occupations." Indeed, "the council movement outside Turin was
essentially anarcho-syndicalist." Unsurprisingly, the secretary of the
syndicalist metal-workers "urged support for the Turin councils because
they represented anti-bureaucratic direct action, aimed at control of
the factory and could be the first cells of syndicalist industrial
unions . . . The syndicalist congress voted to support the councils. .
. . Malatesta . . . supported them as a form of direct action
guaranteed to generate rebelliousness . . . Umanita Nova and Guerra di
Classe [paper of the USI] became almost as committed to the councils as
L'Ordine Nuovo and the Turin edition of Avanti." [Williams, Op. Cit.,
p. 200, p. 193 and p. 196]
The upsurge in militancy soon provoked an employer counter-offensive.
The bosses organisation denounced the factory councils and called for a
mobilisation against them. Workers were rebelling and refusing to
follow the bosses orders -- "indiscipline" was rising in the factories.
They won state support for the enforcement of the existing industrial
regulations. The national contract won by the FIOM in 1919 had provided
that the internal commissions were banned from the shop floor and
restricted to non-working hours. This meant that the activities of the
shop stewards' movement in Turin -- such as stopping work to hold shop
steward elections -- were in violation of the contract. The movement
was essentially being maintained through mass insubordination. The
bosses used this infringement of the agreed contract as the means
combating the factory councils in Turin.
The showdown with the employers arrived in April, when a general
assembly of shop stewards at Fiat called for sit-in strikes to protest
the dismissal of several shop stewards. In response the employers
declared a general lockout. The government supported the lockout with a
mass show of force and troops occupied the factories and mounted
machine guns posts at them. When the shop stewards movement decided to
surrender on the immediate issues in dispute after two weeks on strike,
the employers responded with demands that the shop stewards councils be
limited to non-working hours, in accordance with the FIOM national
contract, and that managerial control be re-imposed.
These demands were aimed at the heart of the factory council system and
Turin labour movement responded with a massive general strike in
defence of it. In Turin, the strike was total and it soon spread
throughout the region of Piedmont and involved 500 000 workers at its
height. The Turin strikers called for the strike to be extended
nationally and, being mostly led by socialists, they turned to the CGL
trade union and Socialist Party leaders, who rejected their call.
The only support for the Turin general strike came from unions that
were mainly under anarcho-syndicalist influence, such as the
independent railway and the maritime workers unions ("The syndicalists
were the only ones to move."). The railway workers in Pisa and Florence
refused to transport troops who were being sent to Turin. There were
strikes all around Genoa, among dock workers and in workplaces where
the USI was a major influence. So in spite of being "betrayed and
abandoned by the whole socialist movement," the April movement "still
found popular support" with "actions . . . either directly led or
indirectly inspired by anarcho-syndicalists." In Turin itself, the
anarchists and syndicalists were "threatening to cut the council
movement out from under" Gramsci and the Ordine Nuovo group. [Williams,
Op. Cit., p. 207, p. 193 and p. 194]
Eventually the CGL leadership settled the strike on terms that accepted
the employers' main demand for limiting the shop stewards' councils to
non-working hours. Though the councils were now much reduced in
activity and shop floor presence, they would yet see a resurgence of
their position during the September factory occupations.
The anarchists "accused the socialists of betrayal. They criticised
what they believed was a false sense of discipline that had bound
socialists to their own cowardly leadership. They contrasted the
discipline that placed every movement under the 'calculations, fears,
mistakes and possible betrayals of the leaders' to the other discipline
of the workers of Sestri Ponente who struck in solidarity with Turin,
the discipline of the railway workers who refused to transport security
forces to Turin and the anarchists and members of the Unione Sindacale
who forgot considerations of party and sect to put themselves at the
disposition of the Torinesi." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p. 161] Sadly, this
top-down "discipline" of the socialists and their unions would be
repeated during the factory occupations, with terrible results.
In September, 1920, there were large-scale stay-in strikes in Italy in
response to an owner wage cut and lockout. "Central to the climate of
the crisis was the rise of the syndicalists." In mid-August, the USI
metal-workers "called for both unions to occupy the factories" and
called for "a preventive occupation" against lock-outs. The USI saw
this as the "expropriation of the factories by the metal-workers"
(which must "be defended by all necessary measures") and saw the need
"to call the workers of other industries into battle." [Williams, Op.
Cit., p. 236, pp. 238-9] Indeed, "[i]f the FIOM had not embraced the
syndicalist idea of an occupation of factories to counter an employer's
lockout, the USI may well have won significant support from the
politically active working class of Turin." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p.
129] These strikes began in the engineering factories and soon spread
to railways, road transport, and other industries, with peasants
seizing land. The strikers, however, did more than just occupy their
workplaces, they placed them under workers' self-management. Soon over
500 000 "strikers" were at work, producing for themselves. Errico
Malatesta, who took part in these events, writes:
"The metal workers started the movement over wage
rates. It was a strike of a new kind. Instead of abandoning the
factories, the idea was to remain inside without working . . .
Throughout Italy there was a revolutionary fervour among the workers
and soon the demands changed their characters. Workers thought that the
moment was ripe to take possession once [and] for all the means of
production. They armed for defence . . . and began to organise
production on their own . . . It was the right of property abolished in
fact . . .; it was a new regime, a new form of social life that was
being ushered in. And the government stood by because it felt impotent
to offer opposition." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 134]
Daniel Guerin provides a good summary of the extent of the movement:
"The management of the factories . . . [was]
conducted by technical and administrative workers' committees.
Self-management went quite a long way: in the early period assistance
was obtained from the banks, but when it was withdrawn the
self-management system issued its own money to pay the workers' wages.
Very strict self-discipline was required, the use of alcoholic
beverages forbidden, and armed patrols were organised for self-defence.
Very close solidarity was established between the factories under
self-management. Ores and coal were put into a common pool, and shared
out equitably." [Anarchism, p. 109]
Italy was "paralysed, with half a million workers occupying their
factories and raising red and black flags over them." The movement
spread throughout Italy, not only in the industrial heartland around
Milan, Turin and Genoa, but also in Rome, Florence, Naples and Palermo.
The "militants of the USI were certainly in the forefront of the
movement," while Umanita Nova argued that "the movement is very serious
and we must do everything we can to channel it towards a massive
extension." The persistent call of the USI was for "an extension of the
movement to the whole of industry to institute their 'expropriating
general strike.'" [Williams, Op. Cit., p. 236 and pp. 243-4] Railway
workers, influenced by the libertarians, refused to transport troops,
workers went on strike against the orders of the reformist unions and
peasants occupied the land. The anarchists whole-heartedly supported
the movement, unsurprisingly as the "occupation of the factories and
the land suited perfectly our programme of action." [Malatesta, Op.
Cit., p. 135] Luigi Fabbri described the occupations as having
"revealed a power in the proletariat of which it had been unaware
hitherto." [quoted by Paolo Sprinao, The Occupation of the Factories,
p. 134]
However, after four weeks of occupation, the workers decided to leave
the factories. This was because of the actions of the socialist party
and the reformist trade unions. They opposed the movement and
negotiated with the state for a return to "normality" in exchange for a
promise to extend workers' control legally, in association with the
bosses. The question of revolution was decided by a vote of the CGL
national council in Milan on April 10-11th, without consulting the
syndicalist unions, after the Socialist Party leadership refused to
decide one way or the other.
Needless to say, this promise of "workers' control" was not kept. The
lack of independent inter-factory organisation made workers dependent
on trade union bureaucrats for information on what was going on in
other cities, and they used that power to isolate factories, cities,
and factories from each other. This lead to a return to work, "in spite
of the opposition of individual anarchists dispersed among the
factories." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 136] The local syndicalist union
confederations could not provide the necessary framework for a fully
co-ordinated occupation movement as the reformist unions refused to
work with them; and although the anarchists were a large minority, they
were still a minority:
"At the 'interproletarian' convention held on 12
September (in which the Unione Anarchia, the railwaymen's and maritime
workers union participated) the syndicalist union decided that 'we
cannot do it ourselves' without the socialist party and the CGL,
protested against the 'counter-revolutionary vote' of Milan, declared
it minoritarian, arbitrary and null, and ended by launching new, vague,
but ardent calls to action." [Paolo Spriano, Op. Cit., p. 94]
Malatesta addressed the workers of one of the factories at Milan. He
argued that "[t]hose who celebrate the agreement signed at Rome
[between the Confederazione and the capitalists] as a great victory of
yours are deceiving you. The victory in reality belongs to Giolitti, to
the government and the bourgeoisie who are saved from the precipice
over which they were hanging." During the occupation the "bourgeoisie
trembled, the government was powerless to face the situation."
Therefore:
"To speak of victory when the Roman agreement throws
you back under bourgeois exploitation which you could have got rid of
is a lie. If you give up the factories, do this with the conviction
[of] hav[ing] lost a great battle and with the firm intention to resume
the struggle on the first occasion and to carry it on in a thorough
way. . . Nothing is lost if you have no illusion [about] the deceiving
character of the victory. The famous decree on the control of factories
is a mockery . . . because it tends to harmonise your interests and
those of the bourgeois which is like harmonising the interests of the
wolf and the sheep. Don't believe those of your leaders who make fools
of you by adjourning the revolution from day to day. You yourselves
must make the revolution when an occasion will offer itself, without
waiting for orders which never come, or which come only to enjoin you
to abandon action. Have confidence in yourselves, have faith in your
future and you will win." [quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The
Biography of an Anarchist]
Malatesta was proven correct. With the end of the occupations, the only
victors were the bourgeoisie and the government. Soon the workers would
face Fascism, but first, in October 1920, "after the factories were
evacuated," the government (obviously knowing who the real threat was)
"arrested the entire leadership of the USI and UAI. The socialists did
not respond" and "more-or-less ignored the persecution of the
libertarians until the spring of 1921 when the aged Malatesta and other
imprisoned anarchists mounted a hunger strike from their cells in
Milan." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., pp. 221-2] They were acquitted after a
four day trial.
The events of 1920 show four things. Firstly, that workers can manage
their own workplaces successfully by themselves, without bosses.
Secondly, on the need for anarchists to be involved in the labour
movement. Without the support of the USI, the Turin movement would have
been even more isolated than it was. Thirdly, anarchists need to be
organised to influence the class struggle. The growth of the UAI and
USI in terms of both influence and size indicates the importance of
this. Without the anarchists and syndicalists raising the idea of
factory occupations and supporting the movement, it is doubtful that it
would have been as successful and widespread as it was. Lastly, that
socialist organisations, structured in a hierarchical fashion, do not
produce a revolutionary membership. By continually looking to leaders,
the movement was crippled and could not develop to its full potential.
This period of Italian history explains the growth of Fascism in Italy.
As Tobias Abse points out, "the rise of fascism in Italy cannot be
detached from the events of the biennio rosso, the two red years of
1919 and 1920, that preceded it. Fascism was a preventive
counter-revolution . . . launched as a result of the failed revolution"
["The Rise of Fascism in an Industrial City", p. 54, in Rethinking
Italian Fascism, David Forgacs (ed.), pp. 52-81] The term "preventive
counter-revolution" was originally coined by the leading anarchist
Luigi Fabbri.
As Malatesta argued at the time of the factory occupations, "[i]f we do
not carry on to the end, we will pay with tears of blood for the fear
we now instil in the bourgeoisie." [quoted by Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p.
66] Later events proved him right, as the capitalists and rich
landowners backed the fascists in order to teach the working class
their place. In the words of Tobias Abse:
"The aims of the Fascists and their backers amongst
the industrialists and agrarians in 1921-22 were simple: to break the
power of the organised workers and peasants as completely as possible,
to wipe out, with the bullet and the club, not only the gains of the
biennio rosso, but everything that the lower classes had gained . . .
between the turn of the century and the outbreak of the First World
War." [Op. Cit., p. 54]
The fascist squads attacked and destroyed anarchist and socialist
meeting places, social centres, radical presses and Camera del Lavoro
(local trade union councils). However, even in the dark days of fascist
terror, the anarchists resisted the forces of totalitarianism. "It is
no coincidence that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism
was in . . . towns or cities in which there was quite a strong
anarchist, syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition." [Tobias Abse,
Op. Cit., p. 56]
The anarchists participated in, and often organised sections of, the
Arditi del Popolo, a working-class organisation devoted to the
self-defence of workers' interests. The Arditi del Popolo organised and
encouraged working-class resistance to fascist squads, often defeating
larger fascist forces (for example, "the total humiliation of thousands
of Italo Balbo's squadristi by a couple of hundred Arditi del Popolo
backed by the inhabitants of the working class districts" in the
anarchist stronghold of Parma in August 1922 [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p.
56]).
The Arditi del Popolo was the closest Italy got to the idea of a
united, revolutionary working-class front against fascism, as had been
suggested by Malatesta and the UAI. This movement "developed along
anti-bourgeois and anti-fascist lines, and was marked by the
independence of its local sections." [Red Years, Black Years: Anarchist
Resistance to Fascism in Italy, p. 2] Rather than being just an
"anti-fascist" organisation, the Arditi "were not a movement in defence
of 'democracy' in the abstract, but an essentially working-class
organisation devoted to the defence of the interests of industrial
workers, the dockers and large numbers of artisans and craftsmen."
[Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 75] Unsurprisingly, the Arditi del Popolo
"appear to have been strongest and most successful in areas where
traditional working-class political culture was less exclusively
socialist and had strong anarchist or syndicalist traditions, for
example, Bari, Livorno, Parma and Rome." [Antonio Sonnessa, "Working
Class Defence Organisation, Anri-Fascist Resistances and the Arditi del
Popolo in Turin, 1919-22," pp. 183-218, European History Quarterly,
vol. 33, no. 2, p. 184]
However, both the socialist and communist parties withdrew from the
organisation. The socialists signed a "Pact of Pacification" with the
Fascists in August 1921. The communists "preferred to withdraw their
members from the Arditi del Popolo rather than let them work with the
anarchists." [Red Years, Black Years, p. 17] Indeed, "[o]n the same day
as the Pact was signed, Ordine Nuovo published a PCd'I [Communist Party
of Italy] communication warning communists against involvement" in the
Arditi del Popolo. Four days later, the Communist leadership
"officially abandoned the movement. Severe disciplinary measures were
threatened against those communists who continued to participate in, or
liase with," the organisation. Thus by "the end of the first week of
August 1921 the PSI, CGL and the PCd'I had officially denounced" the
organisation. "Only the anarchist leaders, if not always sympathetic to
the programme of the [Arditi del Popolo], did not abandon the
movement." Indeed, Umanita Nova "strongly supported" it "on the grounds
it represented a popular expression of anti-fascist resistance and in
defence of freedom to organise." [Antonio Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 195
and p. 194]
However, in spite of the decisions by their leaders, many rank and file
socialists and communists took part in the movement. The latter took
part in open "defiance of the PCd'I leadership's growing abandonment"
of it. In Turin, for example, communists who took part in the Arditi
del Polopo did so "less as communists and more as part of a wider,
working-class self-identification . . . This dynamic was re-enforced by
an important socialist and anarchist presence" there. The failure of
the Communist leadership to support the movement shows the bankruptcy
of Bolshevik organisational forms which were unresponsive to the needs
of the popular movement. Indeed, these events show the "libertarian
custom of autonomy from, and resistance to, authority was also operated
against the leaders of the workers' movement, particularly when they
were held to have misunderstood the situation at grass roots level."
[Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 200, p. 198 and p. 193]
Thus the Communist Party failed to support the popular resistance to
fascism. The Communist leader Antonio Gramsci explained why, arguing
that "the party leadership's attitude on the question of the Arditi del
Popolo . . . corresponded to a need to prevent the party members from
being controlled by a leadership that was not the party's leadership."
Gramsci added that this policy "served to disqualify a mass movement
which had started from below and which could instead have been
exploited by us politically." [Selections from Political Writings
(1921-1926), p. 333] While being less sectarian towards the Arditi del
Popolo than other Communist leaders, "[i]n common with all communist
leaders, Gramsci awaited the formation of the PCd'I-led military
squads." [Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 196] In other words, the struggle
against fascism was seen by the Communist leadership as a means of
gaining more members and, when the opposite was a possibility, they
preferred defeat and fascism rather than risk their followers becoming
influenced by anarchism.
As Abse notes, "it was the withdrawal of support by the Socialist and
Communist parties at the national level that crippled" the Arditi. [Op.
Cit., p. 74] Thus "social reformist defeatism and communist
sectarianism made impossible an armed opposition that was widespread
and therefore effective; and the isolated instances of popular
resistance were unable to unite in a successful strategy." And fascism
could have been defeated: "Insurrections at Sarzanna, in July 1921, and
at Parma, in August 1922, are examples of the correctness of the
policies which the anarchists urged in action and propaganda." [Red
Years, Black Years, p. 3 and p. 2] Historian Tobias Abse confirms this
analysis, arguing that "[w]hat happened in Parma in August 1922 . . .
could have happened elsewhere, if only the leadership of the Socialist
and Communist parties thrown their weight behind the call of the
anarchist Malatesta for a united revolutionary front against Fascism."
[Op. Cit., p. 56]
In the end, fascist violence was successful and capitalist power maintained:
"The anarchists' will and courage were not enough to
counter the fascist gangs, powerfully aided with material and arms,
backed by the repressive organs of the state. Anarchists and
anarcho-syndicalists were decisive in some areas and in some
industries, but only a similar choice of direct action on the parts of
the Socialist Party and the General Confederation of Labour [the
reformist trade union] could have halted fascism." [Red Years, Black
Years, pp. 1-2]
After helping to defeat the revolution, the Marxists helped ensure the victory of fascism.
Even after the fascist state was created, anarchists resisted both
inside and outside Italy. Many Italians, both anarchist and
non-anarchist, travelled to Spain to resist Franco in 1936 (see Umberto
Marzochhi's Remembering Spain: Italian Anarchist Volunteers in the
Spanish Civil War for details). During the Second World War, anarchists
played a major part in the Italian Partisan movement. It was the fact
that the anti-fascist movement was dominated by anti-capitalist
elements that led the USA and the UK to place known fascists in
governmental positions in the places they "liberated" (often where the
town had already been taken by the Partisans, resulting in the Allied
troops "liberating" the town from its own inhabitants!).
Given this history of resisting fascism in Italy, it is surprising that
some claim Italian fascism was a product or form of syndicalism. This
is even claimed by some anarchists. According to Bob Black the "Italian
syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism" and references David D.
Roberts 1979 study The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism to
support his claim. [Anarchy after Leftism, p. 64] Peter Sabatini in a
review in Social Anarchism makes a similar statement, saying that
syndicalism's "ultimate failure" was "its transformation into a vehicle
of fascism." [Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 99] What is the truth behind
these claims?
Looking at Black's reference we discover that, in fact, most of the
Italian syndicalists did not go over to fascism, if by syndicalists we
mean members of the USI (the Italian Syndicalist Union). Roberts states
that:
"The vast majority of the organised workers failed
to respond to the syndicalists' appeals and continued to oppose
[Italian] intervention [in the First World War], shunning what seemed
to be a futile capitalist war. The syndicalists failed to convince even
a majority within the USI . . . the majority opted for the neutralism
of Armando Borghi, leader of the anarchists within the USI. Schism
followed as De Ambris led the interventionist minority out of the
confederation." [The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, p. 113]
However, if we take "syndicalist" to mean some of the intellectuals and
"leaders" of the pre-war movement, it was a case that the "leading
syndicalists came out for intervention quickly and almost unanimously"
[Roberts, Op. Cit., p. 106] after the First World War started. Many of
these pro-war "leading syndicalists" did become fascists. However, to
concentrate on a handful of "leaders" (which the majority did not even
follow!) and state that this shows that the "Italian syndicalists
mostly went over to Fascism" staggers belief. What is even worse, as
seen above, the Italian anarchists and syndicalists were the most
dedicated and successful fighters against fascism. In effect, Black and
Sabatini have slandered a whole movement.
What is also interesting is that these "leading syndicalists" were not
anarchists and so not anarcho-syndicalists. As Roberts notes "[i]n
Italy, the syndicalist doctrine was more clearly the product of a group
of intellectuals, operating within the Socialist party and seeking an
alternative to reformism." They "explicitly denounced anarchism" and
"insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy." The "syndicalists
genuinely desired -- and tried -- to work within the Marxist
tradition." [Op. Cit., p. 66, p. 72, p. 57 and p. 79] According to Carl
Levy, in his account of Italian anarchism, "[u]nlike other syndicalist
movements, the Italian variation coalesced inside a Second
International party. Supporter were partially drawn from socialist
intransigents . . . the southern syndicalist intellectuals pronounced
republicanism . . . Another component . . . was the remnant of the
Partito Operaio." ["Italian Anarchism: 1870-1926" in For Anarchism:
History, Theory, and Practice, David Goodway (Ed.), p. 51]
In other words, the Italian syndicalists who turned to fascism were,
firstly, a small minority of intellectuals who could not convince the
majority within the syndicalist union to follow them, and, secondly,
Marxists and republicans rather than anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists
or even revolutionary syndicalists.
According to Carl Levy, Roberts' book "concentrates on the syndicalist
intelligentsia" and that "some syndicalist intellectuals . . . helped
generate, or sympathetically endorsed, the new Nationalist movement . .
. which bore similarities to the populist and republican rhetoric of
the southern syndicalist intellectuals." He argues that there "has been
far too much emphasis on syndicalist intellectuals and national
organisers" and that syndicalism "relied little on its national
leadership for its long-term vitality." [Op. Cit., p. 77, p. 53 and p.
51] If we do look at the membership of the USI, rather than finding a
group which "mostly went over to fascism," we discover a group of
people who fought fascism tooth and nail and were subject to extensive
fascist violence.
To summarise, Italian Fascism had nothing to do with syndicalism and,
as seen above, the USI fought the Fascists and was destroyed by them
along with the UAI, Socialist Party and other radicals. That a handful
of pre-war Marxist-syndicalists later became Fascists and called for a
"National-Syndicalism" does not mean that syndicalism and fascism are
related (any more than some anarchists later becoming Marxists makes
anarchism "a vehicle" for Marxism!).
It is hardly surprising that anarchists were the most consistent and
successful opponents of Fascism. The two movements could not be further
apart, one standing for total statism in the service of capitalism
while the other for a free, non-capitalist society. Neither is it
surprising that when their privileges and power were in danger, the
capitalists and the landowners turned to fascism to save them. This
process is a common feature in history (to list just four examples,
Italy, Germany, Spain and Chile).
A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.
As Noam Chomsky notes, "a good example of a really large-scale
anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is
the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain
there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both
industry and agriculture over substantial areas . . . And that again
was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures,
quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in
farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs
without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists,
communists, liberals and other wanted to believe." The revolution of
1936 was "based on three generations of experiment and thought and work
which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population."
