Section A - What is Anarchism?
A.1 What is anarchism?
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?
A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?
A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
A.2.11 Why do most anarchists support direct democracy?
A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
A.2.15 What about Human Nature?
A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?
A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?
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 pacifistic?
A.3.5 What is anarcha-feminism?
A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?
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 The Haymarket Martyrs
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions
A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.
A.5.7 The May-June revolt in France, 1968.
Section A - What is Anarchism?
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises:
(1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty,
homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social
isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of
community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of
the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life
depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
particularly nuclear weapons.
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," mainstream
media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each
having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a
piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this
"orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question are
getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly
headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon,
or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above.
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these
crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle
of *hierarchical authority,* which underlies the major institutions of all
"civilised" societies, whether capitalist or "communist." Anarchist
analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions
are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power
at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government
bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations,
universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian
relations inherent in the such hierarchies negatively affect individuals,
their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A -
E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and
its negative effects in greater detail.
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of
modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is much
more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society.
Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist question" as
follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's
self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings
and still retain one's own characteristic qualities" [_Red Emma Speaks_,
pp. 133-134]. In other words, how can we create a society in which the
potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of
others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which,
instead of being controlled "from the top down" through hierarchical
structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will "be managed
by individuals or voluntary associations" [Ben Tucker, _Anarchist Reader_,
p. 149]. Later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe
anarchism's positive proposals for organising society in this way, "from
the bottom up." However, some of the constructive core of anarchism will
be seen even in the earlier sections.
As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "Like all great ideas, anarchism is
pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are at their best
when they are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves
rather than being ordered about." [_Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. vii].
Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore social freedom,
anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that repress people:
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development
of a free humanity" [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 16]
As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive
nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.
Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology.
The difference is *very* important. Basically, theory means you have
ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas,
but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open
to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so
does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which
people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so
as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such
"fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to
attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true
regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism,
"Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the
destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that
usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Mikhail Bakunin
puts it:
"Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and
bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some
pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour,
historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare."
Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some
dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her
ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to
bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living
should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of
critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules
and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves.
In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you the
"correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about what
anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its modern forms
and why *we* are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to provoke
thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new ideology,
then sorry, anarchism is not for you.
While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not
"reasonable" people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what the
"experts" and "authorities" tell them is true, and so they will always
remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:
"[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks
and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be
in, he always knows what he must say and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring
shame upon himself or his causes" [_Statism and Anarchy_ - cited in Albert
Meltzer, _I couldn't Paint Golden Angels_, p. 2].
What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is the power
of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to accept what
others tell you, but to think and act for yourself!
One last point: to state the obvious, this is *not* the final word on
anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here,
but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish
to do is indicate the *basic* ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of
certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are
sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we
present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and
there.
A.1 What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the
absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, _What is Property_,
p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims
to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together
as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control
- be that control by the state or capitalist - as harmful to the
individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State
movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a
simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that
power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate
more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and
economic organisation." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 106]
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented
ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or
"without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos
and a return to the "laws of the jungle."
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For
example, in countries which have considered government by one person
(monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used
precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a
vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply
that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a
new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta
expresses it:
"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without
government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural
and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should
sound like absence of order." [_Anarchy_, p. 12]
Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people
will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are
both harmful *and* unnecessary:
"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only
unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just
because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody:
natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete
freedom within complete solidarity." [Ibid., pp. 12-13].
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy.
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
The word "anarchy" is "from Greek, prefix *a*, meaning "not," "the want
of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, meaning "a ruler,"
"director", "chief," "person in charge," "commander." The Greek words
*anarchos,* and *anarchia* meant "having no government -- being without
a government." [Peter A. Angeles, _The Harper Collins Dictionary of
Philosophy_, Second Edition, pp. 11-12]
As can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply
"no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally,
"without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have
continually used the word. For this reason, rather than being purely
anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against
*hierarchy.* Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that
embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy,
anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is *not* a sufficient
definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all
forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state.
Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development --
the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use
the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as
short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings
that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of
power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when attacked
"official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also when he said:
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man?
Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [_The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin_, p. 271]
As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the
'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of
anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root
of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy'"
[_Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement_]
We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not
limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian
economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly
those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen
from Proudhon's argument that "*Capital* . . . in the political field is
analogous to *government* . . . The economic idea of capitalism . . .
[and] the politics of government or of authority . . . [are] identical . . .
[and] linked in various ways. . . What capital does to labour . . . the
State [does] to liberty . . ." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History
of Anarchism_, pp. 43-44]
Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to
all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words,
"the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism
. . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of
society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the
progressive movements of mankind." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 158]
And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists
seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society
based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words,
order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by
authorities.
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of
socialism. . . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 46] In other
words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that
is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government."
[Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism," in _Man!_, M. Graham (Ed), p. 75]
Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society
which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists
maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social
system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social
equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually
self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 269]
The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality
is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is
impossible and a justification for slavery.
While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist
anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details),
there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them --
opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of
the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists on "the
abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government
of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited in
_Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism_
by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent
as *usury* (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions
that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.
More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within
anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [_The
Politics of Individualism_, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be
free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority.
So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this,
"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and
will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by
the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the
political organisation of society is a condition of things where the
functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the
ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government
to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy." [Peter
Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]
Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques
current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential
new society -- a society that maximises certain human needs which the
current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty,
equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2.
Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin pointed
out, "the urge to destroy is a creative urge." One cannot build a better
society without understanding what is wrong with the present one.
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of
"anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive
and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are
"free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and
"libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism,
libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.
Considering definitions from the _American Heritage Dictionary_, we find:
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who
believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political
power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action
and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political
power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political
sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions
to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor
"socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have
different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to
debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and
politically useless hobby but we will not).
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA,
many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a
contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are
just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism"
(as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make
those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to
steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term
"libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The
revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal
du Mouvement social_ in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, _A
Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max
Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November,
1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use
of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s
onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist
laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the
popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper
_Le Libertaire_ -- _The Libertarian_ -- in France in 1895, for example).
Since then, particularly outside America, it has *always* been associated
with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the
USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had
staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based
"Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early
1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe
their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian
communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who
have "stolen" the word. 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 branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because
the latter is based on domination and exploitation (see sections B and C).
Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they
have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think
that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own
regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By
so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of
capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, _Man!_,
M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]
Individualists like Ben Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon
and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because the
word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed
in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." ["Ayn Rand
and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed_, no. 34]. In order to achieve this, socialists desire a society
within which the producers own and control the means of production. Under
capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process
nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly
based on equal freedom for all and is so opposed by anarchists.
Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist. Ben Tucker, for example --
the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) --
called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced the capitalist as
"the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held
that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists
will become redundant, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural
wage, its entire product." Such an economy will be based on mutual banking
and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and
peasants. Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for
capitalist society and its various "spooks," which for him meant ideas
that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property,
competition, division of labour, and so forth.
So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a
specific kind - *libertarian socialists*. As the individualist
anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):
"[i]t is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake.
Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism,
archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free.
Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or
decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As
they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic."
[_Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not_]
While social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues --
for example, whether a free market would be the best means of maximising
liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed and that an
anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage,
labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of external
wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and such
self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real
socialism. However, the meanings of words change over time. Today
"socialism" almost always refers to *state* socialism, a system that all
anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist
ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this
issue:
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would
flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest
enemies of socialism." [_Red and Black Revolution_, issue 2].
Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social
democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin
warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would
institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's
state-socialist ideas were ever implemented.
Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share *some* ideas with
*some* Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker
accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his
labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily
influenced by Max Stirner's book _The Ego and Its Own_, which contains
a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as
state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement
holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the
anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example,
Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are
very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of
the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from
Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more
libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and
Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the
free association of equals.
Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in
direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state
control). As Daniel Guerin pointed out in his book _Anarchism_, "Anarchism
is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a
socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man."
Instead of "central planning," anarchists advocate free association and
co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and
so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism. The
anarchist objection to the identification of "central planning" with
socialism will be discussed in section H.
