Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!hecate.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!purdue!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!news.iupui.edu!web.onecall.net!WCG!nntp.abs.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.124.0.31!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!quasar.dimensional.com!nyx.net!not-for-mail
From: anon5bd6-X@nyx.net (Proudhon)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.communism
Subject: Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist Theory FAQ Version 7.0
Followup-To: poster
Date: 9 Apr 1998 13:59:56 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 3065
Message-ID: <892130268.587961@iris.nyx.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: iris.nyx.net
Summary: This FAQ discusses anarchist theory, with a strong emphasis upon actual anarchist theory and practice, undistorted by pro-capitalist propaganda, as has appeared in previous FAQ versions.
X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test56 (2 Mar 97)
Originator: anon5bd6@nyx.nyx.net (Proudhon)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a Free Public Access Internet Service: http://www.nyx.net
Our AUP / Free Speech Policy are at http://www.nyx.net/policies/
Direct complaints to abuse@nyx.net
X-Post-Path: iris.nyx.net!anon5bd6@nyx.nyx.net
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu alt.society.anarchy:77006 alt.anarchism:35325 talk.politics.theory:192611 alt.politics.economics:129890 alt.politics.libertarian:374573 alt.individualism:62606 alt.philosophy.objectivism:177229 talk.politics.libertarian:296633 talk.politics.misc:953528 alt.politics.radical-left:223074 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:48413 alt.society.labor-unions:24028 alt.org.food-not-bombs:5337 alt.politics.socialism:39060
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a revised version of the FAQ on anarchist theory. As
always, comments, criticisms, and corrections will be much appreciated. In
particular, if you think that any argument or viewpoint has been presented
weakly or inadequately, please write us at anarcho@geocities.com to
discuss your preferred formulation.
To view the hypertext version of the FAQ (so the links work), go to
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist Theory FAQ
by
Various Authors
Version 7.0
I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which
governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more
rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to
this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which
governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that
will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to
leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not
only different, but have different origins ... Society is in
every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
--Thomas Paine,
Common Sense
They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship -- their
dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people,
while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other
aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery
in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by
freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the
people and free organization of the toiling masses from the
bottom up.
--Mikhail Bakunin,
Statism and Anarchism
In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for
evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by
demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is
impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish
roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in
those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of
them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin
more politeness upon the park-keepers." If there is stagnation in
agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn-
speculator argues, "It is protective legislation which we
require." Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does
not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer
lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in
embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights."
In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about
fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put
a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human
indolence and cowardice.
--Peter Kropotkin,
"Law and Authority"
"Political rights . . . 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."
--Rudolf Rocker
"The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the
names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and
unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively,
State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools
want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic
movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way
house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no
half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism."
--Benjamin R. Tucker
"State Socialism and Anarchism" from
_Instead of a Book_ and _The Anarchist Reader_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions about Anarchism
This FAQ is a smaller version of the Anarchist FAQ at
.
It contains an edited, stand alone version of Section A of that
FAQ (What is Anarchism?). This gives an introduction to basic
anarchist ideas, anarchist history, anarchist writers and what
anarchism actually stands for.
While it covers the two main trends of anarchism (individualist
and social anarchism) it does so from a social anarchist perspective
(just to lay our cards on the table, and, no, "anarcho"-capitalism
is not a form of individualist anarchism - see sections F and G of
the full FAQ on why this is the case)
Section A - What is Anarchism?
A.1 What is anarchism?
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?
A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
A.2.11 Why do anarchists support direct democracy?
A.2.12 Why is voluntarism not enough?
A.2.13 What about Human Nature?
A.2.14 Do anarchists support terrorism?
A.3 What types of anarchism are there?
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social
anarchists?
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
A.3.3 What kinds of Green anarchism is there?
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifist?
A.3.5 What is anarcha-feminism?
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?
A.5.1 The Paris Commune
A.5.2 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.
A.5.3 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.
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 the such hierarchies negatively affect individuals,
their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A -
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. 133-134]. 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 "be managed
by individuals or voluntary associations" [Ben Tucker, _Anarchist Reader_,
p. 149]. 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." However, some of the constructive core of anarchism will
be seen even in the earlier sections.