[Radical Priorities, p. 212]
Due to this anarchist organising and agitation, Spain in the 1930's had
the largest anarchist movement in the world. At the start of the
Spanish "Civil" war, over one and one half million workers and peasants
were members of the CNT (the National Confederation of Labour), an
anarcho-syndicalist union federation, and 30,000 were members of the
FAI (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). The total population of Spain
at this time was 24 million.
The social revolution which met the Fascist coup on July 18th, 1936, is
the greatest experiment in libertarian socialism to date. Here the last
mass syndicalist union, the CNT, not only held off the fascist rising
but encouraged the widespread take-over of land and factories. Over
seven million people, including about two million CNT members, put
self-management into practise in the most difficult of circumstances
and actually improved both working conditions and output.
In the heady days after the 19th of July, the initiative and power
truly rested in the hands of the rank-and-file members of the CNT and
FAI. It was ordinary people, undoubtedly under the influence of Faistas
(members of the FAI) and CNT militants, who, after defeating the
fascist uprising, got production, distribution and consumption started
again (under more egalitarian arrangements, of course), as well as
organising and volunteering (in their tens of thousands) to join the
militias, which were to be sent to free those parts of Spain that were
under Franco. In every possible way the working class of Spain were
creating by their own actions a new world based on their own ideas of
social justice and freedom -- ideas inspired, of course, by anarchism
and anarchosyndicalism.
George Orwell's eye-witness account of revolutionary Barcelona in late
December, 1936, gives a vivid picture of the social transformation that
had begun:
"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of
Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had
been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or
January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came
straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling
and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town
where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building
of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red
flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was
scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the
revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its
images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically
demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription
saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been
collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and
shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal.
Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily
disappeared. Nobody said 'Señor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone
called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of
'Buenos dias'. . . Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and
the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of
equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human
beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." [Homage to
Catalonia, pp. 2-3]
The full extent of this historic revolution cannot be covered here. It
will be discussed in more detail in Section I.8 of the FAQ. All that
can be done is to highlight a few points of special interest in the
hope that these will give some indication of the importance of these
events and encourage people to find out more about it.
All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers'
self-management or workers' control (that is, either totally taking
over all aspects of management, in the first case, or, in the second,
controlling the old management). In some cases, whole town and regional
economies were transformed into federations of collectives. The example
of the Railway Federation (which was set up to manage the railway lines
in Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia) can be given as a typical example.
The base of the federation was the local assemblies:
"All the workers of each locality would meet twice a
week to examine all that pertained to the work to be done... The local
general assembly named a committee to manage the general activity in
each station and its annexes. At [these] meetings, the decisions
(direccion) of this committee, whose members continued to work [at
their previous jobs], would be subjected to the approval or disapproval
of the workers, after giving reports and answering questions."
The delegates on the committee could be removed by an assembly at any
time and the highest co-ordinating body of the Railway Federation was
the "Revolutionary Committee," whose members were elected by union
assemblies in the various divisions. The control over the rail lines,
according to Gaston Leval, "did not operate from above downwards, as in
a statist and centralised system. The Revolutionary Committee had no
such powers. . . The members of the. . . committee being content to
supervise the general activity and to co-ordinate that of the different
routes that made up the network." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the
Spanish Revolution, p. 255]
On the land, tens of thousands of peasants and rural day workers
created voluntary, self-managed collectives. The quality of life
improved as co-operation allowed the introduction of health care,
education, machinery and investment in the social infrastructure. As
well as increasing production, the collectives increased freedom. As
one member puts it, "it was marvelous. . . to live in a collective, a
free society where one could say what one thought, where if the village
committee seemed unsatisfactory one could say. The committee took no
big decisions without calling the whole village together in a general
assembly. All this was wonderful." [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p.
360]
We discuss the revolution in more detail in section I.8. For example,
sections I.8.3 and I.8.4 discuss in more depth how the industrial
collectives. The rural collectives are discussed in sections I.8.5 and
I.8.6. We must stress that these sections are summaries of a vast
social movement, and more information can be gathered from such works
as Gaston Leval's Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, Sam Dolfgoff's
The Anarchist Collectives, Jose Peirats' The CNT in the Spanish
Revolution and a host of other anarchist accounts of the revolution.
On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational schools,
a libertarian health service, social centres, and so on. The Mujeres
Libres (free women) combated the traditional role of women in Spanish
society, empowering thousands both inside and outside the anarchist
movement (see The Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more
information on this very important organisation). This activity on the
social front only built on the work started long before the outbreak of
the war; for example, the unions often funded rational schools, workers
centres, and so on.
The voluntary militias that went to free the rest of Spain from Franco
were organised on anarchist principles and included both men and women.
There was no rank, no saluting and no officer class. Everybody was
equal. George Orwell, a member of the POUM militia (the POUM was a
dissident Marxist party, influenced by Leninism but not, as the
Communists asserted, Trotskyist) makes this clear:
"The essential point of the [militia] system was the
social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to
private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes,
and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the
general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a
cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at
any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was
understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood
that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not
as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s, but there was
no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no
heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the
militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of
course there was not perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach
to it than I had ever seen or that I would have though conceivable in
time of war. . . " [Op. Cit., p. 26]
In Spain, however, as elsewhere, the anarchist movement was smashed
between Stalinism (the Communist Party) on the one hand and Capitalism
(Franco) on the other. Unfortunately, the anarchists placed
anti-fascist unity before the revolution, thus helping their enemies to
defeat both them and the revolution. Whether they were forced by
circumstances into this position or could have avoided it is still
being debated (see section I.8.10 for a discussion of why the CNT-FAI
collaborated and section I.8.11 on why this decision was not a product
of anarchist theory).
Orwell's account of his experiences in the militia's indicates why the Spanish Revolution is so important to anarchists:
"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only
community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness
and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up
here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though
not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and
mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and
even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it
would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of
Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was
that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised life --
snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. -- had simply
ceased to exist. The ordinary class- division of society had
disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the
money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the
peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master. . .
One had been in a community where hope was more normal than apathy or
cynicism, where the word 'comrade' stood for comradeship and not, as in
most countries, for humbug. One had breathed the air of equality. I am
well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has
anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge
tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving'
that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the
grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of
Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary
men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the
'mystique' of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority
of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at
all . . . In that community where no one was on the make, where there
was a shortage of everything but no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a
crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like.
And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. .
." [Op. Cit., pp. 83-84]
For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following books are
recommended: Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards;
Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution and The CNT in the Spanish
Revolution by Jose Peirats; Free Women of Spain by Martha A.
Ackelsberg; The Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff;
"Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in The Chomsky
Reader); The Anarchists of Casas Viejas by Jerome R. Mintz; and Homage
to Catalonia by George Orwell.
A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968.
The May-June events in France placed anarchism back on the radical
landscape after a period in which many people had written the movement
off as dead. This revolt of ten million people grew from humble
beginnings. Expelled by the university authorities of Nanterre in Paris
for anti-Vietnam War activity, a group of anarchists (including Daniel
Cohn-Bendit) promptly called a protest demonstration. The arrival of 80
police enraged many students, who quit their studies to join the battle
and drive the police from the university.
Inspired by this support, the anarchists seized the administration
building and held a mass debate. The occupation spread, Nanterre was
surrounded by police, and the authorities closed the university down.
The next day, the Nanterre students gathered at the Sorbonne University
in the centre of Paris. Continual police pressure and the arrest of
over 500 people caused anger to erupt into five hours of street
fighting. The police even attacked passers-by with clubs and tear gas.
A total ban on demonstrations and the closure of the Sorbonne brought
thousands of students out onto the streets. Increasing police violence
provoked the building of the first barricades. Jean Jacques Lebel, a
reporter, wrote that by 1 a.m., "[l]iterally thousands helped build
barricades. . . women, workers, bystanders, people in pyjamas, human
chains to carry rocks, wood, iron." An entire night of fighting left
350 police injured. On May 7th, a 50,000-strong protest march against
the police was transformed into a day-long battle through the narrow
streets of the Latin Quarter. Police tear gas was answered by molotov
cocktails and the chant "Long Live the Paris Commune!"
By May 10th, continuing massive demonstrations forced the Education
Minister to start negotiations. But in the streets, 60 barricades had
appeared and young workers were joining the students. The trade unions
condemned the police violence. Huge demonstrations throughout France
culminated on May 13th with one million people on the streets of Paris.
Faced with this massive protest, the police left the Latin Quarter.
Students seized the Sorbonne and created a mass assembly to spread the
struggle. Occupations soon spread to every French University. From the
Sorbonne came a flood of propaganda, leaflets, proclamations,
telegrams, and posters. Slogans such as "Everything is Possible," "Be
Realistic, Demand the Impossible," "Life without Dead Times," and "It
is Forbidden to Forbid" plastered the walls. "All Power to the
Imagination" was on everyone's lips. As Murray Bookchin pointed out,
"the motive forces of revolution today. . . are not simply scarcity and
material need, but also quality of everyday life,.. the attempt to gain
control of one's own destiny." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 249-250]
Many of the most famous slogans of those days originated from the
Situationists. The Situationist International had been formed in 1957
by a small group of dissident radicals and artists. They had developed
a highly sophisticated (if jargon riddled) and coherent analysis of
modern capitalist society and how to supersede it with a new, freer
one. Modern life, they argued, was mere survival rather than living,
dominated by the economy of consumption in which everyone, everything,
every emotion and relationship becomes a commodity. People were no
longer simply alienated producers, they were also alienated consumers.
They defined this kind of society as the "Spectacle." Life itself had
been stolen and so revolution meant recreating life. The area of
revolutionary change was no longer just the workplace, but in everyday
existence:
"People who talk about revolution and class struggle
without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding
what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of
constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth." [quoted by
Clifford Harper, Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, p. 153]
Like many other groups whose politics influenced the Paris events, the
situationists argued that "the workers' councils are the only answer.
Every other form of revolutionary struggle has ended up with the very
opposite of what it was originally looking for." [quoted by Clifford
Harper, Op. Cit., p. 149] These councils would be self-managed and not
be the means by which a "revolutionary" party would take power. Like
the anarchists of Noire et Rouge and the libertarian socialists of
Socialisme ou Barbarie, their support for a self-managed revolution
from below had a massive influence in the May events and the ideas that
inspired it. Beneath the Paving Stones by Dark Star is a good anthology
of situationist works relating to Paris 68 which also contains an
eye-witness account of events.
On May 14th, the Sud-Aviation workers locked the management in its
offices and occupied their factory. They were followed by the
Cleon-Renault, Lockhead-Beauvais and Mucel-Orleans factories the next
day. That night the National Theatre in Paris was seized to become a
permanent assembly for mass debate. Next, France's largest factory,
Renault-Billancourt, was occupied. Often the decision to go on
indefinite strike was taken by the workers without consulting union
officials. By May 17th, a hundred Paris Factories were in the hands of
their workers. The weekend of the 19th of May saw 122 factories
occupied. By May 20th, the strike and occupations were general and
involved six million people. Print workers said they did not wish to
leave a monopoly of media coverage to TV and radio, and agreed to print
newspapers as long as the press "carries out with objectivity the role
of providing information which is its duty." In some cases
print-workers insisted on changes in headlines or articles before they
would print the paper. This happened mostly with the right-wing papers
such as 'Le Figaro' or 'La Nation'.
With the Renault occupation, the Sorbonne occupiers immediately
prepared to join the Renault strikers, and led by anarchist black and
red banners, 4,000 students headed for the occupied factory. The state,
bosses, unions and Communist Party were now faced with their greatest
nightmare -- a worker-student alliance. Ten thousand police reservists
were called up and frantic union officials locked the factory gates.
The Communist Party urged their members to crush the revolt. They
united with the government and bosses to craft a series of reforms, but
once they turned to the factories they were jeered out of them by the
workers.
The struggle itself and the activity to spread it was organised by
self-governing mass assemblies and co-ordinated by action committees.
The strikes were often run by assemblies as well. As Murray Bookchin
argues, the "hope [of the revolt] lay in the extension of
self-management in all its forms -- the general assemblies and their
administrative forms, the action committees, the factory strike
committees -- to all areas of the economy, indeed to all areas of life
itself." [Op. Cit., pp. 251-252] Within the assemblies, "a fever of
life gripped millions, a rewaking of senses that people never thought
they possessed." [Op. Cit., p. 251] It was not a workers' strike or a
student strike. It was a peoples' strike that cut across almost all
class lines.
On May 24th, anarchists organised a demonstration. Thirty thousand
marched towards the Palace de la Bastille. The police had the
Ministries protected, using the usual devices of tear gas and batons,
but the Bourse (Stock Exchange) was left unprotected and a number of
demonstrators set fire to it.
It was at this stage that some left-wing groups lost their nerve. The
Trotskyist JCR turned people back into the Latin Quarter. Other groups
such as UNEF and Parti Socialiste Unife (United Socialist Party)
blocked the taking of the Ministries of Finance and Justice.
Cohn-Bendit said of this incident "As for us, we failed to realise how
easy it would have been to sweep all these nobodies away. . . .It is
now clear that if, on 25 May, Paris had woken to find the most
important Ministries occupied, Gaullism would have caved in at once. .
. . " Cohn-Bendit was forced into exile later that very night.
As the street demonstrations grew and occupations continued, the state
prepared to use overwhelming means to stop the revolt. Secretly, top
generals readied 20,000 loyal troops for use on Paris. Police occupied
communications centres like TV stations and Post Offices. By Monday,
May 27th, the Government had guaranteed an increase of 35% in the
industrial minimum wage and an all round-wage increase of 10%. The
leaders of the CGT organised a march of 500,000 workers through the
streets of Paris two days later. Paris was covered in posters calling
for a "Government of the People." Unfortunately the majority still
thought in terms of changing their rulers rather than taking control
for themselves.
By June 5th most of the strikes were over and an air of what passes for
normality within capitalism had rolled back over France. Any strikes
which continued after this date were crushed in a military-style
operation using armoured vehicles and guns. On June 7th, they made an
assault on the Flins steelworks which started a four-day running battle
which left one worker dead. Three days later, Renault strikers were
gunned down by police, killing two. In isolation, those pockets of
militancy stood no chance. On June 12th, demonstrations were banned,
radical groups outlawed, and their members arrested. Under attack from
all sides, with escalating state violence and trade union sell-outs,
the General Strike and occupations crumbled.
So why did this revolt fail? Certainly not because "vanguard" Bolshevik
parties were missing. It was infested with them. Fortunately, the
traditional authoritarian left sects were isolated and outraged. Those
involved in the revolt did not require a vanguard to tell them what to
do, and the "workers' vanguards" frantically ran after the movement
trying to catch up with it and control it.
No, it was the lack of independent, self-managed confederal
organisations to co-ordinate struggle which resulted in occupations
being isolated from each other. So divided, they fell. In addition,
Murray Bookchin argues that "an awareness among the workers that the
factories had to be worked, not merely occupied or struck," was
missing. [Op. Cit., p. 269]
This awareness would have been encouraged by the existence of a strong
anarchist movement before the revolt. The anti-authoritarian left,
though very active, was too weak among striking workers, and so the
idea of self-managed organisations and workers self-management was not
widespread. However, the May-June revolt shows that events can change
very rapidly. The working class, fused by the energy and bravado of the
students, raised demands that could not be catered for within the
confines of the existing system. The General Strike displays with
beautiful clarity the potential power that lies in the hands of the
working class. The mass assemblies and occupations give an excellent,
if short-lived, example of anarchy in action and how anarchist ideas
can quickly spread and be applied in practice.
Previous section | FAQ Home | Section index | Next section
Section B - Why do anarchists oppose the current system?
This section of the FAQ presents an analysis of the basic social
relationships of modern society and the structures which create them,
particularly those aspects of society that anarchists want to change.
Anarchism is, essentially, a revolt against capitalism. It was born at
the same time as capitalism was born and grew in influence as
capitalism colonised more and more parts of society. This does not mean
that anarchistic ideas have not existed within society since before the
dawn of capitalism. Far from it. Thinkers whose ideas can be classified
as anarchist go back thousands of years and are found in Eastern as
well as Western civilisations. It would be no exaggeration to say that
anarchism was born the moment the state and private property were
created.
However, anarchism as a political movement was the product of the
transformation of society which accompanied the creation of the modern
(nation-) state and capital. As such, the analysis and critique
presented in this section of the FAQ will concentrate on modern,
capitalist society.
Anarchists realise that the power of governments and other forms of
hierarchy depends upon the agreement of the governed. Fear is not the
whole answer, it is far more "because they [the oppressed] subscribe to
the same values as their governors. Rulers and ruled alike believe in
the principle of authority, of hierarchy, of power." [Colin Ward,
Anarchy in Action, p. 15] With this in mind, we present in this section
of the FAQ our arguments to challenge this "consensus," to present the
case why we should become anarchists, why authoritarian social
relationships and organisations are not in our interests.
From this discussion, it will become apparent why anarchists are
dissatisfied with the very limited amount of freedom in modern mass
society and why they want to create a truly free society. In the words
of Noam Chomsky, the anarchist critique of modern society means:
"to seek out and identify structures of authority,
hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge
them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are
illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human
freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management,
relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over
the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the
environmental movement. . .), and much else." ["Anarchism, Marxism and
Hope for the Future", Red and Black Revolution, No. 2]
In section J of the FAQ will discuss how anarchists try to encourage
this process of justification, this critical evaluation of authority
and domination, this undermining of what previously was considered
"natural" or "common-sense" until we started to question it. Part of
this process is to encourage direct action (see section J.2) by the
oppressed against their oppressors as well as encouraging the
anarchistic tendencies and awareness that exist (to a greater or lesser
degree) in any hierarchical society.
However, this section of the FAQ is concerned directly with the
critical or "negative" aspect of anarchism, the exposing of the evil
inherent in all authority, be it from state, property or whatever.
Later sections will indicate how, after analysing the world, anarchists
plan to change it constructively, but some of the constructive core of
anarchism will be seen even in this section. After this broad critique
of the current system, we move onto more specific areas. Section C
explains the anarchist critique of the economics of capitalism and
section D discusses how the social relationships and institutions
described in this section impact on society as a whole.
B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?
First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism
challenges. As Erich Fromm points out in To Have or To Be, "authority"
is "a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either
'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on
competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational
authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected
to it." [pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin 100 years
earlier (see God and the State, for example) when he indicated the
difference between authority and influence.
This crucial point is expressed in the difference between having
authority and being an authority. Being an authority just means that a
given person is generally recognised as competent for a given task,
based on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently,
it is socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is
a social relationship based on status and power derived from a
hierarchical position, not on individual ability. Obviously this does
not mean that competence is not an element for obtaining a hierarchical
position; it just means that the real or alleged initial competence is
transferred to the title or position of the authority and so becomes
independent of individuals, i.e. institutionalised.
This difference is important because the way people behave is more a
product of the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent
nature. In other words, social relationships shape the individuals
involved. This means that the various groups individuals create have
traits, behaviours and outcomes that cannot be understood by reducing
them to the individuals within them. That is, groups consist not only
of individuals, but also relationships between individuals and these
relationships will effect those subject to them. For example, obviously
"the exercise of power by some disempowers others" and so through a
"combination of physical intimidation, economic domination and
dependency, and psychological limitations, social institutions and
practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her or his place
in it." [Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p. 20]
Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the
few) order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the
individuals involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society
as a whole. Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by
authority, not liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom,
authoritarian social relationships (and the obedience they require) do
not and cannot educate a person in freedom - only participation
(self-management) in all areas of life can do that.
Of course, it will be pointed out that in any collective undertaking
there is a need for co-operation and co-ordination and this need to
"subordinate" the individual to group activities is a form of
authority. Yes, but there are two different ways of co-ordinating
individual activity within groups - either by authoritarian means or by
libertarian means. Proudhon, in relation to workplaces, makes the
difference clear:
"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee
of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . .
[and] have a voice in the council, in a word he will become an
associate.
"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; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which
he was before but the subject . . . 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."
[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216]
In other words, associations can be based upon a form of rational
authority, based upon natural influence and so reflect freedom, the
ability of individuals to think, act and feel and manage their own time
and activity. Otherwise, we include elements of slavery into our
relationships with others, elements that poison the whole and shape us
in negative ways (see section B.1.1). Only the reorganisation of
society in a libertarian way (and, we may add, the mental
transformation such a change requires and would create) will allow the
individual to "achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst
continuing to develop" and banish "that spirit of submission that has
been artificially thrust upon him [or her]" [Nestor Makhno, The
Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p. 62]
So, anarchists "ask nothing better than to see [others]. . . exercise
over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted, and never
imposed . . . We accept all natural authorities and all influences of
fact, but none of right. . . " [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.
255] Anarchist support for free association within directly democratic
groups is based upon such organisational forms increasing influence and
reducing irrational authority in our lives. Members of such
organisations can create and present their own ideas and suggestions,
critically evaluate the proposals and suggestions from their fellows,
accept those that they agree with or become convinced by and have the
option of leaving the association if they are unhappy with its
direction. Hence the influence of individuals and their free
interaction determine the nature of the decisions reached, and no one
has the right to impose their ideas on another. As Bakunin argued, in
such organisations "no function remains fixed and it will not remain
permanently and irrevocably attached to one person. Hierarchical order
and promotion do not exist. . . In such a system, power, properly
speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and
becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, p. 415]
Therefore, anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate)
authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the
institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social
institutions include the state (see section B.2), private property (see
section B.3) and, therefore, capitalism (see section B.4). Due to their
hierarchical nature, anarchists oppose these institutions with passion.
However, hierarchy exists beyond these institutions. For example,
hierarchical social relationships include sexism, racism and homophobia
(see section B.1.4), and anarchists oppose, and fight, them all.
As noted earlier (A.2.8), anarchists consider all hierarchies to be not
only harmful but unnecessary, and think that there are alternative,
more egalitarian ways to organise social life. In fact, they argue that
hierarchical authority creates the conditions it is presumably designed
to combat, and thus tends to be self-perpetuating. Thus, bureaucracies
ostensibly set up to fight poverty wind up perpetuating it, because
without poverty, the high-salaried top administrators would be out of
work. The same applies to agencies intended to eliminate drug abuse,
fight crime, etc. In other words, the power and privileges deriving
from top hierarchical positions constitute a strong incentive for those
who hold them not to solve the problems they are supposed to solve.
(For further discussion see Marilyn French, Beyond Power: On Women,
Men, and Morals, Summit Books, 1985.)
B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?
Hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the
marginalisation and disempowerment of those without authority. This has
negative effects on those over whom authority is exercised, since
"[t]hose who have these symbols of authority and those who benefit from
them must dull their subject people's realistic, i.e. critical,
thinking and make them believe the fiction [that irrational authority
is rational and necessary], . . .[so] the mind is lulled into
submission by clich‰s. . .[and] people are made dumb because they
become dependent and lose their capacity to trust their eyes and
judgement." [Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p. 47]
Or, in the words of Bakunin, "the principle of authority, applied to
men who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a
monstrosity, a source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity."
