Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kodak.com!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.nysernet.net!news.nysernet.net!207.41.200.14!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!206.229.87.26!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!208.206.176.31!pulsar.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
Subject: Anarchist Theory FAQ Version 6.0
Followup-To: poster
Date: 13 Feb 1998 11:24:08 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 2716
Message-ID: <887369047.90619@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:75547 alt.anarchism:34154 talk.politics.theory:185334 alt.politics.economics:126042 alt.politics.libertarian:364565 alt.individualism:62215 alt.philosophy.objectivism:175592 talk.politics.libertarian:286042 talk.politics.misc:922110 alt.politics.radical-left:219240 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:46943 alt.society.labor-unions:23495 alt.org.food-not-bombs:5020 alt.politics.socialism:32836
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Theory FAQ
or
Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too Busy to Write One
by
Various Authors
Version 6.0
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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
This FAQ is a smaller version of the Anarchist Theory FAQ version 6.0,
the latest version of which can henceforth be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
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)
We hope that this short version of the Anarchist FAQ covers the basics of
what anarchism. If you wish to contact the FAQ maintainers then contact us
at this address: anarcho@geocities.com
There is an older "Anarchist Theory FAQ" written by a right-wing economics
student from Princeton University named Bryan Caplan... it contains many
falsehoods about anarchism, and basicaly represents capitalistic propaganda.
This version of the Anarchist Theory FAQ is an attempt to set the record
straight.
It should be noted that anarchists do not accept the labels
"left-anarchist" or "anarcho-socialist", but instead prefer the terms
"libertarian socialist", "left libertarian", "anarchist communist",
"anarchosyndicalist", or simply "anarchist".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
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 civilization 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, dehumanization, 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
"civilized" 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. organizations that concentrate power at the top of
a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies,
armies, political parties, religious organizations, universities, etc. It
then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in the such
hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture.
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of
modern civilization, 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
centralized power, the affairs of humanity will "be managed by individuals
or voluntary associations" [Ben Tucker, Anarchist Reader, p. 149].
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]
As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive
nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.
Anarchism is a socioeconomic 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 states it:
"Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation
of millions of poor human beings in honor of some pitiless abstraction --
God, country, power of state, national honor, 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 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].
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" 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:
"If it is believed that government is necessary and that without government
there must be disorder and confusion, it is natural and logical to suppose
that anarchy, which signifies absence of government, must also mean absence
of order." [Anarchy].
Anarchists want to change this "commonsense" idea of "anarchy," so people
will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are
both harmful and unnecessary. For when "opinion is changed, and the public
are convinced that government is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the
word 'anarchy', precisely because it signifies 'without government,' will
become equal to saying "natural order, harmony of needs and interests of
all, complete liberty with complete solidarity." [Ibid.].
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonsense idea 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" [Angeles, Peter A.; 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 organizational 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.
Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development --
the "classical" anarchists did not use the word. 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" [Maximoff, G. P., ed., The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, 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'" [Jeff
Draughn, Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement]
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of
socialism. . . ." [Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles].
Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of
social system and works 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 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.
Therefore, 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 organization
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" [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism].
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 emphasize 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.
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 1890's. It
was first used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws.
Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with
anarchist ideas and movements. Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published
the paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in France in 1895, over 70 years
before the US Libertarian Party was created. 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. It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the
word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian"
capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in
terms.
As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of
ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership
-- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism
at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is
just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever.
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
Yes. All the major branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism, because
the latter is based on domination and exploitation (see sections B and C).
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 -- denounces 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 cooperatives, 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. 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 oppose "state" socialism
as a form of state capitalism..
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."
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 (Tzarist/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 judgments 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 mechanized 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 recognize, 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 section A.2.5
- Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and cooperatively
with others who share the same goals and interests. But without liberty and
equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on the
domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know
from our own, it's"dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone
for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" is promoted at the expense of
community feeling, with those on the bottom resenting those above them and
those on the top fearing those below them. Under such conditions, there can
be no society-wide solidarity, but only a partial form of solidarity within
classes whose interests are opposed, which weakens society as a whole. (See
also section A.2.6 - Why is solidarity important to anarchists?)
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply altruism. 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, page
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 analyze 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, page 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 (hierarchical) authority."
Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are
particularly knowledgeable, skillful, or wise, though they believe that such
authorities should have no power to force others to follow their
recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a
nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being
should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning,
since it submerges the will and judgment of the dominated to the will and
judgment of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect
that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible
and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality,
poverty, and social breakdown.
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]
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasize 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]
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 labor, 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 labor 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 centralized, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government.
They do not oppose self-government through confederations of decentralized,
grassroots organizations, 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 judgment 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 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].