As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "Like 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. 16]
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 Mikhail 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."
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" [_Statism and Anarchy_ - cited 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 capitalist - as harmful to the
individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
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. 12]
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." [Ibid., pp. 12-13].
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy.
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
The word "anarchy" is "from Greek, prefix *a*, meaning "not," "the want
of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, meaning "a ruler,"
"director", "chief," "person in charge," "commander." The Greek words
*anarchos,* and *anarchia* meant "having no government -- being without
a government." [Peter A. Angeles, _The Harper Collins Dictionary of
Philosophy_, Second Edition, pp. 11-12]
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 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.
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 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 . . .
[and] the politics of government or of authority . . . [are] identical . . .
[and] linked in various ways. . . What capital does to labour . . . the
State [does] to liberty . . ." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History
of Anarchism_, pp. 43-44]
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." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 158]
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.
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of
socialism. . . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 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," in _Man!_, M. Graham (Ed), 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 in
_Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism_
by Eunice Schuster, 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.
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 maximises 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 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.
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.
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. The
revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal
du Mouvement social_ in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, _A
Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max
Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November,
1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., 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. In Section B of the full FAQ 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 of the full FAQ, 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 elaborate in Section H
of the full FAQ, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no
socialist content whatever.
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because
the latter is based on domination 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," pp. 30-34, _Man!_,
M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]
Individualists like Ben Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon
and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because the
word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed
in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." ["Ayn Rand
and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed_, no. 34]. In order to achieve this, socialists desire a society
within which the producers own and control the means of production. 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 and is so opposed by anarchists.
Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist. Ben Tucker, for example --
the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) --
called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced the capitalist as
"the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held
that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists
will become redundant, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural
wage, its entire product." Such an economy will be based on mutual banking
and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and
peasants. 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):
"[i]t 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_]
While social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues --
for example, whether a free market would be the best means of maximising
liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed 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. 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." [_Red and Black Revolution_, issue 2].
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.
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 of the full FAQ). 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
control). As Daniel Guerin pointed out in his book _Anarchism_, "Anarchism
is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a
socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man."
Instead of "central planning," anarchists advocate free association and
co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and
so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism. The
anarchist objection to the identification of "central planning" with
socialism will be discussed in section H of the full FAQ.
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.5.2). They point out that:
"[t]he 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.
It 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.
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.
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, which 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 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 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." [_Life and Ideas_,
p. 23].
For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which
we live.
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 Mikhail Bakunin's _God and the
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism verses 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, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 42].
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, skilful, or wise, though they believe
that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their
recommendations (see section B.1 of the full FAQ 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. 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
alienation, 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." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27]
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:
"[t]he 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" --
in other words which stem from hierarchical authority [quoted by
Malatesta, in _Anarchy_, p. 50]
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover of
liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence,
dignity and human happiness can develop and grow. . . . " [_The Paris
Commune and the Idea of the State_]. 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. 393].
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"
[Ibid., p. 59].
As noted already, 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" [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 64]
In short, 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_].
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, whereas self-management is the essence of
freedom.
Capitalism, however, is based on centralised authority, 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, in Dolgoff, ed., _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255.].
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_].
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." 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 powers that are latent in each person" [Bakunin,
Op. Cit.] (See section B of the full 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, in
_Objections to Anarchism_, points out:
"[t]o 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."
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, _Life and Ideas_, p. 86].
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making 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 B.2.4), 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:
"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" [Alexander Berkman, _op. Cit., p. 53].
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. 53]. In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy
and confederation, which 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."
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9
and A.2.10.
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, _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 A.2, 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 _Red and Black Revolution_, No. 2].
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.
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].
"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.
For anarchists, these "concepts" of "equality" are meaningless. Equality,
in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or
uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:
"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will there be no
longer any difference in the talents and degree of application of the
various individuals? There will be a difference, not so many as exist
today, perhaps, but there will always be differences. Of that there
can be no doubt. This is a proverbial truth which will probably never
cease to be true -- that no tree ever brings forth two leaves that are
exactly identical. How much more will this be true of men, men being
much more complicated creatures than leaves. But such diversity, far
from constituting an affliction is. . . one of the assets of mankind.