[God and the State, p. 41]
This is echoed by the syndicalist miners who wrote the classic The
Miners' Next Step when they indicate the nature of authoritarian
organisations and their effect on those involved. Leadership (i.e.
hierarchical authority) "implies power held by the leader. Without
power the leader is inept. The possession of power inevitably leads to
corruption. . . in spite of. . . good intentions . . . [Leadership
means] power of initiative, this sense of responsibility, the
self-respect which comes from expressed manhood [sic!], is taken from
the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their initiative,
their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his. . . [and the]
order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the men,
from being independent thinkers into being 'the men'. . . In a word, he
is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy." Indeed, for
the "leader," such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader
"sees no need for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file,
except to applaud his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point
of view, by breeding criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and
causes confusion." [The Miners' Next Step, pp. 16-17 p. 15]
Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a
negative effect on those subject to them, who can no longer exercise
their critical, creative and mental abilities freely. As Colin Ward
argues, people "do go from womb to tomb without realising their human
potential, precisely because the power to initiate, to participate in
innovating, choosing, judging, and deciding is reserved for the top
men" (and it usually is men!) [Anarchy in Action, p, 42]. Anarchism is
based on the insight that there is an interrelationship between the
authority structures of institutions and the psychological qualities
and attitudes of individuals. Following orders all day hardly builds an
independent, empowered, creative personality. As Emma Goldman made
clear, if a person's "inclination and judgement are subordinated to the
will of a master" (such as a boss, as most people have to sell their
labour under capitalism) then little wonder such an authoritarian
relationship "condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities." [Red
Emma Speaks, p. 36]
As the human brain is a bodily organ, it needs to be used regularly in
order to be at its fittest. Authority concentrates decision-making in
the hands of those at the top, meaning that most people are turned into
executants, following the orders of others. If muscle is not used, it
turns to fat; if the brain is not used, creativity, critical thought
and mental abilities become blunted and side-tracked onto marginal
issues, like sports and fashion.
Therefore, "[h]ierarchical institutions foster alienated and
exploitative relationships among those who participate in them,
disempowering people and distancing them from their own reality.
Hierarchies make some people dependent on others, blame the dependent
for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification
for further exercise of authority. . . .Those in positions of relative
dominance tend to define the very characteristics of those subordinate
to them. . . .Anarchists argue that to be always in a position of being
acted upon and never to be allowed to act is to be doomed to a state of
dependence and resignation. Those who are constantly ordered about and
prevented from thinking for themselves soon come to doubt their own
capacities. . .[and have] difficulty acting on [their] sense of self in
opposition to societal norms, standards and expectations." [Martha
Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, pp. 19-20]
Thus, in the words of Colin Ward, the "system makes its morons, then
despises them for their ineptitude, and rewards its 'gifted few' for
their rarity." [Op. Cit., p. 43]
In addition to these negative psychological effects from the denial of
liberty, authoritarian social relationships also produce social
inequality. This is because an individual subject to the authority of
another has to obey the orders of those above them in the social
hierarchy. In capitalism this means that workers have to follow the
orders of their boss (see next section), orders that are designed to
make the boss richer (for example, from 1994 to 1995 alone, Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) compensation in the USA rose 16 percent,
compared to 2.8 percent for workers, which did not even keep pace with
inflation, and whose stagnating wages cannot be blamed on corporate
profits, which rose a healthy 14.8 percent for that year). Inequality
in terms of power will translate itself into inequality in terms of
wealth (and vice versa). The effects of such social inequality are
wide-reaching.
For example, poor people are more likely to be sick and die at an
earlier age, compared to rich people. Moreover, the degree of
inequality is important (i.e. the size of the gap between rich and
poor). According to an editorial in the British Medical Journal "what
matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the
overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is
distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the
health of that society," [Vol. 312, April 20, 1996, p. 985]
Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kaplan
and his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared
it to the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a
pattern emerged: the more unequal the distribution of income, the
greater the death rate. In other words, it is the gap between rich and
poor, and not the average income in each state, that best predicts the
death rate in each state. ["Inequality in income and mortality in the
United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways," British
Medical Journal Vol. 312, April 20, 1996, pp. 999-1003]
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social
conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the
distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher
rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income
assistance and food stamps, a greater percentage of people without
medical insurance, greater proportion of babies born with low birth
weight, higher murder rates, higher rates of violent crime, higher
costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for
police protection.
Moreover states with greater inequality of income distribution also
spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the
schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse
reading skills, worse mathematics skills, and lower rates of completion
of high school.
As the gap grows between rich and poor (indicating an increase in
social hierarchy within and without of workplaces) the health of a
people deteriorates and the social fabric unravels. The psychological
hardship of being low down on the social ladder has detrimental effects
on people, beyond whatever effects are produced by the substandard
housing, nutrition, air quality, recreational opportunities, and
medical care enjoyed by the poor.[see George Davey Smith, "Income
inequality and mortality: why are they related?" British Medical
Journal, Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 987-988]
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by god,
nature or some other superhuman force. It has been created by a
specific social system, its institutions and workings - a system based
upon authoritarian social relationships which effect us both physically
and mentally.
All this is not to suggest that those at the bottom of hierarchies are
victims nor that those at the top of hierarchies only gain benefits -
far from it. Those at the bottom are constantly resisting the negative
effects of hierarchy and creating non-hierarchical ways of living and
fighting. This constant process of self-activity and self-liberation
can be seen from the labour, women's and other movements - in which, to
some degree, people create their own alternatives based upon their own
dreams and hopes. Anarchism is based upon, and grew out of, this
process of resistance, hope and direct action.
If we look at those at the top of the system, yes, indeed they often do
very well in terms of material goods and access to education, leisure,
health and so on but they can lose their humanity and individuality. As
Bakunin pointed out, "power and authority corrupt those who exercise
them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them." [The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 249] Power operates destructively,
even on those who have it, reducing their individuality as it "renders
them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the
best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything
into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all
human feeling." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 22]
When it boils down to it, hierarchy is self-defeating, for if "wealth
is other people," then by treating others as less than yourself,
restricting their growth, you lose all the potential insights and
abilities these individuals have, so impoverishing your own life and
restricting your own growth. Unfortunately in these days material
wealth (a particularly narrow form of "self-interest") has replaced
concern for developing the whole person and leading a fulfilling and
creative life (a broad self-interest, which places the individual
within society, one that recognises that relationships with others
shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class based
society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."
B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical?
Yes. Under capitalism workers do not exchange the products of their
labour they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves
for a given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey
their paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and
managers -- are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the
bottom. This means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical.
As Carole Pateman argues, "[c]apacities or labour power cannot be used
without the worker using his will, his understanding and experience, to
put them into effect. The use of labour power requires the presence of
its 'owner,' and it remains mere potential until he acts in the manner
necessary to put it into use, or agrees or is compelled so to act; that
is, the worker must labour. To contract for the use of labour power is
a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the new
owner requires. The fiction 'labour power' cannot be used; what is
required is that the worker labours as demanded. The employment
contract must, therefore, create a relationship of command and
obedience between employer and worker. . .In short, the contract in
which the worker allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in
which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells
command over the use of his body and himself. To obtain the right to
use another is to be a (civil) master" [The Sexual Contract, pp. 150-1
-- compare to Proudhon quoted above]
This hierarchical control of wage labour has the effect of alienating
workers from their own work, and so from themselves. Workers no longer
govern themselves during work hours and so are no longer free.
Capitalism, by treating labour as analogous to all other commodities
denies the key distinction between labour and other "resources" - that
is to say its inseparability from its bearer - labour, unlike other
"property," is endowed with will and agency. Thus when one speaks of
selling labour there is a necessary subjugation of will (hierarchy). As
Karl Polanyi writes:
"Labour is only another name for human activity
which goes with life itself, which is in turn not produced for sale but
for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from
the rest of life itself, be stored or mobilised." [The Great
Transformation, p. 72]
In other words, labour is much more than the commodity to which
capitalism tries to reduce it. Creative, self-managed work is a source
of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human. Wrenching
control of work from the hands of the worker profoundly harms his or
her mental and physical health. Indeed, Proudhon went so far as to
argue that capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of the
wage-workers" and were an "outrage upon human dignity and personality."
[Op. Cit., p. 219]
Separating labour from other activities of life and subjecting it to
the laws of the market means to annihilate its natural, organic form of
existence -- a form that evolved with the human race through tens of
thousands of years of co-operative economic activity based on sharing
and mutual aid -- and replacing it with an atomistic and
individualistic one based on contract and competition.
The social relationship of wage labour, which is a very recent
development, is then claimed by capitalists to be a source of
"freedom," whereas in fact it is a form of involuntary servitude (see
section B.4 and A.2.14). Therefore a libertarian who did not support
economic liberty (i.e. self-government in industry, socialism) would be
no libertarian at all, and no believer in liberty.
Therefore capitalism is based upon hierarchy and the denial of liberty.
To present it otherwise denies the nature of wage labour. However
supporters of capitalism try to but - as Karl Polanyi points out - the
idea that wage labour is based upon some kind of "natural" liberty is
false:
"To represent this principle [wage labour] as one of
non-interference [with freedom], as economic liberals were wont to do,
was merely the expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a
definite kind of interference, namely, such as would destroy
non-contractual relations between individuals and prevent their
spontaneous re-formation." [Op. Cit., p.163]
This replacement of human relationships by economic ones soon results
in the replacement of human values by economic ones, giving us an
"ethics" of the account book, in which people are valued by how much
they earn. It also leads, as Murray Bookchin argues, to a debasement of
human values:
"[S]o deeply rooted is the market economy in our
minds that its grubby language has replaced our most hallowed moral and
spiritual expressions. We now 'invest' in our children, marriages, and
personal relationships, a term that is equated with words like 'love'
and 'care.' We live in a world of 'trade-offs' and we ask for the
'bottom line' of any emotional 'transaction.' We use the terminology of
contracts rather than that of loyalties and spiritual affinities." [The
Modern Crisis, p. 79]
With human values replaced by the ethics of calculation, and with only
the laws of market and state "binding" people together, social
breakdown is inevitable. As Karl Polanyi argues, "in disposing of a
man's labour power the [market] system would, incidently, dispose of
the physical, psychological, and moral entity 'man' attached to that
tag." [Op. Cit., p. 73]
Little wonder modern capitalism has seen a massive increase in crime
and dehumanisation under the freer markets established by
"conservative" governments, such as those of Thatcher and Reagan and
their transnational corporate masters. We now live in a society where
people live in self-constructed fortresses, "free" behind their walls
and defences (both emotional and physical).
Of course, some people like the "ethics" of mathematics. But this is
mostly because -- like all gods -- it gives the worshipper an easy rule
book to follow. "Five is greater than four, therefore five is better"
is pretty simple to understand. John Steinbeck noticed this when he
wrote:
"Some of them [the owners] hated the mathematics
that drove them [to kick the farmers off their land], and some were
afraid, and some worshipped the mathematics because it provided a
refuge from thought and from feeling" [The Grapes of Wrath, p. 34].
B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?
Capitalism produces a perverted hierarchy of values -- one that places
humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues, "the use [i.e.
exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the system of values
underlying the capitalistic system. Capital, the dead past, employs
labour -- the living vitality and power of the present. In the
capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour,
amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs
labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands
the person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative
productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between
capital and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes,
more than their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is
the conflict between two principles of value: that between the world of
things, and their amassment, and the world of life and its
productivity." [The Sane Society, pp. 94-95]
Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the
commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a thing. Instead of
being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic
moral and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts.
This debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time
is spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn
carries over into the way he or she acts in other areas of life. If one
is regarded as a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and
others in that way also. Thus all social relationships -- and so,
ultimately, all individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism,
literally nothing is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it
dignity, self-worth, pride, honour -- all become commodities up for
grabs.
Such debasement produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism"
is one example which can be traced directly to the commodification of
the individual under capitalism. To quote Fromm again, "Things have no
self, and men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour
market] can have no self." [The Sane Society, p. 143]
However, people still feel the need for selfhood, and so try to fill
the emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life
will be complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume.
Unfortunately, since commodities are yet more things, they provide no
substitute for selfhood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This
process is, of course, encouraged by the advertising industry, which
tries to convince us to buy what we don't need because it will make us
popular/sexy/happy/free/etc. (delete as appropriate!). But consuming
cannot really satisfy the needs that the commodities are bought to
satisfy. Those needs can only be satisfied by social interaction based
on truly human values and by creative, self-directed work.
This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher
living standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise
that liberty and a good life are only possible when one does not have
to worry about having enough food, decent housing, and so forth.
Freedom and 16 hours of work a day do not go together, nor do equality
and poverty or solidarity and hunger. However, anarchists consider
consumerism to be a distortion of consumption caused by the alienating
and inhuman "account book" ethics of capitalism, which crushes the
individual and his or her sense of identity, dignity and selfhood.
B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?
Since racism, sexism and homophobia (hatred/fear of homosexuals) are
institutionalised throughout society, sexual, racial and gay oppression
are commonplace. The primary cause of these three evil attitudes is the
need for ideologies that justify domination and exploitation, which are
inherent in hierarchy -- in other words, "theories" that "justify" and
"explain" oppression and injustice. As Tacitus said, "We hate those
whom we injure." Those who oppress others always find reasons to regard
their victims as "inferior" and hence deserving of their fate. Elites
need some way to justify their superior social and economic positions.
Since the social system is obviously unfair and elitist, attention must
be distracted to other, less inconvenient, "facts," such as alleged
superiority based on biology or "nature." Therefore, doctrines of
sexual, racial, and ethnic superiority are inevitable in hierarchical,
class-stratified societies.
We will take each form of bigotry in turn.
From an economic standpoint, racism is associated with the exploitation
of cheap labour at home and imperialism abroad. Indeed, early
capitalist development in both America and Europe was strengthened by
the bondage of people, particularly those of African descent. In the
Americas, Australia and other parts of the world the slaughter of the
original inhabitants and the expropriation of their land was also a key
aspect in the growth of capitalism. As the subordination of foreign
nations proceeds by force, it appears to the dominant nation that it
owes its mastery to its special natural qualities, in other words to
its "racial" characteristics. Thus imperialists have frequently
appealed to the Darwinian doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest" to give
their racism a basis in "nature."
In Europe, one of the first theories of racial superiority was proposed
by Gobineau in the 1850s to establish the natural right of the
aristocracy to rule over France. He argued that the French aristocracy
was originally of Germanic origin while the "masses" were Gallic or
Celtic, and that since the Germanic race was "superior", the
aristocracy had a natural right to rule. Although the French "masses"
didn't find this theory particularly persuasive, it was later taken up
by proponents of German expansion and became the origin of German
racial ideology, used to justify Nazi oppression of Jews and other
"non-Aryan" types. Notions of the "white man's burden" and "Manifest
Destiny" developed at about the same time in England and to a lesser
extent in America, and were used to rationalise Anglo-Saxon conquest
and world domination on a "humanitarian" basis.
The idea of racial superiority was also found to have great domestic
utility. As Paul Sweezy points out, "[t]he intensification of social
conflict within the advanced capitalist countries. . . has to be
directed as far as possible into innocuous channels -- innocuous, that
is to say, from the standpoint of capitalist class rule. The stirring
up of antagonisms along racial lines is a convenient method of
directing attention away from class struggle," which of course is
dangerous to ruling-class interests [Theory of Capitalist Development,
p. 311]. Indeed, employers have often deliberately fostered divisions
among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and
rule."
In other words, racism (like other forms of bigotry) can be used to
split and divide the working class by getting people to blame others of
their class for the conditions they all suffer. Thus white workers are
subtly encouraged, for example, to blame unemployment on blacks instead
of capitalism, crime on Hispanics instead of poverty. In addition,
discrimination against racial minorities and women has the full
sanction of capitalist economics, "for in this way jobs and investment
opportunities can be denied to the disadvantaged groups, their wages
and profits can be depressed below prevailing levels, and the favoured
sections of the population can reap substantial material rewards."
[Ibid.]
Thus capitalism has continued to benefit from its racist heritage.
Racism has provided pools of cheap labour for capitalists to draw upon
(blacks still, usually, get paid less than whites for the same work)
and permitted a section of the population to be subjected to worse
treatment, so increasing profits by reducing working conditions and
other non-pay related costs.
All this means that blacks are "subjected to oppression and
exploitation on the dual grounds of race and class, and thus have to
fight the extra battles against racism and discrimination." [Lorenzo
Kom'boa Ervin, Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite]
Sexism only required a "justification" once women started to act for
themselves and demand equal rights. Before that point, sexual
oppression did not need to be "justified" -- it was "natural" (saying
that, of course, equality between the sexes was stronger before the
rise of Christianity as a state religion and capitalism so the "place"
of women in society has fallen over the last few hundred years before
rising again thanks to the women's movement).
The nature of sexual oppression can be seen from marriage. Emma Goldman
pointed out that marriage "stands for the sovereignty of the man over
the women," with her "complete submission" to the husbands "whims and
commands." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 139] As Carole Pateman notes, until
"the late nineteenth century the legal and position of a wife resembled
that of a slave. . . A slave had no independent legal existence apart
from his master, and husband and wife became 'one person,' the person
of the husband." [The Sexual Contract, p. 119] Indeed, the law "was
based on the assumption that a wife was (like) property" and only the
marriage contract "includes the explicit commitment to obey." [Ibid.,
p. 122, p. 181]
However, when women started to question the assumptions of male
domination, numerous theories were developed to explain why women's
oppression and domination by men was "natural." Because men enforced
their rule over women by force, men's "superiority" was argued to be a
"natural" product of their gender, which is associated with greater
physical strength (on the premise that "might makes right"). In the
17th century, it was argued that women were more like animals than men,
thus "proving" that women had as much right to equality with men as
sheep did. More recently, elites have embraced socio-biology in
response to the growing women's movement. By "explaining" women's
oppression on biological grounds, a social system run by men and for
men could be ignored.
Women's subservient role also has economic value for capitalism (we
should note that Goldman considered capitalism to be another "paternal
arrangement" like marriage, both of which robbed people of their
"birthright," "stunts" their growth, "poisons" their bodies and keeps
people in "ignorance, in poverty and dependence." [Op. Cit., p. 164]).
Women often provide necessary (and unpaid) labour which keeps the
(usually) male worker in good condition; and it is primarily women who
raise the next generation of wage-slaves (again without pay) for
capitalist owners to exploit. Moreover, women's subordination gives
working-class men someone to look down upon and, sometimes, a
convenient target on whom they can take out their frustrations (instead
of stirring up trouble at work). As Lucy Parsons pointed out, a working
class woman is "a slave to a slave."
The oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is inextricably linked
with sexism. A patriarchal, capitalist society cannot see homosexual
practices as the normal human variations they are because they blur
that society's rigid gender roles and sexist stereotypes. Most young
gay people keep their sexuality to themselves for fear of being kicked
out of home and all gays have the fear that some "straights" will try
to kick their sexuality out of them if they express their sexuality
freely.
Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of
capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary -
and inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the
authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of,
hierarchy and subordination - see section B.1.5) as well as provider
and carer for the workforce fulfils an important need for capitalism.
Alternative sexuality represent a threat to the family model because
they provide a different role model for people. This means that gays
are going to be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants
to reinforce "family values" (i.e. submission to authority,
"tradition", "morality" and so on). The introduction of Clause 28 in
Britain is a good example of this, with the government making it
illegal for public bodies to promote gay sexuality (i.e. to present it
as anything other than a perversion). Therefore, the oppression of
people based on their sexuality will not end until sexism is eliminated.
Before discussing how anarchists think these forms of oppression can be
got rid of, it is useful to highlight why they are harmful to those who
practice them (and in some way benefit from them) as well as the
oppressed.
Sexism, racism and homophobia divide the working class, which means
that whites, males and heterosexuals hurt themselves by maintaining a
pool of low-paid competing labour, ensuring low wages for their own
wives, daughters, mothers, relatives and friends. Such divisions create
inferior conditions and wages for all as capitalists gain a competitive
advantage using this pool of cheap labour, forcing all capitalists to
cut conditions and wages to survive in the market (in addition, such
social hierarchies, by undermining solidarity against the employer on
the job and the state possibly create a group of excluded workers who
could become scabs during strikes). Also, "privileged" sections of the
working class lose out because their wages and conditions are less than
those which unity could have won them. Only the boss really wins.
This can be seen from research into this subject. The researcher Al
Szymanski sought to systematically and scientifically test the
proposition that white workers gain from racism ["Racial Discrimination
and White Gain", in American Sociological Review, vol. 41, no. 3, June
1976, pp. 403-414]. He compared the situation of "white" and
"non-white" (i.e. black, Native American, Asian and Hispanic) workers
in United States and found several key things:
(1) the narrower the gap between white
and black wages in an American state, the higher white earnings were
relative to white earnings elsewhere. This means that "whites do not
benefit economically by economic discrimination. White workers
especially appear to benefit economically from the absence of economic
discrimination. . . both in the absolute level of their earnings and in
relative equality among whites." [p. 413] In other words, the less wage
discrimination there was against black workers, the better were the
wages that white workers received.
(2) the more "non-white" people in the
population of a given American State, the more inequality there was
between whites. In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed
group of workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did
not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much ("the
greater the discrimination against [non-white] people, the the greater
the inequality among whites" [p. 410]). So white workers clearly lost
economically from this discrimination.
(3) He also found that "the more intense
racial discrimination is, the lower are the white earnings because of .
. . [its effect on] working-class solidarity." [p. 412] In other words,
racism economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines
the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens trade union
organisation.
So overall, these white workers recieve some apparent privileges from
racism, but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of
hierarchy actually works against the interests of those working class
people who practice it -- and, by weakening workplace and social unity,
benefits the ruling class.
In addition, a wealth of alternative viewpoints, insights, experiences,
cultures, thoughts and so on are denied the racist, sexist or
homophobe. Their minds are trapped in a cage, stagnating within a
mono-culture -- and stagnation is death for the personality. Such forms
of oppression are dehumanising for those who practice them, for the
oppressor lives as a role, not as a person, and so are restricted by it
and cannot express their individuality freely (and so do so in very
limited ways). This warps the personality of the oppressor and
impoverishes their own life and personality. Homophobia and sexism also
limits the flexibility of all people, gay or straight, to choose the
sexual expressions and relationships that are right for them. The
sexual repression of the sexist and homophobe will hardly be good for
their mental health, their relationships or general development.