The fact that anarchists are in favor 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 recognized is that this mode of organization
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 labor 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 cooperative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free
access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal
labor according to need. Although such societies probably had status
rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of
institutionalized 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 emphasized, however, that anarchists do not advocate going "back
to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the hierarchical-authoritarian
mode of organization 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 behavior, as
there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such
behavior 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, 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, ABC of Anarchism, 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, cooperating 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 above, anarchists are dedicated to social equality because
it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish. However,
there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much of what is
commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before discussing what
anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what we do not mean by
it.
Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only
non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about.
Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist
but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among
clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that
others have abilities that they do not share" [Noam Chomsky 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 sidetrack
people into discussions of biology.
Nor are anarchists in favor 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 -- cooperation 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 cooperation with
other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Cooperation -- as opposed to
internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival and evolution
of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary cooperation. . . 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."
Under 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" [Ibid.].
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,
cooperating 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 to 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?") 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,
The Ego and Its Own, 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 actualize 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 organization 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" [Life and Ideas, p.
90].
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
No. We have seen that anarchists abhore 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 organization 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 organization), 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.
We are sorry to belabor this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism is
a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see Section F)
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we have
outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a rational
decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, can
individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power into
the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty and
dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away from
people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour
organisations which miminalise authority, keeping power at the base, in the
hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based on
decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to grow
and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section A.2.11
- Why do anarchists support direct democracy?).
In other words, associations would be run by mass assemblies of all
involved, with purely administrative tasks being handled by elected
committees. These community 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
coordination 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 coordinated.
Action committees would be formed, if required, to coordinate 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, they can call confederal conferences to discuss new
developments and to inform action committees about changing wishes and to
instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas.
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 coordination 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.
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.
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 their abilities to the fullest.
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, coordinating 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, page 93].
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 judgment 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").
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 judgment 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.
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. The
workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort
of society do anarchists want?).
A.2.12 Why is voluntarism not enough?
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in free
association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop, grow, and
express their liberty. However, it is evident that under capitalism
voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty. Voluntarism implies
promising (i.e. the freedom to make contracts), and promising implies that
individuals are capable of independent judgment and rational deliberation.
In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions
and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these
implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" (though as
we show in section B.4, this is not really the case), capitalist contracts
result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of
wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. However, as
Carole Patemen 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. 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.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses why
capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property owners
and the propertyless.
A.2.13 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 slight-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 cooperation within species,
quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a
theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the
latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of
British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of
course. Kropotkin's 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. As we have stressed
earlier, freedom cannot be given, only taken.
Moreover anarchists are not against individuals but the instutitions 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 referrring to terrorists who are not
anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Bader-Meinhoff gang were
often called "anarchists" dispite 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
oppressers 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 movments 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 propanganda 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 defense 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 labeled 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].
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 means of action in the here and now.
Individualists generally prefer education and the creation of alternative
institutions, such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually
support strikes and other nonviolent forms of social protest. They are
primarily evolutionists, not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists'
use of direct action to create revolutionary situations. Most social
anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives, but
they disagree that this is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism
can be reformed piece by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the
importance of reforms in social struggle.
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy proposed.
Individualists perfer a market-based system of distribution to the social
anarchists use-based system. Both agree that use rights must replace
property rights, but the individualist denies that this should include the
product of the workers labour. In addition, they accept that people should
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire. If the
means of production, say land, is not in use, it reverts back to common
ownership and is available to others for use. They think this system, called
mutualism, will result in workers control of production and the end of
capitalist exploitation and usury.
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears being
forced to join a collective and thus losing his or her freedom to exchange
freely with others. However, social anarchists have always recognised the
need for voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
this is not seen as a problem. In addition, a collective exists solely for
the benefit of the individuals that compose it; it is the means by which
people cooperate to meet their common needs. Therefore, all anarchists
emphasise the importance of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist
society. "In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the
pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
spontaneous movement from below" [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200].
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods with
others, social anarchists have no objection. However, if in the name of
freedom they wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of
others, social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate
statism in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to
be a ruler! As Luigi Galleni pointed out in The End of Anarchism?: "No less
sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable cloak of
anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination. . . . But the
heralds of domination presume to practice individualism in the name of their
ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of others."
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production can
be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an anarchist
society. This, in all likelihood, "opens. . . the way for reconstituting
under the heading of 'defense' all the functions of the State" [Peter
Kropotkin, Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 297].
Ben Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by free market ideas, also faced
the problems associated with all schools of abstract individualism -- in
particular, the acceptance of authoritarian social relations as an
expression of "liberty." As Albert Melzter points out, this can have statist
implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by virtue of their
individualism -- accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to
guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this school of so-called
Individualists accept. . . the necessity of the police force, hence for
government, and the prime definition of anarchism is no government"
[Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, p. 8].
This problem can be "got round" by accepting, along with Proudhon (the
source of Tucker's Mutualist ideas), the need for cooperatives to run
non-artisan workplaces. And while the individualists attack "usury," they
ignore the problem of capital accumulation, which results in natural
barriers of entry into markets and so recreates usury in new forms.