Thanks to it, the human race is a collective whole wherein each human
being complements the rest and has need of them; so that this infinite
variation in human beings is the very cause and chief basis of their
solidarity -- an important argument in favour of equality"
[_Integral Education_]
Equality for anarchists means *social* equality, or, to use Murray
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals." By this he means that
hierarchical social relationships are abolished in favour of ones that
encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one
vote." Therefore, 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.
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. "What wonderful results this unique
force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation
with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Co-operation -- as
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival
and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary
co-operation. . . can create the basis for a free individual and
associational life" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 95].
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]
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. 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. There is power in "union."
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
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. 142].
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?") of the
full FAQ 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").
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 points 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. . . .
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. . . . It is the result of a thousand
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . "
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 188]
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., page
142]. 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" [Max Stirner, Op. cit., p. 168]
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 in our
hearts 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.
Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous revolutionary
action" is 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
IWW 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]
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. 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 article "What Do Bosses Do?" (_Review
of Radical Political Economics_, 6, 7), 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.
Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has an
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. If we take
the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we
would have to argue that the current statist system must be considered as
"anarchy" - 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." Anarchy is more
than being 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.2.12 (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 of the full
FAQ)
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 are anarchists in favour of 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]
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." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest:
The Case Against Competition_, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid demand for
agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from contributing
their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] 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. 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 power of recall is an essential tenet 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 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. 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.
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 have a fixed mandate - they are not able
to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for.
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, the assemblies 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.
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished, 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." 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 of the full FAQ.
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?" and
related sections of the full FAQ).
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. 58]
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, "If 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_].
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.
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 Yourself_, 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." [_The
Right to Be Greedy_, For Ourselves].
A.2.11 Why are anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
For anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free
associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. 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].
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, _The Anarchist Revolution_, 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?
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. 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?" of
the full FAQ for more on this).
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are
governed by others. 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. 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 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, 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 of the full FAQ (What would an anarchist society look like?).
A.2.12 Why is voluntarism not enough?
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order to 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 contracts), 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 of the
full FAQ, 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. However, as Carole Pateman points out in
_The Problem of Political Obligation_, "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." [page 19].
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. 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.
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.
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.
Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of social
relationships above others and that a true libertarian must allow people
the freedom to select their own social relationships. 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. 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.2.9 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 of the
full FAQ discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining
power between property owners and the propertyless.
A.2.13 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, and war only become
part of "human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment
plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is.
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). 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.
These two 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 much worse
than they are. . . , 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" [Peter
Kropotkin, _Act for Yourself_, 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.
Today, however, 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 have 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 that power. 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 sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class
has always claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature,"
and hence supported 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 Tzarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on
*co-operation* 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 _Mutual Aid_
was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British Social
Darwinism projected onto nature and human life.
A.2.14 Do anarchists support terrorism?
No, and this is for two reasons. Terrorism means either targeting or not
worrying about killing innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be
created by ordinary 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.
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.
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 do
not want the death of men but the abolition of positions and things" [_The
Lullers_].
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. But the main reason for
the association of terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda
by deed" period in the anarchist movement.
This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1890 -- was marked by a small number
of individual anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class
(royalty, politicians and so forth). This was done for two reasons:
firstly, in revenge for the 20,000-plus deaths due to the French state's
brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many anarchists were
killed (propaganda by the deed began and was most frequent in France); and
secondly, as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their
oppressors could be defeated.
It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this
tactic, which in any case was a failure, as it gave the state an excuse to
clamp down on both the anarchist and labour movements as well as giving the
media a chance to associate anarchism with mindless violence, thus
alienating much of the population from the movement.
In addition, 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
anarchosyndicalist unions after 1890.
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 because there might be an enemy in it is
terrorism, whereas taking out a murdering dictator 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. 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.
So, to summarise. Terrorism has been used by anarchists. It has also been
used by many other political, social and religious groups and parties. For
example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus, Nationalists, Republicans, Mohammedans,
Sikhs, Marxists, Fascists, Jews and Patriots have all committed acts of
terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas have been labelled as "terrorist
by nature" - 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.
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, to quote Rudolf Rocker, "[i]n common with 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. . . .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_, p. 17].
It is within this 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 have always
been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being
restricted mostly to the United States. In addition, anarchists
disagree over 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 | | |