From the anarchist standpoint, oppression based on race, sex or
sexuality will remain forever intractable under capitalism or, indeed,
under any economic system based on domination and exploitation. While
individual members of "minorities" may prosper, racism as a
justification for inequality is too useful a tool for elites to
discard. By using the results of racism (e.g. poverty) as a
justification for racist ideology, criticism of the status quo can, yet
again, be replaced by nonsense about "nature" and "biology." Similarly
with sexism or discrimination against gays.
The long-term solution is obvious: dismantle capitalism and the
hierarchical, economically class-stratified society with which it is
bound up. By getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation and
its consequent imperialism and poverty, we will also eliminate the need
for ideologies of racial or sexual superiority used to justify the
oppression of one group by another or to divide and weaken the working
class.
As part of that process, anarchists encourage and support all sections
of the population to stand up for their humanity and individuality by
resisting racist, sexist and anti-gay activity and challenging such
views in their everyday lives, everywhere (as Carole Pateman points
out, "sexual domination structures the workplace as well as the
conjugal home" [Op. Cit., p. 142]). It means a struggle of all working
class people against the internal and external tyrannies we face -- we
must fight against own our prejudices while supporting those in
struggle against our common enemies, no matter their sex, skin colour
or sexuality. Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin words on fighting racism are
applicable to all forms of oppression:
"Racism must be fought vigorously wherever it is
found, even if in our own ranks, and even in ones own breast.
Accordingly, we must end the system of white skin privilege which the
bosses use to split the class, and subject racially oppressed workers
to super-exploitation. White workers, especially those in the Western
world, must resist the attempt to use one section of the working class
to help them advance, while holding back the gains of another segment
based on race or nationality. This kind of class opportunism and
capitulationism on the part of white labour must be directly challenged
and defeated. There can be no workers unity until the system of
super-exploitation and world White Supremacy is brought to an end."
[Op. Cit.]
Progress towards equality can and has been made. While it is still true
that (in the words of Emma Goldman) "[n]owhere is woman treated
according to the merit of her work, but rather as a sex" [Op. Cit., p.
145] and that education is still patriarchal, with young women still
often steered away from traditionally "male" courses of study and work
(which teaches children that men and women are assigned different roles
in society and sets them up to accept these limitations as they grow
up) it is also true that the position of women, like that of blacks and
gays, has improved. This is due to the various self-organised,
self-liberation movements that have continually developed throughout
history and these are the key to fighting oppression in the short term
(and creating the potential for the long term solution of dismantling
capitalism and the state).
Emma Goldman argued that emancipation begins "in [a] woman's soul."
Only by a process of internal emancipation, in which the oppressed get
to know their own value, respect themselves and their culture, can they
be in a position to effectively combat (and overcome) external
oppression and attitudes. Only when you respect yourself can you be in
a position to get others to respect you. Those men, whites and
heterosexuals who are opposed to bigotry, inequality and injustice,
must support oppressed groups and refuse to condone racist, sexist or
homophobia attitudes and actions by others or themselves. For
anarchists, "not a single member of the Labour movement may with
impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. . . Labour
[and other] organisations must be built on the principle of equal
liberty of all its members. This equality means that only if each
worker is a free and independent unit, co-operating with the others
from his or her mutual interests, can the whole labour organisation
work successfully and become powerful." [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, Op.
Cit.]
We must all treat people as equals, while at the same time respecting
their differences. Diversity is a strength and a source of joy, and
anarchists reject the idea that equality means conformity. By these
methods, of internal self-liberation and solidarity against external
oppression, we can fight against bigotry. Racism, sexism and homophobia
can be reduced, perhaps almost eliminated, before a social revolution
has occurred by those subject to them organising themselves, fighting
back autonomously and refusing to be subjected to racial, sexual or
anti-gay abuse or to allowing others to get away with it (which plays
an essential role in making others aware of their own attitudes and
actions, attitudes they may not even be blind to!). An essential part
of this process is for such autonomous groups to actively support
others in struggle (including members of the dominant
race/sex/sexuality). Such practical solidarity and communication can,
when combined with the radicalising effects of the struggle itself on
those involved, help break down prejudice and bigotry, undermining the
social hierarchies that oppress us all. For example, gay and lesbian
groups supporting the 1984/5 UK miners' strike resulted in such groups
being given pride of place in many miners' marches.
For whites, males and heterosexuals, the only anarchistic approach is
to support others in struggle, refuse to tolerate bigotry in others and
to root out their own fears and prejudices (while refusing to be
uncritical of self-liberation struggles -- solidarity does not imply
switching your brain off!). This obviously involves taking the issue of
social oppression into all working class organisations and activity,
ensuring that no oppressed group is marginalised within them.
Only in this way can the hold of these social diseases be weakened and
a better, non-hierarchical system be created. An injury to one is an
injury to all.
The example of the Mujeres Libres (Free Women) in Spain during the
1930s shows what is possible. Women anarchists involved in the C.N.T.
and F.A.I. organised themselves autonomously raise the issue of sexism
in the wider libertarian movement, to increase women involvement in
libertarian organisations and help the process of women's
self-liberation against male oppression. Along the way they also had to
combat the (all too common) sexist attitudes of their "revolutionary"
male fellow anarchists. Martha A. Ackelsberg's book Free Women of Spain
is an excellent account of this movement and the issues it raises for
all people concerned about freedom.
Needless to say, anarchists totally reject the kind of "equality" that
accepts other kinds of hierarchy, that accepts the dominant priorities
of capitalism and the state and accedes to the devaluation of
relationships and individuality in name of power and wealth. There is a
kind of "equality" in having "equal opportunities," in having black,
gay or women bosses and politicians, but one that misses the point.
Saying "Me too!" instead of "What a mess!" does not suggest real
liberation, just different bosses and new forms of oppression. We need
to look at the way society is organised, not at the sex, colour,
nationality or sexuality of who is giving the orders!
B.1.5 How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation created?
We noted in section A.3.6 that hierarchical, authoritarian institutions
tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence
creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both
"respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to
exercise it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a
character structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies,
because they are afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine
freedom. It seems "natural" and "right" to them that society's
institutions, from the authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family,
should be pyramidal, with an elite at the top giving orders while those
below them merely obey. Thus we have the spectacle of so-called
"Libertarians" and "anarcho" capitalists bleating about "liberty" while
at the same time advocating factory fascism and privatised states. In
short, authoritarian civilisation reproduces itself with each
generation because, through an intricate system of conditioning that
permeates every aspect of society, it creates masses of people who
support the status quo.
Wilhelm Reich has given one of the most thorough analyses of the
psychological processes involved in the reproduction of authoritarian
civilisation. Reich based his analysis on four of Freud's most solidly
grounded discoveries, namely, (1) that there exists an unconscious part
of the mind which has a powerful though irrational influence on
behaviour; (2) that even the small child develops a lively "genital"
sexuality, i.e. a desire for sexual pleasure which has nothing to do
with procreation; (3) that childhood sexuality along with the Oedipal
conflicts that arise in parent-child relations under monogamy and
patriarchy are usually repressed through fear of punishment or
disapproval for sexual acts and thoughts; (4) that this blocking of the
child's natural sexual activity and extinguishing it from memory does
not weaken its force in the unconscious, but actually intensifies it
and enables it to manifest itself in various pathological disturbances
and anti-social drives; and (5) that, far from being of divine origin,
human moral codes are derived from the educational measures used by the
parents and parental surrogates in earliest childhood, the most
effective of these being the ones opposed to childhood sexuality.
By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders,
a woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual
behaviour was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as
well as authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent,
Reich came to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism
originally developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic
advantages from a certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages")
entered into by their sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the
son's wife were obliged to pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous
tribute, thus enriching her husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By
arranging many such marriages for his sons (which were usually numerous
due to the chief's privilege of polygamy), the chief's clan could
accumulate wealth. Thus society began to be stratified into ruling and
subordinate clans based on wealth.
To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was
required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to
maintain without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as
statistics show, children who are allowed free expression of sexuality
often do not adapt successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along
with class stratification and private property, authoritarian
child-rearing methods were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual
morality on which the new patriarchal system depended for its
reproduction. Thus there is a historical correlation between, on the
one hand, pre-patriarchal society, primitive libertarian communism (or
"work democracy," to use Reich's expression), economic equality, and
sexual freedom, and on the other, patriarchal society, a
private-property economy, economic class stratification, and sexual
repression. As Reich puts it:
"Every tribe that developed from a [matricentric] to
a patriarchal organisation had to change the sexual structure of its
members to produce a sexuality in keeping with its new form of life.
This was a necessary change because the shifting of power and of wealth
from the democratic gens [maternal clans] to the authoritarian family
of the chief was mainly implemented with the help of the suppression of
the sexual strivings of the people. It was in this way that sexual
suppression became an essential factor in the division of society into
classes.
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became
the axis of the transformation of the one organisation into the other.
In view of the fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the
man's family strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position
of power, the male members of the higher ranking gens and families
developed a keen interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this
stage, in other words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In
this way natural work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be
easily dissolved at any time, was transformed into the permanent and
monogamous marital relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous
marriage became the basic institution of patriarchal society -- which
it still is today. To safeguard these marriages, however, it was
necessary to impose greater and greater restrictions upon and to
depreciate natural genital strivings." [The Mass Psychology of Fascism,
p. 90]
The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation
from matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social
drives (sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then
also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive
morality, which took the place the natural self-regulation that one
finds in pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, sex began to be
regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had
indeed become through the creation of secondary drives. Thus:
"The patriarchal- authoritarian sexual order that
resulted from the revolutionary processes of latter-day [matricentrism]
(economic independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a
growing exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means
of production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian
ideology by depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their
sexual freedom, making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests
in the service of economic subjugation. From now on, sexuality is
indeed distorted; it becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be
curbed" [Ibid. p. 88].
Once the beginnings of patriarchy are in place, the creation of a fully
authoritarian society based on the psychological crippling of its
members through sexual suppression follows:
"The moral inhibition of the child's natural
sexuality, the last stage of which is the severe impairment of the
child's genital sexuality, makes the child afraid, shy, fearful of
authority, obedient, 'good,' and 'docile' in the authoritarian sense of
the words. It has a crippling effect on man's rebellious forces because
every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear; and since
sex is a forbidden subject, thought in general and man's critical
faculty also become inhibited. In short, morality's aim is to produce
acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are
adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the
authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must learn to
adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment
required of him later. Man's authoritarian structure -- this must be
clearly established -- is basically produced by the embedding of sexual
inhibitions and fear" in the person's bioenergetic structure. [Ibid.,
p. 30]
In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for
him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other
forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying,
running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in
creating reactionary personalities. This is why every reactionary
politician puts such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and
promoting "family values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy,
premarital chastity, corporal punishment, etc.).
"Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in
the individual structures of the masses with the help of the
authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction has to regard
and defend the authoritarian family as the basis of the 'state,
culture, and civilisation. . . .' [It is] political reaction's germ
cell, the most important centre for the production of reactionary men
and women. Originating and developing from definite social processes,
it becomes the most essential institution for the preservation of the
authoritarian system that shapes it." [Op. cit., pp. 104-105]
The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because
children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first
few years, from the time of birth to about six years of age, during
which time they are mostly in the charge of their parents. The schools
and churches then continue the process of conditioning once the
children are old enough to be away from their parents, but they are
generally unsuccessful if the proper foundation has not been laid very
early in life by the parents. Thus A.S. Neill observes that "the
nursery training is very like the kennel training. The whipped child,
like the whipped puppy, grows into an obedient, inferior adult. And as
we train our dogs to suit our own purposes, so we train our children.
In that kennel, the nursery, the human dogs must be clean; they must
feed when we think it convenient for them to feed. I saw a hundred
thousand obedient, fawning dogs wag their tails in the Templehof,
Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler whistled his commands."
[Summerhill: a Radical Approach to Child Rearing, p. 100]
The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence,
when sexual energy reaches its peak. This is because the vast majority
of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue
undisturbed sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact
actively discourage such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist
Christian families) demanding complete abstinence -- at the very time
when abstinence is most impossible! Moreover, since teenagers are
economically dependent on their parents under capitalism, with no
societal provision of housing or dormitories allowing for sexual
freedom, young people have no alternative but to submit to irrational
parental demands for abstention from premarital sex. This in turn
forces them to engage in furtive sex in the back seats of cars or other
out-of-the-way places where they cannot relax or obtain full sexual
satisfaction. As Reich found, when sexuality is repressed and laden
with anxiety, the result is always some degree of what he terms
"orgastic impotence": the inability to fully surrender to the flow of
energy discharged during orgasm. Hence there is an incomplete release
of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic bioenergetic
stasis. Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding ground for
neuroses and reactionary attitudes. (For further details see the
section J.6).
In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive"
societies, such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing
patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community
houses where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy
undisturbed sexual relationships -- and this with society's full
approval. Such an institution would be taken for granted in an
anarchist society, as it is implied by the concept of freedom. (For
more on adolescent sexual liberation, see section J.6.8.)
Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family.
A child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the
basis of all family ties. Subjectively, the emotional core of the
concepts of homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother
is the homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in
miniature." According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal
of Hitler's "National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct
continuation of the family tie and are rooted in a fixated tie to the
mother. As Reich points out, although infantile attachment to the
mother is natural, fixated attachment is not, but is a social product.
In puberty, the tie to the mother would make room for other
attachments, i.e., natural sexual relations, if the unnatural sexual
restrictions imposed on adolescents did not cause it to be eternalised.
It is in the form of this socially conditioned externalisation that
fixation on the mother becomes the basis of nationalist feelings in the
adult; and it is only at this stage that it becomes a reactionary
social force.
Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of
creating reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of
his analysis to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual
ones, that are imposed on children and adolescents. Rianne Eisler, for
example, in her book Sacred Pleasure, stresses that it is not just a
sex-negative attitude but a pleasure-negative attitude that creates the
kinds of personalities in question. Denial of the value of pleasurable
sensations permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the
common idea that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the
"animalistic" (and hence "bad") side of human nature, as contrasted
with the "higher" pleasures of the mind and "spirit." By such dualism,
which denies a spiritual aspect to the body, people are made to feel
guilty about enjoying any pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that
does, however, prepare them for lives based on the sacrifice of
pleasure (or indeed, even of life itself) under capitalism and statism,
with their requirements of mass submission to alienated labour,
exploitation, military service to protect ruling-class interests, and
so on. And at the same time, authoritarian ideology emphasises the
value of suffering, as for example through the glorification of the
tough, insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and inflicts "necessary"
suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless ideal.
Eisler also points out that there is "ample evidence that people who
grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments are
the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents. There is also
ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against
traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and
women)" [Ibid., p. 187]. This repressed anger then becomes fertile
ground for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually rests in
part on scapegoating minorities for society's problems.
As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in The
Authoritarian Personality, people who have been conditioned through
childhood abuse to surrender their will to the requirements of feared
authoritarian parents, also tend to be very susceptible as adults to
surrender their will and minds to authoritarian leaders. "In other
words, at the same time that they learn to deflect their repressed rage
against those they perceive as weak, they also learn to submit to
autocratic or 'strong-man' rule. Moreover, having been severely
punished for any hint of rebellion (even 'talking back' about being
treated unfairly), they gradually also learn to deny to themselves that
there was anything wrong with what was done to them as children -- and
to do it in turn to their own children" [Ibid., p. 187].
These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by
creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear
freedom. Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional
child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its
"values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the
pleasure-denying, pain-affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in
most schools. In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian,
non-repressive child-rearing practices and educational methods (see
sections J.6 and secJ.5.13, respectively) whose purpose is to prevent,
or at least minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals,
allowing them instead to develop natural self-regulation and
self-motivated learning. This, we believe, is the only way to for
people to grow up into happy, creative, and truly freedom-loving
individuals who will provide the psychological ground where anarchist
economic and political institutions can flourish.
B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?
As previously noted (see section B.1), anarchists oppose all forms of
hierarchical authority. Historically, however, the they have spent most
of their time and energy opposing two main forms in particular. One is
capitalism, the other, the state. These two forms of authority have a
symbiotic relationship and cannot be easily separated. In this section,
as well as explaining why anarchists oppose the state, we will
necessarily have to analyse the relationship between it and capitalism.
So what is the state? As Malatesta put it, anarchists ""have used the
word State . . . to mean the sum total of the political, legislative,
judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the
management of their own affairs, the control over their personal
behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away
from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or
delegation, are vested with the power to make laws for everything and
everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the
use of collective force." [Anarchy, p. 13]
He continues:
"For us, governments [or the state]is up of all
governors . . . those who have the power to make laws regulating
inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out . . . [and]
who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the
social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power
of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their
wishes." [Op. Cit., pp. 15-16 -- see also Kropotkin's The State: Its
Historic Role, p. 10]
This means that many, if not most, anarchists would agree with Randolph
Bourne's characterisation of the state as the politico-military
domination of a certain geographical territory by a ruling elite (see
his "Unfinished Fragment on the State," in Untimely Papers). On this
subject Murray Bookchin writes:
"Minimally, the State is a professional system of
social coercion . . . It is only when coercion is institutionalised
into a professional, systematic and organised form of social control -
. . . with the backing of a monopoly of violence - that we can properly
speak of a State." [Remaking Society, p. 66]
Therefore, we can say that, for anarchists, the state is marked by three things:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.
Of these three aspects, the last one (its centralised, hierarchical
nature) is the most important simply because the concentration of power
into the hands of the few ensures a division of society into government
and governed (which necessitates the creation of a professional body to
enforce that division). Without such a division, we would not need a
monopoly of violence and so would simply have an association of equals,
unmarked by power and hierarchy (such as exists in many stateless
"primitive" tribes).
Some types of states, e.g. Communist and social-democratic ones, are
directly involved not only in politico-military domination but also in
economic domination via state ownership of the means of production;
whereas in liberal democratic capitalist states, such ownership is in
the hands of private individuals. In liberal democratic states,
however, the mechanisms of politico-military domination are controlled
by and for a corporate elite, and hence the large corporations are
often considered to belong to a wider "state-complex."
As the state is the delegation of power into the hands of the few, it
is obviously based on hierarchy. This delegation of power results in
the elected people becoming isolated from the mass of people who
elected them and outside of their control. In addition, as those
elected are given power over a host of different issues and told to
decide upon them, a bureaucracy soon develops around them to aid in
their decision-making. However, this bureaucracy, due to its control of
information and its permanency, soon has more power than the elected
officials. This means that those who serve the people's (so-called)
servant have more power than those they serve, just as the politician
has more power than those who elected him. All forms of state-like
(i.e. hierarchical) organisations inevitably spawn a bureaucracy about
them. This bureaucracy soon becomes the de facto focal point of power
in the structure, regardless of the official rules.
This marginalisation and disempowerment of ordinary people (and so the
empowerment of a bureaucracy) is the key reason for anarchist
opposition to the state. Such an arrangement ensures that the
individual is disempowered, subject to bureaucratic, authoritarian rule
which reduces the person to a object or a number, not a unique
individual with hopes, dreams, thoughts and feelings. As Proudhon
forcefully argued:
"To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected,
spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated,
preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to
do so... To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, forbidden,
reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public
utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under
contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolised, extorted,
squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed,
tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged,
condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown it
all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that
is its justice; that is its morality." [General Idea of the Revolution,
p. 294]
Anarchists see the state, with its vast scope and control of deadly
force, as the "ultimate" hierarchical structure, suffering from all the
negative characteristics associated with authority described in the
last section. "Any logical and straightforward theory of the State,"
argued Bakunin, "is essentially founded upon the principle of
authority, that is the eminently theological, metaphysical, and
political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing
themselves, must at all times submit to the beneficent yoke of a wisdom
and a justice imposed upon them, in some way or other, from above."
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 142] Such a system of authority cannot help
being centralised, hierarchical and bureaucratic in nature. And because
of its centralised, hierarchical, and bureaucratic nature, the state
becomes a great weight over society, restricting its growth and
development and making popular control impossible. As Bakunin puts it:
"the so-called general interests of society
supposedly represented by the State . . . [are] in reality . . . the
general and permanent negation of the positive interests of the
regions, communes, and associations, and a vast number of individuals
subordinated to the State . . . [in which] all the best aspirations,
all the living forces of a country, are sanctimoniously immolated and
interred." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 207]
In the rest of this section we will discuss the state, its role, its
impact on a society's freedom and who benefits from its existence.
Kropotkin's classic essay, The State: It's Historic Role is recommended
for further reading on this subject.
B.2.1 What is main function of the state?
The main function of the state is to enable the ruling elite to exploit
lower social strata, i.e. derive an economic surplus from them. The
state, to use Malatesta's words, is basically "the property owners'
gendarme" [Anarchy, p. 19] (compare to the maxim of the Founding
Fathers of American "democracy" -- "the people who own the country
ought to govern it" (John Jay)). Those in the upper-middle levels of
the social pyramid also frequently use the state to obtain income
without working, as from investments, but the elite gain by far the
most economic advantages, which is why in the US, one percent of the
population controls over 40 percent of total wealth. It is therefore no
exaggeration to say that the state is the extractive apparatus of
society's parasites.
The state ensures the exploitative privileges of its ruling elite by
protecting certain economic monopolies from which its members derive
their wealth (see section B.3.2). This service is referred to as
"protecting private property" and is said to be one of the two main
functions of the state, the other being to ensure that individuals are
"secure in their persons." However, although this second aim is
professed, in reality most state laws and institutions are concerned
with the protection of property (for the anarchist definition of
"property" see section B.3.1.).
From this fact we may infer that references to the "security of
persons," "crime prevention," etc. are mostly rationalisations of the
state's existence and smokescreens for its perpetuation of elite power
and privileges. Moreover, even though the state does take a secondary
interest in protecting the security of persons (particularly elite
persons), the vast majority of crimes against persons are motivated by
poverty and alienation due to state-supported exploitation and also by
the desensitisation to violence created by the state's own violent
methods of protecting private property.
Hence, anarchists maintain that without the state and the
crime-engendering conditions to which it gives rise, it would be
possible for decentralised, voluntary community associations to deal
compassionately (not punitively) with the few incorrigibly violent
people who might remain (see section I.5.8).
It is clear that the state represents the essential coercive mechanisms
by which capitalism and the authority relations associated with private
property are sustained. The protection of property is fundamentally the
means of assuring the social domination of owners over non-owners, both
in society as a whole and in the particular case of a specific boss
over a specific group of workers. Class domination is the authority of
property owners over those who use that property and it is the primary
function of the state to uphold that domination (and the social
relationships that generate it). In Kropotkin's words, "the rich
perfectly well know that if the machinery of the State ceased to
protect them, their power over the labouring classes would be gone
immediately." [Evolution and Environment, p. 98]
In other words, protecting private property and upholding class
domination are the same thing. Yet this primary function of the state
is disguised by the "democratic" facade of the representative electoral
system, through which it is made to appear that the people rule
themselves. Thus Bakunin writes that the modern state "unites in itself
the two conditions necessary for the prosperity of the capitalistic
economy: State centralisation and the actual subjection of . . . the
people . . . to the minority allegedly representing it but actually
governing it." [Op. Cit., p. 210]
The historian Charles Beard makes a similar point:
"Inasmuch as the primary object of a government,
beyond mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules
which determine the property relations of members of society, the
dominant classes whose rights are thus to be protected must perforce
obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger
interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or
they must themselves control the organs of government" [An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution, quoted by Howard Zinn, Op. Cit., p.