Hence a "free market" in banks, as advocated by Tucker, would result in a
few big banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in supporting
capitalist rather than cooperative investment. The only real solution to
this problem would be to ensure community ownership and management of banks,
as originally desired by Proudhon.
It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist economy
which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism in favour of
communalising, and so decentralising, production by freely associated and
cooperative labour. (For more discussion on the ideas of the Individualist
anarchists, see section G - "Does individualist anarchism have anything in
common with capitalism?")
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply involve
differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist is between
mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is based around
a form of market socialism - workers cooperates exchanging the product of
their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual bank network would
be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial advantage of any
individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . . [with] no interest . .
. exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks and expenses." [Charles A.
Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45] Such a system would
end capitalist exploitation and oppression for by "introducing mutualism
into exchange and credit we introduce it everywhere, and labour will assume
a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Op. Cit., p. 45] The social
anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist form by having
the mutual banks owned by the local community instead of being independent
cooperatives.
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support for
markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is best
served by communalising production and sharing information and products
freely between cooperatives. Only by extending the principle of cooperation
beyond individual workplaces can individual liberty be maximised (see
section I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). These
anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management of
production within cooperatives but see confederations of these associations
as being the focual point for expressing mutual aid, not a market.
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution.
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the
end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key.
Most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as production increases
and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both
agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by
the maxim, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to
their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about.
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial
union movement based on anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate
decentralised, federated unions that use direct action to get reforms under
capitalism until they are strong enough to overthrow it.
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
associations of free producers." They think that these associations would
serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very seriously
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organizations must create "not only the
ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary
period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a
government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand
and brain in each special branch of production; that is, through the taking
over of the management of all plants by the producers themselves under such
form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry are
independent members of the general economic organism and systematically
carry on production and the distribution of the products in the interest of
the community on the basis of free mutual agreements" [Rudolf Rocker,
Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 94].
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Both collectivists and communists think that
syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle, and so
consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more important than creating
syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them. They also do not place
as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles within it to be
equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy and domination
outside the workplace.
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for anarchists
to unite together in purely anarchist organisations. They think it is
essential that anarchists work together as anarchists to clarify and spread
their ideas to others. Syndicalists often deny the importance of anarchist
groups and federations, arguing that revolutionary industrial unions are
enough in themselves. Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union
movements can be fused into one, but most other anarchists disagree.
Non-syndicalists point out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to
keep syndicalist unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them.
Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion of anarchism and unionism a source
of potential confusion that would result in both movements failing to do
their respect work correctly.
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist. For
example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.
A.2.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back to the
important work done by Peter Kropotkin in arguing that the anarchist society
would be based on a confederation of communities that would unite manual and
brain work plus industry and argiculture [see Fields, Factories, and
Workshops]. This idea of an economy in which "small is beautiful" was
proposed nearly 100 years before it was taken up by what was to become the
green movement. In addition, in Mutual Aid Kropotkin documented how
cooperation within species and between them and their environment is often
of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's work, combined with
that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of whom, like Kropotkin,
were world-renowned geographers), and many others laid the foundations for
the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
The eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main focal points: social
ecology and "primativist" anarchism. Social Ecology is associated with the
ideas and works of Murray Bookchin, who has been writing on ecology and
anarchism since the 1950's and has been, more than anyone else, the person
who has placed ecology at the heart of anarchism.
"Primativist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly US
-based, like Fifth Estate, which emphasise the anti-ecological nature of
capitalism and take a frankly anti-civilisation and anti-technology
position. They are usually very hostile to social ecology, which they regard
as not getting to the root of the problem -- namely modern "industrial
society"-- and think that social ecology's desire to retain certain types of
technology will result in "civilisation" growing again to destroy ourselves
and the planet.
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen as
a product of domination within society. Therefore social ecologists consider
it essential to attack hierarchy, not civilisation as such. In addition,
social ecology considers the use of appropriate technology essential in
order to liberate humanity and the planet. By being against technology as
such, people will spend all their time working, and so hierarchical
structures will start to develop again.
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature,
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think
that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which many
deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has been
particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the anti-human
ideas that are often associated with it. Most anarchists would argue that it
is not people but the system which is the problem, and that only people can
change it. Deep ecology, particularly the organization Earth First! (EF!),
has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a close working
relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a syndicalist
union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it shares ideas
and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects its few
misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human race, is
the problem.
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?
Although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism, the movement
is not essentially pacifistic. However, a pacifist strand has long existed
in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy being its major figure. Most anarchists,
though, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical
force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state
aggression. The question of violence is relatively unimportant to most
anarchists, as they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a
minimum. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those who emphasise violence are
like those who think "it's the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work
should be considered the work itself." To the contrary, "[t]he fighting part
of revolution is merely rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual ta | | |