89].
This role of the state -- to protect capitalism and the property, power
and authority of the property owner -- was also noticed by Adam Smith:
"[T]he inequality of fortune . . . introduces among
men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly
exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil
government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation .
. . [and] to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The
rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order
of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own
advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior
wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of
superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs
. . . [T]he maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of
his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends
his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They
constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to
defend the property and to support the authority of their own little
sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to
support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted
for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence
of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property
against those who have none at all." [Adam Smith, The Wealth of
Nations, book 5]
In a nutshell, the state is the means by which the ruling class rules. Hence Bakunin:
"the State is the organised authority, domination
and power of the possessing classes over the masses." [quoted by David
Deleon, Reinventing Anarchy, p. 71]
However, while recognising that the state protects the power and
position of the economically dominant class within a society anarchists
also argue that the state has, due to its hierarchical nature,
interests of its own. Thus it cannot be considered as simply the tool
of the economically dominant class in society. States have their own
dynamics, due to their structure, which generate their own classes and
class interests and privileges (and which allows them to escape from
the control of the economic ruling class and pursue their own
interests, to a greater or lesser degree). As Malatesta put it "the
government, though springing from the bourgeoisie and its servant and
protector, tends, as with every servant and every protector, to achieve
its own emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects." [Anarchy, p.
22]
This means that the state machine (and structure), while its modern
form is intrinsically linked to capitalism, cannot be seen as being a
tool usable by the majority. This is because the "State, any State --
even when it dresses-up in the most liberal and democratic form -- is
essentially based on domination, and upon violence, that is upon
despotism -- a concealed but no less dangerous despotism." The State
"denotes force, authority, predominance; it presupposes inequality in
fact." [The Political Philosophy of Michael Bakunin, p. 211 and p. 223]
This is due to its hierarchical and centralised nature, which empowers
the few who control the state machine -- "[e]very state power, every
government, by its nature places itself outside and over the people and
inevitably subordinates them to an organisation and to aims which are
foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the
people." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 328] If "the whole proletariat . . .
[are] members of the government . . . there will be no government, no
state, but, if there is to be a state there will be those who are ruled
and those who are slaves." [Op. Cit., p. 330]
In other words, the state bureaucracy is itself directly an oppressor
and can exist independently of an economically dominant class. In
Bakunin's prophetic words:
"What have we seen throughout history? The State has
always been the patrimony of some privileged class: the sacerdotal
class, the nobility, the bourgeoisie -- and finally, when all other
classes have exhausted themselves, the class of the bureaucracy enters
the stage and then the State falls, or rises, if you please, to the
position of a machine." [The Political Philosophy of Michael Bakunin,
p. 208]
The experience of Soviet Russian indicates the validity of his analysis
(the working class was exploited and dominated by the state bureaucracy
rather than by an economic class).
Thus the role of the state is to repress the individual and the working
class as a whole in the interests of the capitalist class and in its
own interests. This means that "the State organisation . . . [is] the
force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising
their power over the masses." Little wonder, then, that Kropotkin
argued that "[i]n the struggle between the individual and the State,
anarchism . . . takes the side of the individual as against the State,
of society against the authority which oppresses it." While the state
is a "superstructure in the interests of capitalism," it is a "power
which was created for the purpose of welding together the interests of
the landlord, the judge, the warrior, and the priest" and, we must add,
cannot be considered purely as being a tool for the capitalist/landlord
class. The state structure ("the judge, the warrior" etc.) has
interests of its own. [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170 and
pp. 192-3]
B.2.2 Does the state have subsidiary functions?
Besides its primary function of protecting private property, the state
operates in other ways as an economic instrument of the ruling class.
First, the state intervenes in the modern economy to solve problems
that arise in the course of capitalist development. These interventions
have taken different forms in different times and include state funding
for industry (e.g. military spending); the creation of social
infrastructure too expensive for private capital to provide (railways,
motorways); tariffs to protect developing industries from more
efficient international competition (the key to successful
industrialisation as it allows capitalists to rip-off consumers, making
them rich and increasing funds available for investment); imperialist
ventures to create colonies (or protect citizen's capital invested
abroad) in order to create markets or get access to raw materials and
cheap labour; government spending to stimulate consumer demand in the
face of underconsumption and stagnation; maintaining a "natural" level
of unemployment that can be used to discipline the working class, so
ensuring they produce more, for less; manipulating the interest rate in
order to try and reduce the effects of the business cycle and undermine
workers' gains in the class struggle.
Second, because of the inordinate political power deriving from wealth
(see next section), capitalists use the state directly to benefit their
class, as from subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, protective
tariffs, bailouts of corporations judged by state bureaucrats as too
important to let fail, and so on.
And third, the state may be used to grant concessions to the working
class in cases where not doing so would threaten the integrity of the
system as a whole.
Hence David Deleon:
"Above all, the state remains an institution for the
continuance of dominant socioeconomic relations, whether through such
agencies as the military, the courts, politics or the police . . .
Contemporary states have acquired . . . less primitive means to
reinforce their property systems [than state violence -- which is
always the means of last, often first, resort]. States can regulate,
moderate or resolve tensions in the economy by preventing the
bankruptcies of key corporations, manipulating the economy through
interest rates, supporting hierarchical ideology through tax benefits
for churches and schools, and other tactics. In essence, it is not a
neutral institution; it is powerfully for the status quo. The
capitalist state, for example, is virtually a gyroscope centred in
capital, balancing the system. If one sector of the economy earns a
level of profit, let us say, that harms the rest of the system -- such
as oil producers' causing public resentment and increased manufacturing
costs -- the state may redistribute some of that profit through
taxation, or offer encouragement to competitors." [Reinventing Anarchy,
pp. 71-72]
The example of state legislation to set the length of the working day
is an example of both the first and third functions enumerated above.
In the early period of capitalist development, a shortage of labour
power led to the state's ignoring the lengthening working day, thus
allowing capitalists to appropriate more surplus value from workers and
increase the rate of profit without interference. Later, however, after
workers began to organise, reducing the length of the working day
became a key demand around which revolutionary socialist fervour was
developing. Hence, in order to defuse this threat (and socialist
revolution is the worst-case scenario for the capitalist), the state
passed legislation to reduce the length of the working day (which, once
workers' struggle calmed down, were happily ignored and became "dead
laws"). Initially, the state was functioning purely as the protector of
the capitalist class, using its powers to solve problems that arise in
the course of capitalist development (namely repressing the labour
movement to allow the capitalists to do as they liked). In the second
it was granting concessions to the working class to eliminate a threat
to the integrity of the system as a whole.
It should be noted that none of these three subsidiary functions
implies that capitalism can be changed through a series of piecemeal
reforms into a benevolent system that primarily serves working class
interests. To the contrary, these functions grow out of, and
supplement, the basic role of the state as the protector of capitalist
property and the social relations they generate -- i.e. the foundation
of the capitalist's ability to exploit. Therefore reforms may modify
the functioning of capitalism but they can never threaten its basis. As
Malatesta argued:
"The basic function of government . . . is always
that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the
oppressors and the exploiters . . . It is true that to these basic
functions . . . other functions have been added in the course of
history . . . hardly ever has a government existed . . . which did not
combine with its oppressive and plundering activities others which were
useful . . . to social life. But this does not detract from the fact
that government is by nature oppressive . . . and that it is in origin
and by its attitude, inevitably inclined to defend and strengthen the
dominant class; indeed it confirms and aggravates the position . . .
[I]t is enough to understand how and why it carries out these functions
to find the practical evidence that whatever governments do is always
motivated by the desire to dominate, and is always geared to defending,
extending and perpetuating its privileges and those of the class of
which it is both the representative and defender.
"A government cannot maintain itself for long
without hiding its true nature behind a pretence of general usefulness;
it cannot impose respect for the lives of the privileged if it does not
appear to demand respect for all human life; it cannot impose
acceptance of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be
the guardian of the rights of all." [Op. Cit., pp. 20-1]
Ultimately, what the state concedes, it can also take back (as was the
case of the laws limiting the working day). Thus the rise and fall of
the welfare state -- granted to stop more revolutionary change (see
section D.1.3), it did not fundamentally challenge the existence of
wage labour and was useful as a means of regulating capitalism but was
"reformed" (i.e. made worse, rather than better) when its existence
conflicted with the needs of the capitalist economy.
In other words, the state acts to protect the long-term interests of
the capitalist class as a whole (and ensure its own survival) by
protecting the system. This role can and does clash with the interests
of particular capitalists or even whole sections of the ruling class
(see next section). But this conflict does not change the role of the
state as the property owners' policeman. Indeed, the state can be
considered as a means for settling (in a peaceful and apparently
independent manner) upper-class disputes over what to do to keep the
system going.
B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the state?
For simplicity, let's just consider the capitalist state, whose main
purpose is to protect the exploitative monopolies described below.
Because their economic monopolies are protected by the state, the
elites whose incomes are derived from them -- namely, finance
capitalists, industrial capitalists, and landlords -- are able to
accumulate vast wealth from those whom they exploit. This stratifies
society into a hierarchy of economic classes, with a huge disparity of
wealth between the small property-owning elite at the top and the
non-property-owning majority at the bottom.
Then, because it takes enormous wealth to win elections and lobby or
bribe legislators, the propertied elite are able to control the
political process -- and hence the state -- through the "power of the
purse." For example, it costs well over $20 million to run for
President of the USA. In other words, elite control of politics through
huge wealth disparities insures the continuation of such disparities
and thus the continuation of elite control. In this way the crucial
political decisions of those at the top are insulated from significant
influence by those at the bottom.
Moreover, the ability of capital to disinvest (capital flight) and
otherwise adversely impact the economy is a powerful weapon to keep the
state as its servant. As Noam Chomsky notes:
"In capitalist democracy, the interests that must be
satisfied are those of capitalists; otherwise, there is no investment,
no production, no work, no resources to be devoted, however marginally,
to the needs of the general population" [Turning the Tide, p. 233]
Hence, even allegedly "democratic" capitalist states are in effect
dictatorships of the propertariat. Errico Malatesta put it this way:
"Even with universal suffrage - we could well say
even more so with universal suffrage - the government remained the
bourgeoisie's servant and gendarme. For were it to be otherwise with
the government hinting that it might take up a hostile attitude, or
that democracy could ever be anything but a pretence to deceive the
people, the bourgeoisie, feeling its interests threatened, would by
quick to react, and would use all the influence and force at its
disposal, by reason of its wealth, to recall the government to its
proper place as the bourgeoisie's gendarme." [Anarchy, p. 20]
The existence of a state bureaucracy is a key feature in ensuring that
the state remains the ruling class's "policeman" and will be discussed
in greater detail in section J.2.2 (Why do anarchists reject voting as
a means for change?). As far as economic forces go, we see their power
implied when the news report that changes in government, policies and
law have been "welcomed by the markets." As the richest 1% of
households in America (about 2 million adults) owned 35% of the stock
owned by individuals in 1992 - with the top 10% owning over 81% - we
can see that the "opinion" of the markets actually means the power of
the richest 1-5% of a countries population (and their finance experts),
power derived from their control over investment and production. Given
that the bottom 90% of the US population has a smaller share (23%) of
all kinds of investable capital that the richest 1/2% (who own 29%),
with stock ownership being even more concentrated (the top 5% holding
95% of all shares), its obvious why Doug Henwood (author of Wall
Street) argues that stock markets are "a way for the very rich as a
class to own an economy's productive capital stock as a whole," are a
source of "political power" and a way to have influence over government
policy (see section D.2). [Wall Street: Class Racket]
Of course, this does not mean that the state and the capitalist class
always see "eye to eye." Top politicians, for example, are part of the
ruling elite, but they are in competition with other parts of it. In
addition, different sectors of the capitalist class are competing
against each other for profits, political influence, privileges, etc.
The bourgeoisie, argued Malatesta, "are always at war among themselves
. . . and . . . the government, though springing from the bourgeoisie
and its protector, tends . . . to dominate whoever it protects. Thus
the games of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions and
withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people against the
conservatives, and among the conservatives against the people." [Op.
Cit., p. 22] As such, the state is often in conflict with sections of
the capitalist class, just as sections of that class use the state to
advance their own interests within the general framework of protecting
the capitalist system (i.e. the interests of the ruling class as a
class). Such conflicts sometimes give the impression of the state being
a "neutral" body, but this is an illusion -- it exists to defend class
power and privilege, and to resolve disputes within that class
peacefully via the "democratic" process (within which we get the chance
of picking the representatives of the elite who will oppress us least).
Nevertheless, without the tax money from successful businesses, the
state would be weakened. Hence the role of the state is to ensure the
best conditions for capital as a whole, which means that, when
necessary, it can and does work against the interests of certain parts
of the capitalist class. This is what can give the state the appearance
of independence and can fool people into thinking that it represents
the interests of society as a whole. (For more on the ruling elite and
its relation to the state, see C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite
[Oxford, 1956]; cf. Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society
[Basic Books, 1969] and Divided Societies [Oxford, 1989]; G. William
Domhoff, Who Rules America? [Prentice Hall, 1967]; Who Rules America
Now? A View for the '80s [Touchstone, 1983] and Toxic Sludge is Good
For You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry by John
Stauber and Sheldon Rampton [Common Courage Press, 1995]).
B.2.4 How does state centralisation affect freedom?
It's a common but false idea that voting every four or so years to
elect the public face of a highly centralised and bureaucratic machine
means that ordinary people control the state. Obviously, to say that
this idea is false does not imply that there is no difference between a
liberal republic and a fascistic or monarchical state. Far from it.
The vote is an important victory wrested from the powers that be. It is
one small step on the road to libertarian socialism. Nevertheless, all
forms of hierarchy, even those in which the top officers are elected
are marked by authoritarianism and centralism. Power is concentrated in
the centre (or at the "top"), which means that society becomes "a heap
of dust animated from without by a subordinating, centralist idea."
[P.J. Proudhon, quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 29] For,
once elected, top officers can do as they please, and in all political
bureaucracies, many important decisions are made by non-elected staff.
The nature of centralisation places power into the hands of the few.
Representative democracy is based on this delegation of power, with
voters electing others to govern them. This cannot help but create a
situation in which freedom is endangered -- universal suffrage "does
not prevent the formation of a body of politicians, privileged in fact
though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to the
administration of the nation's public affairs, end by becoming a sort
of political aristocracy or oligarchy." [Bakunin, The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 240]
Centralism makes democracy meaningless, as political decision-making is
given over to professional politicians in remote capitals. Lacking
local autonomy, people are isolated from each other (atomised) by
having no political forum where they can come together to discuss,
debate, and decide among themselves the issues they consider important.
Elections are not based on natural, decentralised groupings and thus
cease to be relevant. The individual is just another "voter" in the
mass, a political "constituent" and nothing more. The amorphous basis
of modern, statist elections "aims at nothing less than to abolish
political life in towns, communes and departments, and through this
destruction of all municipal and regional autonomy to arrest the
development of universal suffrage" [Proudhon, Ibid.] Thus people are
disempowered by the very structures that claim to allow them to express
themselves. To quote Proudhon again, in the centralised state "the
citizen divests himself of sovereignty, the town and the Department and
province above it, absorbed by central authority, are no longer
anything but agencies under direct ministerial control." He continues:
"The Consequences soon make themselves felt: the
citizen and the town are deprived of all dignity, the state's
depredations multiply, and the burden on the taxpayer increases in
proportion. It is no longer the government that is made for the people;
it is the people who are made for the government. Power invades
everything, dominates everything, absorbs everything. . ." [The
Principle of Federation, p. 59]
As intended, isolated people are no threat to the powers that be. This
process of marginalisation can be seen from American history, for
example, when town meetings were replaced by elected bodies, with the
citizens being placed in passive, spectator roles as mere "voters" (see
section B.5 "Is capitalism empowering and based on human action?").
Being an atomised voter is hardly an ideal notion of "freedom," despite
the rhetoric of politicians about the virtues of a "free society" and
"The Free World" -- as if voting once every four or five years could
ever be classed as "liberty" or even "democracy."
In this way, social concern and power are taken away from ordinary
citizens and centralised in the hands of the few. Marginalisation of
the people is the key control mechanism in the state and authoritarian
organisations in general. Considering the European Community (EC), for
example, we find that the "mechanism for decision-making between EC
states leaves power in the hands of officials (from Interior
ministries, police, immigration, customs and security services) through
a myriad of working groups. Senior officials . . . play a critical role
in ensuring agreements between the different state officials. The EC
Summit meetings, comprising the 12 Prime Ministers, simply rubber-stamp
the conclusions agreed by the Interior and Justice Ministers. It is
only then, in this intergovernmental process, that parliaments and
people are informed (and them only with the barest details)." [Tony
Bunyon, Statewatching the New Europe, p. 39]
As well as economic pressures from elites, governments also face
pressures within the state itself due to the bureaucracy that comes
with centralism. There is a difference between the state and
government. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that
have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made
up of various politicians. It's the institutions that have power in the
state due to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go.
As Clive Ponting (an ex-civil servant himself) indicates, "the function
of a political system in any country... is to regulate, but not to
alter radically, the existing economic structure and its linked power
relationships. The great illusion of politics is that politicians have
the ability to make whatever changes they like . . ." [quoted in
Alternatives, no.5, p. 19].
Therefore, as well as marginalising the people, the state also ends up
marginalising "our" representatives. As power rests not in the elected
bodies, but in a bureaucracy, popular control becomes increasingly
meaningless. As Bakunin pointed out, "liberty can be valid only when .
. . [popular] control [of the state] is valid. On the contrary, where
such control is fictitious, this freedom of the people likewise becomes
a mere fiction" [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 212].
This means that state centralism can become a serious source of danger
to the liberty and well-being of most of the people under it. However,
some people do benefit from state centralisation, namely those with
power who desire to be "left alone" to use it: that is, the two
sections of the ruling elite, bureaucrats of capital and state (as will
be discussed further in the next section).
B.2.5 Who benefits from centralisation?
No social system would exist unless it benefited someone or some group.
Centralisation, be it in the state or the company, is no different. In
all cases, centralisation directly benefits those at the top, because
it shelters them from those who are below, allowing the latter to be
controlled and governed more effectively. Therefore, it is in the
direct interests of bureaucrats and politicians to support centralism.
Under capitalism, however, various sections of the business class also
support state centralism. This is the symbiotic relationship between
capital and the state. As will be discussed later, (in section F.8) the
state played an important role in "nationalising" the market, i.e.
forcing the "free market" onto society. By centralising power in the
hands of representatives and so creating a state bureaucracy, ordinary
people were disempowered and thus became less likely to interfere with
the interests of the wealthy. "In a republic," writes Bakunin, "the
so-called people, the legal people, allegedly represented by the State,
stifle and will keep on stifling the actual and living people" by "the
bureaucratic world" for "the greater benefit of the privileged
propertied classes as well as for its own benefit" [Op. Cit., p. 211].
Examples of increased political centralisation being promoted by
wealthy business interests by can be seen throughout the history of
capitalism. "In revolutionary America, 'the nature of city government
came in for heated discussion,' observes Merril Jensen . . . Town
meetings . . .' had been a focal point of revolutionary activity'. The
anti-democratic reaction that set in after the American revolution was
marked by efforts to do away with town meeting government . . .
Attempts by conservative elements were made to establish a 'corporate
form (of municipal government) whereby the towns would be governed by
mayors and councils' elected from urban wards . . .[T]he merchants
'backed incorporation consistently in their efforts to escape town
meetings' . . ." [Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological Society, p.
182]
Here we see local policy making being taken out of the hands of the
many and centralised in the hands of the few (who are always the
wealthy). France provides another example:
"The Government found . . . the folkmotes [of all
households] 'too noisy', too disobedient, and in 1787, elected
councils, composed of a mayor and three to six syndics, chosen among
the wealthier peasants, were introduced instead" [Peter Kropotkin,
Mutual Aid, pp. 185-186].
This was part of a general movement to disempower the working class by
centralising decision making power into the hands of the few (as in the
American revolution). Kropotkin indicates the process at work:
"[T]he middle classes, who had until then had sought
the support of the people, in order to obtain constitutional laws and
to dominate the higher nobility, were going, now that they had seen and
felt the strength of the people, to do all they could to dominate the
people, to disarm them and to drive them back into subjection.
[. . .]
"[T]hey made haste to legislate in such a way that
the political power which was slipping out of the hand of the Court
should not fall into the hands of the people. Thus . . . [it was]
proposed . . . to divide the French into two classes, of which one
only, the active citizens, should take part in the government, whilst
the other, comprising the great mass of the people under the name of
passive citizens, should be deprived of all political rights . . .
[T]he [National] Assembly divided France into departments . . . always
maintaining the principle of excluding the poorer classes from the
Government . . . [T]hey excluded from the primary assemblies the mass
of the people . . . who could no longer take part in the primary
assemblies, and accordingly had no right to nominate the electors [who
chose representatives to the National Assembly], or the municipality,
or any of the local authorities . . .
"And finally, the permanence of the electoral
assemblies was interdicted. Once the middle-class governors were
appointed, these assemblies were not to meet again. Once the
middle-class governors were appointed, they must not be controlled too
strictly. Soon the right even of petitioning and of passing resolutions
was taken away -- 'Vote and hold your tongue!' "As to the villages . .
. the general assembly of the inhabitants . . . [to which] belonged the
administration of the affairs of the commune . . . were forbidden by
the . . . law. Henceforth only the well-to-do peasants, the active
citizens, had the right to meet, once a year, to nominate the mayor and
the municipality, composed of three or four middle-class men of the
village.
"A similar municipal organisation was given to the towns. . .
"[Thus] the middle classes surrounded themselves
with every precaution in order to keep the municipal power in the hands
of the well-to-do members of the community." [The Great French
Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 179-186]
Thus centralisation aimed to take power away from the mass of the
people and give it to the wealthy. The power of the people rested in
popular assemblies, such as the "Sections" and "Districts" of Paris
(expressing, in Kropotkin's words, "the principles of anarchism" and
"practising . . . Direct Self-Government" [Op. Cit., p. 204 and p.
203]) and village assemblies. However, the National Assembly "tried all
it could to lessen the power of the districts . . . [and] put an end to
those hotbeds of Revolution . . . [by allowing] active citizens only .
. . to take part in the electoral and administrative assemblies." [Op.
Cit., p. 211] Thus the "central government was steadily endeavouring to
subject the sections to its authority" with the state "seeking to
centralise everything in its own hands . . . [I]ts depriving the
popular organisations . . . all . . . administrative functions . . .
its subjecting them to its bureaucracy in police matters, meant the
death of the sections." [Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 549 and p. 552]
As can be seen, in both the French and American revolutions saw a
similar process by which the wealthy centralised power into their own
hands. This ensured that working class people (i.e. the majority) were
excluded from the decision making process and subject to the laws and
power of others. Which, of course, benefits the minority class whose
representatives have that power. (Volume one of Murray Bookchin's The
Third Revolution discusses the French and American revolutions in some
detail).
On the federal and state levels in the US after the Revolution,
centralisation of power was encouraged, since "most of the makers of
the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a
strong federal government . . . there was . . . a positive need for
strong central government to protect the large economic interests."
[Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 90] In
particular, state centralisation was essential to mould US society into
one dominated by capitalism:
"In the thirty years leading up to the Civil War,
the law was increasingly interpreted in the courts to suit capitalist
development. Studying this, Morton Horwitz (The Transformation of
American Law) points out that the English common-law was no longer holy
when it stood in the way of business growth . . . Judgements for
damages against businessmen were taken out of the hands of juries,
which were unpredictable, and given to judges . . . The ancient idea of
a fair price for goods gave way in the courts to the idea of caveat
emptor (let the buyer beware) . . . contract law was intended to
discriminate against working people and for business . . . The pretence
of the law was that a worker and a railroad made a contract with equal
bargaining power . . . 'The circle was completed; the law had come
simply to ratify those forms of inequality that the market system had
produced.'" [Op. Cit., p. 234]
The US state was created on elitist liberal doctrine and actively aimed
to reduce democratic tendencies (in the name of "individual liberty").
What happened in practice (unsurprisingly enough) was that the wealthy
elite used the state to undermine popular culture and common right in
favour of protecting and extending their own interests and power. In
the process, US society was reformed in their own image:
"By the middle of the nineteenth century the legal
system had been reshaped to the advantage of men of commerce and
industry at the expense of farmers, workers, consumers, and other less
powerful groups in society . . . it actively promoted a legal
distribution of wealth against the weakest groups in society."
[Horwitz, quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 235]
In more modern times, state centralisation and expansion has gone hand
in glove with rapid industrialisation and the growth of business. As
Edward Herman points out, "[t]o a great extent, it was the growth in
business size and power that elicited the countervailing emergence of
unions and the growth of government. Bigness beyond business was to a
large extent a response to bigness in business." [Corporate Control,
Corporate Power, p. 188 -- see also, Stephen Skowronek, Building A New
American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities,
1877-1920] State centralisation was required to produce bigger,
well-defined markets and was supported by business when it acted in
their interests (i.e. as markets expanded, so did the state in order to
standardise and enforce property laws and so on). On the other hand,
this development towards "big government" created an environment in
which big business could grow (often encouraged by the state by
subsidies and protectionism - as would be expected when the state is
run by the wealthy) as well as further removing state power from
influence by the masses and placing it more firmly in the hands of the
wealthy. It is little wonder we see such developments, for
"[s]tructures of governance tend to coalesce around domestic power, in
the last few centuries, economic power." [Noam Chomsky, World Orders,
Old and New, p. 178]
State centralisation makes it easier for business to control
government, ensuring that it remains their puppet and to influence the
political process. For example, the European Round Table (ERT) "an
elite lobby group of. . .chairmen or chief executives of large
multi-nationals based mainly in the EU... [with] 11 of the 20 largest
European companies [with] combined sales [in 1991] . . . exceeding $500
billion, . . . approximately 60 per cent of EU industrial production,"
makes much use of the EU. As two researchers who have studied this body
note, the ERT "is adept at lobbying . . . so that many ERT proposals
and 'visions' are mysteriously regurgitated in Commission summit
documents." The ERT "claims that the labour market should be more
'flexible,' arguing for more flexible hours, seasonal contracts, job
sharing and part time work. In December 1993, seven years after the ERT
made its suggestions [and after most states had agreed to the
Maastricht Treaty and its "social chapter"], the European Commission
published a white paper . . . [proposing] making labour markets in
Europe more flexible." [Doherty and Hoedeman, "Knights of the Road,"
New Statesman, 4/11/94, p. 27]
The current talk of globalisation, NAFTA, and the Single European
Market indicates an underlying transformation in which state growth
follows the path cut by economic growth. Simply put, with the growth of
transnational corporations and global finance markets, the bounds of
the nation-state have been made economically redundant. As companies
have expanded into multi-nationals, so the pressure has mounted for
states to follow suit and rationalise their markets across "nations" by
creating multi-state agreements and unions.
As Noam Chomsky notes, G7, the IMF, the World Bank and so forth are a
"de facto world government," and "the institutions of the transnational
state largely serve other masters [than the people], as state power
typically does; in this case the rising transnational corporations in
the domains of finance and other services, manufacturing, media and
communications." [Op. Cit., p. 179]
As multi-nationals grow and develop, breaking through national
boundaries, a corresponding growth in statism is required. Moreover, a
"particularly valuable feature of the rising de facto governing
institutions is their immunity from popular influence, even awareness.
They operate in secret, creating a world subordinated to the needs of
investors, with the public 'put in its place', the threat of democracy
reduced." [Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 178]
This does not mean that capitalists desire state centralisation for
everything. Often, particularly for social issues, relative
decentralisation is often preferred (i.e. power is given to local
bureaucrats) in order to increase business control over them. By
devolving control to local areas, the power which large corporations,
investment firms and the like have over the local government increases
proportionally. In addition, even middle-sized enterprise can join in
and influence, constrain or directly control local policies and set one
workforce against another. Private power can ensure that "freedom" is
safe, their freedom.
No matter which set of bureaucrats are selected, the need to centralise
social power, thus marginalising the population, is of prime importance
to the business class. It is also important to remember that capitalist
opposition to "big government" is often financial, as the state feeds
off the available social surplus, so reducing the amount left for the
market to distribute to the various capitals in competition.
In reality, what capitalists object to about "big government" is its
spending on social programs designed to benefit the poor and working
class, an "illegitimate" function which "wastes" part of the surplus
that might go to capital (and also makes people less desperate and so
less willing to work cheaply). Hence the constant push to reduce the
state to its "classical" role as protector of private property and the
system, and little else. Other than their specious quarrel with the
welfare state, capitalists are the staunchest supports of government
(and the "correct" form of state intervention, such as defence
spending), as evidenced by the fact that funds can always be found to
build more prisons and send troops abroad to advance ruling-class
interests, even as politicians are crying that there is "no money" in
the treasury for scholarships, national health care, or welfare for the
poor.
B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?
Capitalism is one of the two things all anarchists oppose. Capitalism
is marked by two main features, "private property" (or in some cases,
state-owned property) and wage labour. The latter, however, is
dependent on the former, i.e. for wage labour to exist, workers must
not own or control the means of production they use. In turn, private
(or state) ownership of the means of production is only possible if
there is a state, meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the
disposal of the propertied class (see section B.2).
Anarchists oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a
source of coercive, hierarchical authority and elite privilege
("Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and
increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with
robbery," to use Proudhon's words - What is Property, p. 251). And so
private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation,
influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of
life.
Therefore, for all true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of
authority, indeed despotism. To quote Proudhon on this subject:
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign
- for all these titles are synonymous - imposes his will as law, and
suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be
the legislative and the executive power at once. . . [and so] property
engenders despotism. . . That is so clearly the essence of property
that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and
observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse
. . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings,
and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires?
And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his
property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a
government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" [Op.
Cit., pp. 266-7]
In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the
property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and
so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the
worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders,
laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the
total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading
to have to follow orders). Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose
private property as Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a
sovereign" [Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is,
namely wage slavery!
Also, it ought to be easy to see that capitalism, by giving rise to an
ideologically inalienable "right" to private property, will also
quickly give rise to inequalities in the distribution of external
resources, and that this inequality in resource distribution will give
rise to a further inequality in the relative bargaining positions of
the propertied and the property less. While apologists for capitalism
usually attempt to justify private property by claiming that
"self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see section B.4.2 - "Is
capitalism based on self-ownership?), it is clear that capitalism
actually makes universal self-ownership, in it's true sense,
impossible. For the real principle of self-ownership implies that
people are not used in various ways against their will. The capitalist
system, however, has undermined this principle, and ironically, has
used the term "self-ownership" as the "logical" basis for doing so.
Under capitalism, as will be seen in section B.4, most people are
usually left in a situation where their best option is to allow
themselves to be used in just those ways that are logically
incompatible with genuine self-ownership.
For these reasons, anarchists agree with Rousseau when he states:
"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of
land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough
to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes,
wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had
been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in
the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this
impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to
all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" ["Discourse on Inequality,"
The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 84]
Only libertarian socialism can continue to affirm self-ownership whilst
building the conditions that guarantee it. Only by abolishing private
property can there be access to the means of life for all, so making
self-ownership a reality by universalising self-management in all
aspects of life.
Before discussing the anti-libertarian aspects of capitalism, it will
be necessary to define "private property" as distinct from "personal
possessions" and show in more detail why the former requires state
protection and is exploitative.
B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession?
Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as
state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are
used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership
of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a
refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered
as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For
example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one
rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if
one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw
is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw
for one's own profit, it is property.
While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is
very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists
tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a
transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very
different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:
"Originally the word property was synonymous with
proper or individual possession. . . But when this right of use . . .
became active and paramount - that is, when the usufructuary converted
his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his
neighbour's labour - then property changed its nature and this idea
became complex." [What is Property, pp. 395-6]
As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes
private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with
it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the
things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory
belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities
will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use
will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to
possession." [The ABC of Anarchism, p. 68] (For more on the anarchist
theory of property, see P.-J. Proudhon, What is Property?. William
Godwin, in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, makes the same point
concerning the difference between property and possession -- which
indicates its central place in anarchist thought). Proudhon graphically
illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a
husband as a proprietor!
The difference between property and possession can be seen from the
types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a
capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace
determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads
to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, "the term
'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human institution that
approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I
mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and
you take orders from above and hand 'em down. Ultimately, it's in the
hands of owners and investors."
In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only
title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who
work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and
equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property
and capitalism flows naturally from its basic principles and ideas.
B.3.2 What kinds of property does the state protect?
Kropotkin argued that the state was "the instrument for establishing
monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 286] While some of these monopolies are
obvious (such as tariffs, state granted market monopolies and so on -
see section F.8 on the state's role in developing capitalism) most are
"behind the scenes" and work to ensure that capitalist domination does
not need extensive force to maintain.
The state therefore maintains various kinds of "class monopolies" (to
use Tucker's phrase) to ensure that workers do not receive their
"natural wage," the full product of their labour. There are four major
kinds of property, or exploitative monopolies, that the state protects:
(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking;
(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent ("intellectual property") royalties.
By enforcing these forms of property, capitalism ensures that the
objective conditions within the economy favour the capitalist, with the
worker free only to accept oppressive and exploitative contracts within
which they forfeit their autonomy and promise obedience or face misery
and poverty. Due to these "initiations of force" conducted previously
to any specific contract being signed, capitalists enrich themselves at
the expense of us as well as making a mockery of free agreement (see
section B.4). Of course, despite the supposedly subtle role of such
"objective" pressures in controlling the working class, working class
resistance has been such that capital has never been able to dispense
with the powers of the state, both direct and indirect. When
"objective" means of control fail, the capitalists will always turn to
the use of state repression to restore the "natural" order.
To indicate the importance of these state backed monopolies, we shall sketch their impact.
The credit monopoly, by which the state controls who can and cannot
loan money, reduces the ability of working class people to create their
own alternatives to capitalism. By charging high amounts of interest on
loans (which is only possible because competition is restricted) few
people can afford to create co-operatives or one-person firms. In
addition, having to repay loans at high interest to capitalist banks
ensures that co-operatives often have to undermine their own principles
by having to employ wage labour to make ends meet (see section J.5.11).
It is unsurprising, therefore, that the very successful Mondragon
co-operatives in the Basque Country created their own credit union
which is largely responsible for the experiments success.
Just as increasing wages is an important struggle within capitalism, so
is the question of credit. Proudhon and his followers supported the
idea of a People's Bank. If the working class could take over and
control increasing amounts of money it could undercut capitalist power
while building its own alternative social order (for money is
ultimately the means of buying labour power, and so authority over the
labourer - which is the key to surplus value production). Proudhon
hoped that by credit being reduced to cost (namely administration
charges) workers would be able to buy the means of production they
needed. While most anarchists would argue that increased working class
access to credit would no more bring down capitalism than increased
wages, all anarchists recognise how more credit, like more wages, and
how the struggle for credit, like the struggle for wages, might play a
useful role in the development of the power of the working class within
capitalism. Obvious cases that spring to mind are those where money has
been used by workers to finance their struggles against capital, from
strike funds and weapons to the periodical avoidance of work made
possible by sufficiently high money income. Increased access to cheap
credit would give working class people slightly more options than
selling their liberty or facing misery (just as increased wages and
unemployment benefit also gives us more options).
Therefore, the credit monopoly reduces competition to capitalism from
co-operatives (which are generally more productive than capitalist
firms) while at the same time forcing down wages for all workers as the
demand for labour is lower than it would otherwise be. This, in turn,
allows capitalists to use the fear of the sack to extract higher levels
of surplus value from employees, so consolidating capitalist power
(within and outwith the workplace) and expansion (increasing set-up
costs and so creating oligarchic markets dominated by a few firms). In
addition, high interest rates transfer income directly from producers
to banks. Credit and money are both used as weapons in the class
struggle. This is why, again and again, we see the ruling class call
for centralised banking and use state action (from the direct
regulation of money itself to the management of its flows) in the face
of repeated threats to the nature (and role) of money within capitalism.
So the credit monopoly, by artificially restricting the option to work for ourselves, ensures we work for a boss.
The land monopoly consists of enforcement by government of land titles
which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. In addition,
it also includes making the squatting of abandoned housing and other
forms of property illegal. This leads to ground-rent, by which
landlords get payment for letting others use the land they own but do
not actually cultivate. While this monopoly is less important in a
modern capitalist society (as few people know how to farm) it did,
however, play an important role in creating capitalism (also see
section F.8.3). Economist William Lazonick summaries this process:
"The reorganisation of agricultural land [the
enclosure movement] . . . inevitably undermined the viability of
traditional peasant agriculture. . . [it] created a sizeable labour
force of disinherited peasants with only tenuous attachments to the
land. To earn a living, many of these peasants turned to 'domestic
industry' - the production of goods in their cottages . . .It was the
eighteenth century expansion of domestic industry. . . that laid the
basis for the British Industrial Revolution. The emergence of
labour-saving machine technology transformed. . . textile manufacture.
. . and the factory replaced the family home as the predominant site of
production." [Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy,
pp. 3-4]
By being able to "legally" bar people from "their" property, the
landlord class used the land monopoly to ensure the creation of a class
of people with nothing to sell but their labour (i.e. liberty). Land
was taken from those who traditionally used it, violating common
rights, and it was used by the landlord to produce for their own profit
(more recently, a similar process has been going on in the Third World
as well). Personal occupancy was replaced by landlordism and
agricultural wage slavery, and so "the Enclosure Acts. . . reduced the
agricultural population to misery, placed them at the mercy of the
landowners, and forced a great number of them to migrate to the towns
where, as proletarians, they were delivered to the mercy of the
middle-class manufacturers." [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French
Revolution, p. 117]
This was the land monopoly in action (also see section F.8.3) and from
it sprang the tools and equipment monopoly as domestic industry could
not survive in the face of industrial capitalism. The tools and
equipment monopoly is based upon the capitalist denying workers access
to their capital unless the worker pays tribute to the owner for using
it. While capital is "simply stored-up labour which has already
received its pay in full" and so "the lender of capital is entitled to
its return intact, and nothing more" (to use Tucker's words), due to
legal privilege the capitalist is in a position to charge a "fee" for
its use. This is because, with the working class legally barred from
both the land and available capital (the means of life), members of
that class have little option but to agree to wage contracts which let
capitalists extract a "fee" for the use of their equipment (see section
B.3.3).
While the initial capital for investing in industry came from wealth
plundered from overseas or from the proceeds of feudalist and
landlordist exploitation, the fact of state protection of property
ensured that the manufacturer was able to exact usury from labour. The
"fee" charged to workers was partly reinvested into capital, which
reduced the prices of goods, ruining domestic industry. In addition,
investment also increased the set-up costs of potential competitors,
which continued the dispossession of the working class from the means
of production as these "natural" barriers to entry into markets ensured
few members of that class had the necessary funds to create
co-operative workplaces of appropriate size. So while the land monopoly
was essential to create capitalism, the "tools and equipment" monopoly
that sprang from it soon became the mainspring of the system.
In this way usury became self-perpetuating, with apparently "free
exchanges" being the means by which capitalist domination survives. In
other words, "past initiations of force" combined with the current
state protection of property ensure that capitalist domination of
society continues with only the use of "defensive" force (i.e. violence
used to protect the power of property owners against unions, strikes,
occupations, etc.). The "fees" extracted from previous generations of
workers has ensured that the current one is in no position to re-unite
itself with the means of life by "free competition" (in other words,
the paying of usury ensures that usury continues). Needless to say, the
surplus produced by this generation will be used to increase the
capital stock and so ensure the dispossession of future generations and
so usury becomes self-perpetuating. And, of course, state protection of
"property" against "theft" by working people ensures that property
remains theft and the real thieves keep their plunder.
As far as the "ideas" monopoly is concerned, this has been used to
enrich capitalist corporations at the expense of the general public and
the inventor. As David Noble points out, the "inventor, the original
focus of the patent system, tended to increasingly to 'abandon' his
patent in exchange for corporate security; he either sold or licensed
his patent rights to industrial corporations or assigned them to the
company of which he became an employee, bartering his genius for a
salary. In addition, by means of patent control gained through
purchase, consolidation, patent pools, and cross-licensing agreements,
as well as by regulated patent production through systematic industrial
research, the corporations steadily expanded their 'monopoly of
monopolies.'" As well as this, corporations used "patents to circumvent
anti-trust laws." This reaping of monopoly profits at the expense of
the customer made such "tremendous strides" between 1900 and 1929 and
"were of such proportions as to render subsequent judicial and
legislative effects to check corporate monopoly through patent control
too little too late." [American By Design, p. 87, 84 and 88]
By creating "legal" monopolies and reaping the excess profits these
create, capitalists not only enriched themselves at the expense of
others, they also ensured their dominance in the market. Some of the
excess profits reaped due to the legal monopolies where invested back
into the company, securing advantages for the company by creating
various barriers to potential competitors.
Moreover, the ruling class, by means of the state, is continually
trying to develop new forms of private property by creating artificial
scarcities and monopolies, e.g. by requiring expensive licenses to
engage in particular types of activities, such as broadcasting. In the
"Information Age," usury (use fees) from intellectual property are
becoming a much more important source of income for elites, as
reflected in the attention paid to strengthening mechanisms for
enforcing copyright in the recent GATT agreements, or in US pressure on
foreign countries (like China) to respect copyright laws, and so on.
In other words, capitalists desire to restrict competition in the "free
market" by ensuring that the law reflects and protects their interests,
namely their "property rights." By this process they ensure that
co-operative tendencies within society are crushed by state-supported
"market forces." As Noam Chomsky puts it, modern capitalism is "state
protection and public subsidy for the rich, market discipline for the
poor." ["Rollback, Part I", Z Magazine] Self-proclaimed defenders of
"free market" capitalism are usually nothing of the kind, while the few
who actually support it only object to the "public subsidy" aspect of
modern capitalism and happily support state protection for property
rights. (For more on capitalism as based on state-protected monopolies,
see Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One).
All these monopolies seek to enrich the capitalist (and increase their
capital stock) at the expense of working people, to restrict their
ability to undermine the ruling elites power and wealth. All aim to
ensure that any option we have to work for ourselves (either
individually or collectively) is restricted by tilting the playing
field against us, making sure that we have little option but to sell
our labour on the "free market" and be exploited. In other words, the
various monopolies make sure that "natural" barriers to entry (see
section C.4) are created, leaving the heights of the economy in the
control of big business while alternatives to capitalism are
marginalised at its fringes.
So it is these kinds of property and the authoritarian social
relationships that they create which the state exists to protect. It
should be noted that converting private to state ownership (i.e.
nationalisation) does not fundamentally change the nature of property
relationships; it just removes private capitalists and replaces them
with bureaucrats.
B.3.3 Why is property exploitative?
To answer this question, consider the monopoly of productive "tools and
equipment." This monopoly, obtained by the class of industrial
capitalists, allows this class in effect to charge workers a "fee" for
the privilege of using the monopolised tools and equipment.
This occurs because property, in Proudhon words, "excommunicates" the
working class. The state enforces property rights in land, workplaces
and so on, meaning that the owner can bar others from using them and
enforce their rules on those they do let use "their" property. So the
boss "gives you a job: that is permission to work in the factory or
mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And
for that permission you help to support him for . . .as long as you
work for him." [Alexander Berkman, What is Communist Anarchism?, p. 11]
Therefore, due to the dispossession of the vast majority of the
population from the means of life, capitalists are in an ideal position
to charge a "use-fee" for the capital they own, but neither produced
nor use. Having little option, workers agree to contracts within which
they forfeit their autonomy during work and the product of that work.
This results in capitalists having access to a "commodity" (labour)
that can potentially produce more value than it gets paid for in wages.
During working hours, the owner can dictate (within certain limits
determined by worker resistance and solidarity as well as objective
conditions, such as the level of unemployment within an industry or
country) the level, duration and intensity of work, and so the amount
of output (which the owner has sole rights over even though they did
not produce it). Thus the "fee" (or "surplus value") is created by
owners paying workers less than the full value added by their labour to
the products or services they create for the firm. The capitalist's
profit is thus the difference between this "surplus value," created by
and appropriated from labour, minus the firm's overhead and cost of raw
materials (See also section C.2, "Where do profits come from?").
So property is exploitative because it allows a surplus to be
monopolised by the owners. Property creates hierarchical relationships
within the workplace (the "tools and equipment monopoly" might better
be called the "power monopoly") and as in any hierarchical system,
those with the power use it to protect and further their own interests
at the expense of others. Within the workplace there is resistance by
workers to this oppression and exploitation, which the "hierarchical. .
. relations of the capitalist enterprise are designed to resolve this
conflict in favour of the representatives of capital..." [William
Lazonick, Op. Cit., p. 184]
Needless to say, the state is always on hand to protect the rights of
property and management against the actions of the dispossessed. When
it boils down to it, it is the existence of the state as protector of
the "power monopoly" that allows it to exist at all.
So, capitalists are able to appropriate this surplus value from workers
solely because they own the means of production, not because they earn
it by doing productive work themselves. Of course some capitalists may
also contribute to production, in which case they are in fairness
entitled to the amount of value added to the firm's output by their own
labour; but owners typically pay themselves much more than this, and
are able to do so because the state guarantees them that right as
property owners (which is unsurprising, as they alone have knowledge of
the firms inputs and outputs and, like all people in unaccountable
positions, abuse that power -- which is partly why anarchists support
direct democracy as the essential counterpart of free agreement, for no
one in power can be trusted not to prefer their own interests over
those subject to their decisions). And of course many capitalists hire
managers to run their businesses for them, thus collecting income for
doing nothing except owning.
Capitalists' profits, then, are a form of state-supported exploitation.
This is equally true of the interest collected by bankers and rents
collected by landlords. Without some form of state, these forms of
exploitation would be impossible, as the monopolies on which they
depend could not be maintained. For instance, in the absence of state
troops and police, workers would simply take over and operate factories
for themselves, thus preventing capitalists from appropriating an
unjust share of the surplus they create.
B.3.4 Can private property be justified?
No. Even though a few supporters of capitalism recognise that private
property, particularly in land, was created by the use of force, most
maintain that private property is just. One common defence of private
property is found in the work of Robert Nozick (a supporter of "free
market" capitalism). For Nozick, the use of force makes acquisition
illegitimate and so any current title to the property is illegitimate
(in other words, theft and trading in stolen goods does not make
ownership of these goods legal). So, if the initial acquisition of land
was illegitimate then all current titles are also illegitimate. And
since private ownership of land is the basis of capitalism, capitalism
itself would be rendered illegal.
To get round this problem, Nozick utilises the work of Locke ("The Lockean Proviso") which can be summarised as:
1. People own themselves.
2. The world is initially owned in common (or unowned in Nozick's case.)
3. You can acquire absolute rights over
a larger than average share in the world, if you do not worsen the
condition of others.
4. Once people have appropriated private
property, a free market in capital and labour is morally required.
Take for example two individuals who share land in common. Nozick
allows for one individual to claim the land as their own as long as the
"process normally giving rise to a permanent bequeathable property
right in a previously unowned thing will not do so if the position of
others no longer at liberty to use the thing is therefore worsened."
[Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 178]
But, if one person appropriated the land then the other cannot live off
the remaining land. However, if the new land owner offers the other a
wage to work their land and this exceeds what the new wage slave
originally produced, then this meets the "Lockean Proviso." Of course,
the new wage slave has no option but to work for another, but this is
irrelevant for the Lockean Proviso.
Interestingly, for a ideology that calls itself "libertarian" Nozick
theory defines "worse off" in terms purely of material welfare,
compared to the conditions that existed within the society based upon
common use. In other words, being "worse off" in terms of liberty (i.e.
self-ownership or self-government) is irrelevant for Nozick, a very
telling position to take.
Nozick claims to place emphasis on self-ownership in his ideology
because we are separate individuals, each with our own life to lead. It
is strange, therefore, to see that Nozick does not emphasise people's
ability to act on their own conception of themselves in his account of
appropriation. Indeed, there is no objection to an appropriation that
puts someone in an unnecessary and undesirable position of
subordination and dependence on the will of others.
Notice that the fact that individuals are now subject to the decisions
of other individuals is not considered by Nozick in assessing the
fairness of the appropriation. The fact that the creation of private
property results in the denial of important freedoms for wage slaves
(namely, the wage slave has no say over the status of the land they had
been utilising and no say over how their labour is used). Before the
creation of private property, all managed their own work, had
self-government in all aspects of their lives. After the appropriation,
the new wage slave has no such liberty and indeed must accept the
conditions of employment within which they relinquish control over how
they spend much of their time.
Considering Nozick's many claims in favour of self-ownership and why it
is important, you would think that the autonomy of the newly
dispossessed wage slaves would be important to him. However, no such
concern is to be found - the autonomy of wage slaves is treated as if
it were irrelevant. Nozick claims that a concern for people's freedom
to lead their own lives underlies his theory of unrestricted
property-rights, but, this apparently does not apply to wage slaves.
His justification for the creation of private property treats only the
autonomy of the land owner as relevant. However, as Proudhon rightly
argues:
"if the liberty of man is sacred, it is equally
sacred in all individuals; that, if it needs property for its objective
action, that is, for its life, the appropriation of material is equally
necessary for all . . . Does it not follow that if one individual
cannot prevent another . . . from appropriating an amount of material
equal to his own, no more can he prevent individuals to come." [What is
Property?, pp. 84-85]
Under capitalism people are claimed to own themselves, but this is
purely formal as most people do not have independent access to
resources. And as they have to use other peoples' resources, they
become under the control of those who own the resources. In other
words, private property reduces the autonomy of the majority of the
population, and creates a regime of authority which has many
similarities to enslavement. As John Stuart Mill put it:
"No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of
law, the great majority are so by force of property; they are still
chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will
of an employer, and debarred by the accident of birth to both the
enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others
inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an
evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto
struggles, the poor are not wrong in believing." ["Chapters on
Socialism", Principles of Political Economy, pp. 377-8]
Capitalism, even though claiming formal self-ownership, in fact not
only restricts the self-determination of working class people, it also
makes them a resource for others. Those who enter the market after
others have appropriated all the available property are limited to
charity or working for others. The latter, as we discuss in section C,
results in exploitation as the worker's labour is used to enrich
others. Working people are compelled to co-operate with the current
scheme of property and are forced to benefit others. This means that
self-determination requires resources as well as rights over one's
physical and mental being. Concern for self-determination (i.e.
meaningful self-ownership) leads us to common property plus workers'
control of production and so some form of libertarian socialism - not
private property and capitalism.
And, of course, the appropriation of the land requires a state to
defend it against the dispossessed as well as continuous interference
in people's lives. Left to their own devices, people would freely use
the resources around them which they considered unjustly appropriated
by others and it is only continuous state intervention that prevents
then from violating Nozick's principles of justice (to use Nozick's own
terminology, the "Lockean Proviso" is a patterned theory, his claims
otherwise not withstanding).
In addition, we should note that private ownership by one person
presupposes non-ownership by others ("we who belong to the proletaire
class, property excommunicates us!" [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 105]) and
so the "free market" restricts as well as creates liberties just as any
other economic system. Hence the claim that capitalism constitutes
"economic liberty" is obviously false. In fact, it is based upon
denying liberty for the vast majority during work hours (as well as
having serious impacts on liberty outwith work hours due to the effects
of concentrations of wealth upon society).
Perhaps Nozick can claim that the increased material benefits of
private property makes the acquisition justified. However, it seems
strange that a theory supporting "liberty" should consider well off
slaves to be better than poor free men and women. As Nozick claims that
the wage slaves consent is not required for the initial acquisition, so
perhaps he can claim that the gain in material welfare outweighs the
loss of autonomy and so allows the initial act as an act of
paternalism. But as Nozick opposes paternalism when it restricts
private property rights he can hardly invoke it when it is required to
generate these rights. And if we exclude paternalism and emphasise
autonomy (as Nozick claims he does elsewhere in his theory), then
justifying the initial creation of private property becomes much more
difficult, if not impossible.
And if each owner's title to their property includes the historical
shadow of the Lockean Proviso on appropriation, then such titles are
invalid. Any title people have over unequal resources will be qualified
by the facts that "property is theft" and that "property is despotism."
The claim that private property is economic liberty is obviously
untrue, as is the claim that private property can be justified in terms
of anything except "might is right."
For more anarchist analysis on private property and why it cannot be
justified (be it by occupancy, labour, natural right, or whatever)
consult Proudhon's classic work What is Property?.
B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?
Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The
owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and
therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is
exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under
capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black points
out in The Abolition of Work:
"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who
lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the
same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do
in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss
says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He
tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his
control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the
clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few
exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you
spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every
employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker
is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you
for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination
I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women
and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans.
For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system
democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its
real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says
these people are 'free' is lying or stupid."
Unlike a company, the democratic state can be influenced by its
citizens, who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent) the
power of the ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their power. As a
result, the wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and its
ordinary citizens, as potential threats to their power. This "problem"
was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century America:
"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of
the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic
institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of
their scorn and their fears."
These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic
ideas. To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will
result in the eventual failure of democracy as we know it." [L. Silk
and D. Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American
Business, pp. 189f]
This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are
anti-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on the
state. This is because "[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind of
anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom
is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at
government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions
and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves,
but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence:
for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist." [Errico
Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 46].
Capitalists call upon and support the state when it acts in their
interests and when it supports their authority and power. The
"conflict" between state and capital is like two gangsters fighting
over the proceeds of a robbery: they will squabble over the loot and
who has more power in the gang, but they need each other to defend
their "property" against those from whom they stole it.
The statist nature of private property can be seen in "Libertarian"
(i.e. minarchist, or "classical" liberal) works representing the
extremes of laissez-faire capitalism:
"[I]f one starts a private town, on land whose
acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of
non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there
would have no right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was
granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner
had established" [Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270]
This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. And, indeed, it was. Such
private towns have existed, most notably the infamous company towns of
US history. Howard Zinn summarises the conditions of such "private
towns" in the Colorado mine fields:
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the
company acting as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law
enforcement officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's
rules. Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to
visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold in the
camp. The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers hired by the
company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in the hands of those
who held economic power. This meant that the authority of Colorado Fuel
& Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . . . Company
officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated coroners
and judges prevented injured employees from collecting damages." [The
Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14, pp. 9-11]
Unsurprisingly, when the workers rebelled against this tyranny, they
were evicted from their homes and the private law enforcement agents
were extremely efficient in repressing the strikers: "By the end of the
strike, most of the dead and injured were miners and their families."
The strike soon took on the features of a war, with battles between
strikers and their supporters and the company thugs. Ironically, when
the National Guard was sent in to "restore order" the "miners, having
faced in the first five weeks of the strike what they considered a
reign of terror at the hands of the private guards, . . . looked
forward" to their arrival. They "did not know that the governor was
sending these troops under pressure from the mine operators." Indeed,
the banks and corporations lent the state funds to pay for the militia.
It was these company thugs, dressed in the uniform of the state
militia, who murdered woman and children in the infamous Ludlow
Massacre of April 20th, 1914. [Op. Cit., p. 22, p. 25, p. 35]
Without irony the New York Times editorialised that the "militia was as
impersonal and impartial as the law." The corporation itself hired Ivy
Lee ("the father of public relations in the United States") to change
public opinion after the slaughter. Significantly, Lee produced a
series of tracts labelled "Facts Concerning the Struggle in Colorado
for Industrial Freedom." The head of the corporation (Rockefeller)
portrayed his repression of the strikers as blow for workers' freedom,
to "defend the workers' right to work." [quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit., p.
44, p. 51 and p. 50] So much for the capitalism being the embodiment of
liberty.
Of course, it can be claimed that "market forces" will result in the
most liberal owners being the most successful, but a nice master is
still a master (and, of course, capitalism then was more "free market"
than today, suggesting that this is simply wishful thinking). To
paraphrase Tolstoy, "the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey
owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed it,
wash it. Everything except get off its back!" And as Bob Black notes,
"Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence
of servitude. . . . [F]reedom means more than the right to change
masters." [The Libertarian as Conservative]. That supporters of
capitalism often claim that this "right" to change masters is the
essence of "freedom" is a telling indictment of the capitalist notion
of "liberty."
B.4.1 Is capitalism based on freedom?
For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from" and "freedom to."
"Freedom from" signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation,
coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and
humiliation. "Freedom to" means being able to develop and express one's
abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent
compatible with the maximum freedom of others. Both kinds of freedom
imply the need for self-management, responsibility, and independence,
which basically means that people have a say in the decisions that
affect their lives. And since individuals do not exist in a social
vacuum, it also means that freedom must take on a collective aspect,
with the associations that individuals form with each other (e.g.
communities, work groups, social groups) being run in a manner which
allows the individual to participate in the decisions that the group
makes. Thus freedom for anarchists requires participatory democracy,
which means face-to-face discussion and voting on issues by the people
affected by them.
Are these conditions of freedom met in the capitalist system? Obviously
not. Despite all their rhetoric about "democracy," most of the
"advanced" capitalist states remain only superficially democratic --
and this because the majority of their citizens are employees who spend
about half their waking hours under the thumb of capitalist dictators
(bosses) who allow them no voice in the crucial economic decisions that
affect their lives most profoundly and require them to work under
conditions inimical to independent thinking. If the most basic freedom,
namely freedom to think for oneself, is denied, then freedom itself is
denied.
The capitalist workplace is profoundly undemocratic. Indeed, as Noam
Chomsky points out, the oppressive authority relations in the typical
corporate hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were
referring to a political system. In his words :
"There's nothing individualistic about corporations.
These are big conglomerate institutions, essentially totalitarian in
character, but hardly individualistic. There are few institutions in
human society that have such strict hierarchy and top-down control as a
business organisation. Nothing there about 'don't tread on me`. You're
being tread on all the time." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 280]
Far from being "based on freedom," then, capitalism actually destroys
freedom. In this regard, Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of
Sears, spoke plainly when he said "[w]e stress the advantages of the
free enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state,
but... we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in
industry, particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler,
Apostles of Greed, p. 68]
Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand "the
fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and
control, including the control of the manager and the owner" [Feb.
14th, 1992 appearance on Pozner/Donahue].
Under corporate authoritarianism, the psychological traits deemed most
desirable for average citizens to possess are efficiency, conformity,
emotional detachment, insensitivity, and unquestioning obedience to
authority -- traits that allow people to survive and even prosper as
employees in the company hierarchy. And of course, for "non-average"
citizens, i.e., bosses, managers, administrators, etc., authoritarian
traits are needed, the most important being the ability and willingness
to dominate others.
But all such master/slave traits are inimical to the functioning of
real (i.e. participatory/libertarian) democracy, which requires that
citizens have qualities like flexibility, creativity, sensitivity,
understanding, emotional honesty, directness, warmth, realism, and the
ability to mediate, communicate, negotiate, integrate and co-operate.
Therefore, capitalism is not only undemocratic, it is anti-democratic,
because it promotes the development of traits that make real democracy
(and so a libertarian society) impossible.
Many capitalist apologists have attempted to show that capitalist
authority structures are "voluntary" and are, therefore, somehow not a
denial of individual and social freedom. Milton Friedman (a leading
free market capitalist economist) has attempted to do just this. Like
most apologists for capitalism he ignores the authoritarian relations
explicit within wage labour (within the workplace, "co-ordination" is
based upon top-down command, not horizontal co-operation). Instead he
concentrates on the decision of a worker to sell their labour to a
specific boss and so ignores the lack of freedom within such contracts.
He argues that "individuals are effectively free to enter or not enter
into any particular exchange, so every transaction is strictly
voluntary. . . The employee is protected from coercion by the employer
because of other employers for whom he can work." [Capitalism and
Freedom, pp. 14-15]
Friedman, to prove the free nature of capitalism, compares capitalism
with a simple exchange economy based upon independent producers. He
states that in such a simple economy each household "has the
alternative of producing directly for itself, [and so] it need not
enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence no exchange
will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is
thereby achieved without coercion." [Op. Cit., p. 13] Under capitalism
(or the "complex" economy) Friedman states that "individuals are
effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange,
so that every transaction is strictly voluntary." [Op. Cit., p. 14]
A moments thought, however, shows that capitalism is not based on
"strictly voluntary" transactions as Friedman claims. This is because
the proviso that is required to make every transaction "strictly
voluntary" is not freedom not to enter any particular exchange, but
freedom not to enter into any exchange at all.
This, and only this, was the proviso that proved the simple model
Friedman presents (the one based upon artisan production) to be
voluntary and non-coercive; and nothing less than this would prove the
complex model (i.e. capitalism) is voluntary and non-coercive. But
Friedman is clearly claiming above that freedom not to enter into any
particular exchange is enough and so, only by changing his own
requirements, can he claim that capitalism is based upon freedom.
It is easy to see what Friedman has done, but it is less easy to excuse
it (particularly as it is so commonplace in capitalist apologetics). He
moved from the simple economy of exchange between independent producers
to the capitalist economy without mentioning the most important thing
the distinguishes them - namely the separation of labour from the means
of production. In the society of independent producers, the worker had
the choice of working for themselves - under capitalism this is not the
case. Capitalism is based upon the existence of a labour force without
its own sufficient capital, and therefore without a choice as to
whether to put its labour in the market or not. Milton Friedman would
agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. His attempted
demonstration that capitalism co-ordinates without coercion therefore
fails.
Capitalist apologists are able to convince some people that capitalism
is "based on freedom" only because the system has certain superficial
appearances of freedom.
On closer analysis these appearances turn out to be deceptions. For
example, it is claimed that the employees of capitalist firms have
freedom because they can always quit. But, as noted earlier, "Some
people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of
servitude. Of course, as [right-Libertarians] smugly [observe], 'one
can at least change jobs,' but you can't avoid having a job -- just as
under statism one can at least change nationalities but you can't avoid
subjection to one nation-state or another. But freedom means more than
the right to change masters" [Bob Black, The Libertarian as
Conservative]. Under capitalism, workers have only the Hobson's choice
of being governed/exploited or living on the street.
Anarchists point out that for choice to be real, free agreements and
associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter
into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But
social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal,
because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to
social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination,
as was recognised even by Adam Smith (see below).
The picture painted by Walter Reuther of working life in America before
the Wagner act is a commentary on class inequality : "Injustice was as
common as streetcars. When men walked into their jobs, they left their
dignity, their citizenship and their humanity outside. They were
required to report for duty whether there was work or not. While they
waited on the convenience of supervisors and foremen they were unpaid.
They could be fired without a pretext. They were subjected to
arbitrary, senseless rules. . . .Men were tortured by regulations that
made difficult even going to the toilet. Despite grandiloquent
statements from the presidents of huge corporations that their door was
open to any worker with a complaint, there was no one and no agency to
which a worker could appeal if he were wronged. The very idea that a
worker could be wronged seemed absurd to the employer." Much of this
indignity remains, and with the globalisation of capital, the
bargaining position of workers is further deteriorating, so that the
gains of a century of class struggle are in danger of being lost.
A quick look at the enormous disparity of power and wealth between the
capitalist class and the working class shows that the benefits of the
"agreements" entered into between the two sides are far from equal.
Walter Block, a leading Fraser Institute ideologue, makes clear the
differences in power and benefits when discussing sexual harassment in
the workplace:
"Consider the sexual harassment which continually
occurs between a secretary and a boss. . . while objectionable to many
women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package
deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she
agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the
job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not
have to remain if the 'coercion' is objectionable." [quoted by Engler,
Op. Cit., p. 101]
The primary goal of the Fraser Institute is to convince people that all
other rights must be subordinated to the right to enjoy wealth. In this
case, Block makes clear that under private property, only bosses have
"freedom to," and most also desire to ensure they have "freedom from"
interference with this right.
So, when capitalists gush about the "liberty" available under
capitalism, what they are really thinking of is their state-protected
freedom to exploit and oppress workers through the ownership of
property, a freedom that allows them to continue amassing huge
disparities of wealth, which in turn insures their continued power and
privileges. That the capitalist class in liberal-democratic states
gives workers the right to change masters (though this is not true
under state capitalism) is far from showing that capitalism is based on
freedom, For as Peter Kropotkin rightly points out, "freedoms are not
given, they are taken" [Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 43]. In
capitalism, you are "free" to do anything you are permitted to do by
your masters, which amounts to "freedom" with a collar and leash.
B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership?
Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that
capitalism is based on the "basic axiom" of "the right to
self-ownership." This "axiom" is defined as "the absolute right of each
man [sic]. . .to control [his or her] body free of coercive
interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and
choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the
right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the right to perform these
vital activities without being hampered by coercive molestation." [For
a New Liberty, pp. 26-27]
So far, so good. However, we reach a problem once we consider private
property. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for "free market" capitalism
argued, "there can be no such thing as the right to unrestricted
freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else's property"
[Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 258]. Or, as is commonly said by
capitalist owners, "I don't pay you to think."
Similarly, capitalists don't pay their employees to perform the other
"vital activities" listed by Rothbard (learning, valuing, choosing ends
and means) -- unless, of course, the firm requires that workers
undertake such activities in the interests of company profits.
Otherwise, workers can rest assured that any efforts to engage in such
"vital activities" on company time will be "hampered" by "coercive
molestation." Therefore wage labour (the basis of capitalism) in
practice denies the rights associated with "self-ownership," thus
alienating the individual from his or her basic rights. Or as Michael
Bakunin expresses it, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for
a given time" under capitalism.
In a society of relative equals, "private property" would not be a
source of power. For example, you would still be able to fling a drunk
out of your home. But in a system based on wage labour (i.e.
capitalism), private property is a different thing altogether, becoming
a source of institutionalised power and coercive authority through
hierarchy. As Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on "a particular
form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through
private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of
domination." When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use
(i.e. possession) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however,
"property" rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they
become a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the
individual. Little wonder that Proudhon labelled property as "theft"
and "despotism".
As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (section A.2.8 and B.1),
all forms of authoritarian control depend on "coercive molestation" --
i.e. the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely the case in
company hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes the
authoritarian nature of capitalism as follows:
"[T]he place where [adults] pass the most time and
submit to the closest control is at work. Thus . . . it's apparent that
the source of the greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary
adult is not the state but rather the business that employs him. Your
foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the
police do in a decade."
We have already noted the objection that people can leave their jobs,
which just amounts to saying "love it or leave it!" and does not
address the issue at hand. Needless to say, the vast majority of the
population cannot avoid wage labour. Far from being based on the "right
to self-ownership," then, capitalism denies it, alienating the
individual from such basic rights as free speech, independent thought,
and self-management of one's own activity, which individuals have to
give up when they are employed. But since these rights, according to
Rothbard, are the products of humans as humans, wage labour alienates
them from themselves, exactly as it does the individual's labour power
and creativity.
To quote Chomsky again, "people can survive, [only] by renting
themselves to it [capitalist authority], and basically in no other way.
. . ." You do not sell your skills, as these skills are part of you.
Instead, what you have to sell is your time, your labour power, and so
yourself. Thus under wage labour, rights of "self-ownership" are always
placed below property rights, the only "right" being left to you is
that of finding another job (although even this right is denied in some
countries if the employee owes the company money).
So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism actually alienates the
right to self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the
workplace, which derives from private property. If we desire real
self-ownership, we cannot renounce it for most of our adult lives by
becoming wage slaves. Only workers' self-management of production, not
capitalism, can make self-ownership a reality.
B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary"
undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to
past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus
the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people
now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of
life. As Immanuel Wallerstein points out in The Capitalist World System
(vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists
using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start
factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally
to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the
means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes
right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of
life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which
life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it
is outright homicide." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]
David Ellerman has also noted that the past use of force has resulted
in the majority being limited to those options allowed to them by the
powers that be:
"It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought...
that the moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism
since the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary
wage contracts. But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the
denial of natural rights is less complete so that the worker has a
residual legal personality as a free 'commodity owner.' He is thus
allowed to voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a
robber denies another person's right to make an infinite number of
other choices besides losing his money or his life and the denial is
backed up by a gun, then this is clearly robbery even though it might
be said that the victim making a 'voluntary choice' between his
remaining options. When the legal system itself denies the natural
rights of working people in the name of the prerogatives of capital,
and this denial is sanctioned by the legal violence of the state, then
the theorists of 'libertarian' capitalism do not proclaim institutional
robbery, but rather they celebrate the 'natural liberty' of working
people to choose between the remaining options of selling their labour
as a commodity and being unemployed." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, The
Chomsky Reader, p. 186]
Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker
being separated from the means of production. The natural basis of
capitalism is wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but
to sell their skills, labour and time to those who do own the means of
production. In advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the
working population are self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in
the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well,
meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller!).
Hence for the vast majority, the labour market is their only option.
Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position
of a serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is
formally "free" and "equal" under the law:
"Juridically they are both equal; but economically
the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells
his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the
position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which
daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept
any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist,
the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the right
to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in
order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the
same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer.
Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom, lacking
any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a
fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole
life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of
terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but
compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief
interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is
real slavery." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-8]
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general,
you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of
force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the
objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions.
Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of
workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the
resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the
capitalists as a class). So while we can usually pick which capitalist
to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to work for ourselves (the
self-employed sector of the economy is tiny, which indicates well how
spurious capitalist liberty actually is). Of course, the ability to
leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an important freedom.
However, this freedom, like most freedoms under capitalism, is of
limited use and hides a deeper anti-individual reality.
As Karl Polanyi puts it:
"In human terms such a postulate [of a labour
market] implied for the worker extreme instability of earnings, utter
absence of professional standards, abject readiness to be shoved and
pushed about indiscriminately, complete dependence on the whims of the
market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued that if workers 'did not act
as trade unionists, but reduced their demands and changed their
locations and occupations according to the labour market, they would
eventually find work.' This sums up the position under a system based
on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It is not for
the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what
purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change
hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed." [The
Great Transformation, p. 176]
(Although we should point out that von Mises argument that workers will
"eventually" find work as well as being nice and vague -- how long is
"eventually"?, for example -- is contradicted by actual experience. As
the Keynesian economist Michael Stewart notes, in the nineteenth
century workers "who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve
(and even this feature of the ninetheenth century economy. . . did not
prevent prolonged recessions)" [Keynes in the 1990s, p. 31] Workers
"reducing their demands" may actually worsen an economic slump, causing
more unemployment in the short run and lengthening the length of the
crisis. We address the issue of unemployment and workers "reducing
their demands" in more detail in section C.9).
It is sometimes argued that capital needs labour, so both have an equal
say in the terms offered, and hence the labour market is based on
"liberty." But for capitalism to be based on real freedom or on true
free agreement, both sides of the capital/labour divide must be equal
in bargaining power, otherwise any agreement would favour the most
powerful at the expense of the other party. However, due to the
existence of private property and the states needed to protect it, this
equality is de facto impossible, regardless of the theory. This is
because. in general, capitalists have three advantages on the "free"
labour market-- the law and state placing the rights of property above
those of labour, the existence of unemployment over most of the
business cycle and capitalists having more resources to fall back on.
We will discuss each in turn.
The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the
law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other
forms of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the
capitalist has the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break
picket lines or fire "the ring-leaders." This obviously gives employers
greater power in their bargaining position, placing workers in a weak
position (a position that may make them, the workers, think twice
before standing up for their rights).
The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures
that "employers have a structural advantage in the labour market,
because there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to
fill." This means that "[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically
skewed in favour of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer's
market, it is the sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not
strong enough to ensure that workers' desires are always satisified."
[Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour
market generally favours the employer, then this obviously places
working people at a disadvantage as the threat of unemployment and the
hardships associated with encourages workers to take any job and submit
to their bosses demands and power while employed. Unemployment, in
other words, serves to discipline labour. The higher the prevailing
unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new job, which raises the
cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers to strike, join
unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on.
As Bakunin argued, "the property owners... are likewise forced to seek
out and purchase labour... but not in the same measure . . . [there is
no] equality between those who offer their labour and those who
purchase it." [Op. Cit., p. 183] This ensures that any "free
agreements" made benefit the capitalists more than the workers (see the
next section on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in
favour of working people).
Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources.
The capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during
strikes and while waiting to find employees (for example, large
companies with many factories can swap production to their other
factories if one goes on strike). And by having more resources to fall
back on, the capitalist can hold out longer than the worker, so placing
the employer in a stronger bargaining position and so ensuring labour
contracts favour them. This was recognised by Adam Smith:
"It is not difficult to foresee which of the two
parties [workers and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions...
force the other into a compliance with their terms... In all such
disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they did not
employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or
two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not
subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without
employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his
master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
. . [I]n disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the
advantage." [Wealth of Nations, pp. 59-60]
How little things have changed.
So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for
them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to
sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but
the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is
(usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free
agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers
submitting to domination and exploitation. This is why anarchists
support collective organisation (such as unions) and resistance (such
as strikes), direct action and solidarity to make us as, if not more,
powerful than our exploiters and win important reforms and improvements
(and, ultimately, change society), even when faced with the
disadvantages on the labour market we have indicated. The despotism
associated with property (to use Proudhon's expression) is resisted by
those subject to it and, needless to say, the boss does not always win.
B.4.4 But what about periods of high demand for labour?
Of course there are periods when the demand for labour exceeds supply,
but these periods hold the seeds of depression for capitalism, as
workers are in an excellent position to challenge, both individually
and collectively, their allotted role as commodities. This point is
discussed in more detail in section C.7 (What causes the capitalist
business cycle? ) and so we will not do so here. For now it's enough to
point out that during normal times (i.e. over most of the business
cycle), capitalists often enjoy extensive authority over workers, an
authority deriving from the unequal bargaining power between capital
and labour, as noted by Adam Smith and many others.
However, this changes during times of high demand for labour. To
illustrate, let us assume that supply and demand approximate each
other. It is clear that such a situation is only good for the worker.
Bosses cannot easily fire a worker as there is no one to replace them
and the workers, either collectively by solidarity or individually by
"exit" (i.e. quitting and moving to a new job), can ensure a boss
respects their interests and, indeed, can push these interests to the
full. The boss finds it hard to keep their authority intact or from
stopping wages rising and causing a profits squeeze. In other words, as
unemployment drops, workers power increases.
Looking at it another way, giving someone the right to hire and fire an
input into a production process vests that individual with considerable
power over that input unless it is costless for that input to move;
that is unless the input is perfectly mobile. This is only approximated
in real life for labour during periods of full employment, and so
perfect mobility of labour costs problems for a capitalist firm because
under such conditions workers are not dependent on a particular
capitalist and so the level of worker effort is determined far more by
the decisions of workers (either collectively or individually) than by
managerial authority. The threat of firing cannot be used as a threat
to increase effort, and hence production, and so full employment
increases workers power.
With the capitalist firm being a fixed commitment of resources, this
situation is intolerable. Such times are bad for business and so occur
rarely with free market capitalism (we must point out that in
neo-classical economics, it is assumed that all inputs - including
capital - are perfectly mobile and so the theory ignores reality and
assumes away capitalist production itself!).
During the last period of capitalist boom, the post-war period, we can
see the breakdown of capitalist authority and the fear this held for
the ruling elite. The Trilateral Commission's 1975 report, which
attempted to "understand" the growing discontent among the general
population, makes our point well. In periods of full employment,
according to the report, there is "an excess of democracy." In other
words, due to the increased bargaining power workers gained during a
period of high demand for labour, people started thinking about and
acting upon their needs as humans, not as commodities embodying labour
power. This naturally had devastating effects on capitalist and statist
authority: "People no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those
whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age,
rank, status, expertise, character, or talent".
This loosening of the bonds of compulsion and obedience led to
"previously passive or unorganised groups in the population, blacks,
Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women...
embark[ing] on concerted efforts to establish their claims to
opportunities, rewards, and privileges, which they had not considered
themselves entitled to before."
Such an "excess" of participation in politics of course posed a serious
threat to the status quo, since for the elites who authored the report,
it was considered axiomatic that "the effective operation of a
democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and
non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups. . . . In
itself, this marginality on the part of some groups is inherently
undemocratic, but it is also one of the factors which has enabled
democracy to function effectively." Such a statement reveals the
hollowness of the establishment's concept of 'democracy,' which in
order to function effectively (i.e. to serve elite interests) must be
"inherently undemocratic."
Any period where people feel empowered allows them to communicate with
their fellows, identify their needs and desires, and resist those
forces that deny their freedom to manage their own lives. Such
resistance strikes a deadly blow at the capitalist need to treat people
as commodities, since (to re-quote Polanyi) people no longer feel that
it "is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for
sale, to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be
allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or
destroyed." Instead, as thinking and feeling people, they act to
reclaim their freedom and humanity.
As noted at the beginning of this section, the economic effects of such
periods of empowerment and revolt are discussed in section C.7. We will
end by quoting the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who noted that a
continuous capitalist boom would not be in the interests of the ruling
class. In 1943, in response to the more optimistic Keynesians, he noted
that "to maintain the high level of employment. . . in the subsequent
boom, a strong opposition of 'business leaders' is likely to be
encountered. . . lasting full employment is not at all to their liking.
The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry'
would be anxious 'to teach them a lesson'" because "under a regime of
permanent full employment, 'the sack' would cease to play its role as a
disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be
undermined and the self assurance and class consciousness of the
working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements
in conditions of work would create political tension. . . 'discipline
in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated by
business leaders than profits. Their class interest tells them that
lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view and that
unemployment is an integral part of the normal capitalist system."
[cited by Malcolm C. Sawyer, The Economics of Michal Kalecki p. 139, p.
138]
Therefore, periods when the demand for labour outstrips supply are not
healthy for capitalism, as they allow people to assert their freedom
and humanity -- both fatal to the system. This is why news of large
numbers of new jobs sends the stock market plunging and why capitalists
are so keen these days to maintain a "natural" rate of unemployment
(that it has to be maintained indicates that it is not "natural").
Kalecki, we must point out, also correctly predicted the rise of "a
powerful bloc" between "big business and the rentier interests" against
full employment and that "they would probably find more than one
economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound." The
resulting "pressure of all these forces, and in particular big
business" would "induce the Government to return to. . . orthodox
policy." [Kalecki, cited Op. Cit., p. 140] This is exactly what
happened in the 1970s, with the monetarists and other sections of the
"free market" right providing the ideological support for the business
lead class war, and whose "theories" (when applied) promptly generated
massive unemployment, thus teaching the working class the required
lesson.
So, although detrimental to profit-making, periods of recession and
high unemployment are not only unavoidable but are necessary to
capitalism in order to "discipline" workers and "teach them a lesson."
And in all, it is little wonder that capitalism rarely produces periods
approximating full employment -- they are not in its interests (see
also section C.9). The dynamics of capitalism makes recession and
unemployment inevitable, just as it makes class struggle (which creates
these dynamics) inevitable.
B.4.5 But I want to be "left alone"!
It is ironic that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism, such as
"Libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists, should claim that they want
to be "left alone," since capitalism never allows this. As Max Stirner
expressed it:
"Restless acquisition does not let us take breath,
take a calm enjoyment. We do not get the comfort of our possessions. .
." [Max Stirner The Ego and Its Own, p. 268]
Capitalism cannot let us "take breath" simply because it needs to grow
or die, which puts constant pressure on both workers and capitalists
(see section D.4.1). Workers can never relax or be free of anxiety
about losing their jobs, because if they do not work, they do not eat,
nor can they ensure that their children will get a better life. Within
the workplace, they are not "left alone" by their bosses in order to
manage their own activities. Instead, they are told what to do, when to
do it and how to do it. Indeed, the history of experiments in workers'
control and self-management within capitalist companies confirms our
claims that, for the worker, capitalism is incompatible with the desire
to be "left alone." As an illustration we will use the "Pilot Program"
conducted by General Electric between 1968 and 1972.
General Electric proposed the "Pilot Program" as a means of overcoming
the problems they faced with introducing Numeric Control (N/C)
machinery into its plant at Lynn River Works, Massachusetts. Faced with
rising tensions on the shop floor, bottle-necks in production and
low-quantity products, GE management tried a scheme of "job enrichment"
based on workers' control of production in one area of the plant. By
June 1970 the workers' involved were "on their own" (as one manager put
it) and "[i]n terms of group job enlargement this was when the Pilot
Project really began, with immediate results in increased output and
machine utilisation, and a reduction on manufacturing losses. As one
union official remarked two years later, 'The fact that we broke down a
traditional policy of GE [that the union could never have a hand in
managing the business] was in itself satisfying, especially when we
could throw success up to them to boot.'" [David Noble, Forces of
Production, p. 295]
The project, after some initial scepticism, proved to be a great
success with the workers involved. Indeed, other workers in the factory
desired to be included and the union soon tried to get it spread
throughout the plant and into other GE locations. The success of the
scheme was that it was based on workers' managing their own affairs
rather than being told what to do by their bosses -- "We are human
beings," said one worker, "and want to be treated as such." [quoted by
Noble, Op. Cit., p. 292] To be fully human means to be free to govern
oneself in all aspects of life, including production.
However, just after a year of the workers being given control over
their working lives, management stopped the project. Why? "In the eyes
of some management supporters of the 'experiment,' the Pilot Program
was terminated because management as a whole refused to give up any of
its traditional authority . . . [t]he Pilot Program foundered on the
basic contradiction of capitalist production: Who's running the shop?"
[Noble, Op. Cit., p. 318]
Noble goes on to argue that to GE's top management, "the union's desire
to extend the program appeared as a step toward greater workers control
over production and, as such, a threat to the traditional authority
rooted in private ownership of the means of production. Thus the
decision to terminate represented a defence not only of the
prerogatives of production supervisors and plant managers but also of
the power vested in property ownership." [Ibid.] Noble notes that this
result was not an isolated case and that the "demise of the GE Pilot
Program followed the typical pattern for such 'job enrichment
experiments'" [Op. Cit., p. 320] Even though "[s]everal dozen
well-documented experiments show that productivity increases and social
problems decrease when workers participant in the work decisions
affecting their lives" [Department of Health, Education and Welfare
study quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 322] such schemes are ended by
bosses seeking to preserve their own power, the power that flows from
private property.
As one worker in the GE Pilot Program stated, "[w]e just want to be
left alone." They were not -- capitalist social relations prohibit such
a possibility (as Noble correctly notes, "the 'way of life' for the
management meant controlling the lives of others" [Op. Cit., p. 294 and
p. 300]). In spite of improved productivity, projects in workers'
control are scrapped because they undermined both the power of the
capitalists -- and by undermining their power, you potentially
undermine their profits too ("If we're all one, for manufacturing
reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably, just like a co-op
business." [GE Pilot Program worker, quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p.
295]).
As we argue in more detail in section J.5.12, profit maximisation can
work against efficiency, meaning that capitalism can harm the overall
economy by promoting less efficient production techniques (i.e.
hierarchical ones against egalitarian ones) because it is in the
interests of capitalists to do so and the capitalist market rewards
that behaviour. This is because, ultimately, profits are unpaid labour.
If you empower labour, give workers' control over their work then they
will increase efficiency and productivity (they know how to do their
job the best) but you also erode authority structures within the
workplace. Workers' will seek more and more control (freedom naturally
tries to grow) and this, as the Pilot Program worker clearly saw,
implies a co-operative workplace in which workers', not managers,
decide what to do with the surplus produced. By threatening power, you
threaten profits (or, more correctly, who controls the profit and where
it goes). With the control over production and who gets to control any
surplus in danger, it is unsurprising that companies soon abandon such
schemes and return to the old, less efficient, hierarchical schemes
based on "Do what you are told, for as long as you are told." Such a
regime is hardly fit for free people and, as Noble notes, the regime
that replaced the GE Pilot Program was "designed to 'break' the pilots
of their new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline, and
self-respect." [Op. Cit., p. 307]
Thus the experience of workers' control project within capitalist firms
indicates well that capitalism cannot "leave you alone" if you are a
wage slave.
Moreover, capitalists themselves cannot relax because they must ensure
their workers' productivity rises faster than their workers' wages,
otherwise their business will fail (see sections C.2 and C.3). This
means that every company has to innovate or be left behind, to be put
out of business or work. Hence the boss is not "left alone" -- their
decisions are made under the duress of market forces, of the
necessities imposed by competition on individual capitalists. Restless
acquisition -- in this context, the necessity to accumulate capital in
order to survive in the market -- always haunts the capitalist. And
since unpaid labour is the key to capitalist expansion, work must
continue to exist anX-Mozilla-Status: 0009g the boss to control the
working hours of the worker to ensure that they produce more goods than
they receive in wages. The boss is not "left alone" nor do they leave
the worker alone.
These facts, based upon the authority relations associated with private
property and relentless competition, ensure that the desire to be "left
alone" cannot be satisfied under capitalism.
As Murray Bookchin observes:
"Despite their assertions of autonomy and distrust
of state authority . . . classical liberal thinkers did not in the last
instance hold to the notion that the individual is completely free from
lawful guidance. Indeed, their interpretation of autonomy actually
presupposed quite definite arrangements beyond the individual --
notably, the laws of the marketplace. Individual autonomy to the
contrary, these laws constitute a social organising system in which all
'collections of individuals' are held under the sway of the famous
'invisible hand' of competition. Paradoxically, the laws of the
marketplace override the exercise of 'free will' by the same sovereign
individuals who otherwise constitute the "collection of individuals."
["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", p. 4, Democracy
and Nature no. 8, pp. 1-17]
Human interaction is an essential part of life. Anarchism proposes to
eliminate only undesired social interactions and authoritarian
impositions, which are inherent in capitalism and indeed in any
hierarchical form of socio-economic organisation (e.g. state
socialism). Hermits soon become less than human, as social interaction
enriches and develops individuality. Capitalism may attempt to reduce
us to hermits, only "connected" by the market, but such a denial of our
humanity and individuality inevitably feeds the spirit of revolt. In
practice the "laws" of the market and the hierarchy of capital will
never "leave one alone," but instead, crush one's individuality and
freedom. Yet this aspect of capitalism conflicts with the human
"instinct for freedom," as Noam Chomsky describes it, and hence there
arises a counter-tendency toward radicalisation and rebellion among any
oppressed people (see section J).
One last point. The desire to "be left alone" often expresses two
drastically different ideas -- the wish to be your own master and
manage your own affairs and the desire by bosses and landlords to have
more power over their property. However, the authority exercised by
such owners over their property is also exercised over those who use
that property. Therefore, the notion of "being left alone" contains two
contradictory aspects within a class ridden and hierarchical society.
Obviously anarchists are sympathetic to the first, inherently
libertarian, aspect -- the desire to manage your own life, in your own
way -- but we reject the second aspect and any implication that it is
in the interests of the governed to leave those in power alone. Rather,
it is in the interest of the governed to subject those with authority
over them to as much control as possible -- for obvious reasons.
Therefore, working people are more or less free to the extent that they
restrict the ability of their bosses to be "left alone." One of the
aims of anarchists within a capitalist society is ensure that those in
power are not "left alone" to exercise their authority over those
subject to it. We see solidarity, direct action and workplace and
community organisation as a means of interfering with the authority of
the state, capitalists and property owners until such time as we can
destroy such authoritarian social relationships once and for all.
Hence anarchist dislike of the term "laissez-faire" -- within a class
society it can only mean protecting the powerful against the working
class (under the banner of "neutrally" enforcing property rights and so
the power derived from them). However, we are well aware of the other,
libertarian, vision expressed in the desire to be "left alone." That is
the reason we have discussed why capitalist society can never actually
achieve that desire -- it is handicapped by its hierarchical and
competitive nature -- and how such a desire can be twisted into a means
of enhancing the power of the few over the many.
Previous section | FAQ Home | Section index | Next section
Site Navigational Map
Back to Infoshop Page | Contact Us | Communities | What's New | FAQ | News | Site Map | Search
Last updated: January 16, 2005
| | |
| hey guys not much has been going on i went to toms house yesterday got
some lamb of god this thime i got both of their kick ass cds ashes of
the wake and as the ah crap i cant remember how to spell that my 14th
burthdays coming up and i might go to the movies with zoe today but she
would hafe spot me any ways caitlin is comeing home from ireland monday
that will be cool any was im talking to jessica g2g
| | |
| Is my life worth living would you even take to kill me oh don’t talk to me any more as the crimson tears flow like snow I have a heart as black as coal cold steal is the only thing I feel my cuts are abstract and blood is the painting on my skin light has faded away I live in fear, fear is what I feel I’m so sorry if I hurt you that’s not what I am here to do have you seen the tears iv cried would you care if I died even thought you see me hear I am what you need to fear words mint to dwell in darkness shal never see the light of day and all light fades away all I was a mist a spray is my life worth living would you take the time to kill me?
| | |
| i feel sad for the past few weeks iv been on an anti-depressent callen zoloft and some times... i wonder if people realy need me im not worth the troble and iv been fighting the thought of suicide i hate my life right now most people see me as happy and funny but really im sad and alone words are verbose should i or should i not i dont no im very sad a the moment im on the phone right now with my best friend who has been a major help and i treat here like my little sister she means the world to me even though she may not know it she is my little sister thank you zoe | | |
| I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed.
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed.
Goodbye!
I wipe it off on tile, the light is brighter this time
Everything is turning blasphemy
My eyes are red and gold, the hair is standing straight up
This is not the way I picture me
I can't control my shakes, how the hell did I get here?
Something about this, so very wrong
I have to laugh out loud, I wish I didn't like this
Is it a dream or a memory?
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed.
Get outta my head cause I don't need this
Why didn't I see this?
I'm a victim Manchurian candidate
I have sinned by just
Makin' my mind up and takin' your breath away!
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed.
Goodbye!
You haven't learned a thing
I haven't changed a thing
The flesh was in my bones
The pain was always free
You haven't learned a thing
I haven't changed a thing
The flesh was in my bones
The pain was always free
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell I wait and bleed
I've felt the hate rise up in me
Kneel down and clear the stone of leaves
I wander out where you can't see
Inside my shell, I wait and bleed.
And it waits for you! thats how im feeling right now anser to that people oh and this is a sight for music,video games,animeand poetry
| | |
|