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?
Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the
_The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists_ produced
by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution
(see Section A.5.4). They point out that:
"[t]he class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on
the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free
non-statist society of workers under self-management.
"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers
against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from
their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become
particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle
of the working masses.
"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others,
did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in
the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and
knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16]
Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass
movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both
Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917
to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally found
its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [_Demanding the
Impossible_, p. 652]
Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom.
It comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human
life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not
created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down
upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what
is right and wrong.
In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression
and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and
analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our
hopes and dreams for a better future.
A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands
for in practice and what ideals drive it:
The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.
As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty,
desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider
individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality
does not exist in a vacuum but is a *social* phenomenon. Outside of
society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in
order to develop, expand, and grow.
Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal
effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society,
while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society
(as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts.
A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would
be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a collective
process, a process in which both community and the individual *participate*"
[Murray Bookchin, _The Modern Crisis_, p. 79]. Consequently, any political
theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.
In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent,
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three
principles: liberty, equality and solidarity, which are interdependent.
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence,
creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the
chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and
develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and
personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the
society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be
based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote
Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it,
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of
association" [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2,
"Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?").
If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then
equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real
freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross
inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only
a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while
the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a
mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under
capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really
free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by
the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality
develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free
individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for
their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to
interact. (See also A.2.5 "Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But
without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing
classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In
such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated,"
"dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism"
is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom
resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them.
Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a
partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed,
which weakens society as a whole. (See also A.2.6, "Why is solidarity
important to anarchists?")
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or
self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:
"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist
finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the
achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers,
and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is
adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the
labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [_Life and Ideas_,
p. 23].
For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which
we live.
Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are
idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society.
Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to
material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people
actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a *materialist*
theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction
and individuals' mental activity (see Mikhail Bakunin's _God and the
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism verses idealism).
This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings,
not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever
arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do
the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding
of things." [Alexander Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 42]
Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability
of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to
be right. In other words, liberty.
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?
As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical)
authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts
who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe
that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their
recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a
nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words,
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."
[_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 107] Domination is inherently
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of
the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying
the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy.
Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation,
which is the root of alienation, inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.
In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively)
is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and
individuality.
Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique
individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual
can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime,
if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for
others." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27]
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as
Bakunin reminds us:
"[t]he abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we
advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the
abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups
of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of
influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official."
[quoted by Malatesta, in _Anarchy_, p. 50]
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover of
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]
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their
lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This
is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions
they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect
than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved.
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's
individual potential, which is also a social product and can be
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich
the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed.
Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been
legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the
ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet
with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from
others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This
is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in
political life as well." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 64]
In short, liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it.
Thus Murray Bookchin writes:
"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical
period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a collective
development -- which is not to deny that individuals play an important
role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they
wish to be free." [_Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism_]
But freedom requires the right *kind* of social environment in which to
grow and develop. Such an environment *must* be decentralised and based
on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation
means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the
essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals
involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly
their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities
and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the
individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities
to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their
development is blunted.
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism.
Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority, the very
purpose of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands
of those who do it. This means "that the serious, final, complete
liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that
of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all
the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers."
[Michael Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255]
Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose private
ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a
component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour
must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer." [_Notes
on Anarchism_]
Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in
which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they
govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it
implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one
in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince"
individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm
supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support,
they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy.
And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means
only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations
or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations
of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on
direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives."
For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation
based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of
the people subjected to that power.
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which
human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism,
however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and
hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals
will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their
liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material,
intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person" [Bakunin,
Op. Cit.] (see section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and
authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty
*cannot* exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett, in
_Objections to Anarchism_, points out:
"[t]o get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to
co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose
that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity;
on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to
take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a
walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I
should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I
cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I
must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement,
and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree
with my friend to go for a walk."
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of
us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective
work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 86].
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be the
only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of
organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific
kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and
exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human
societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on
co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access
to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour
according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings
based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised
dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and
resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of
one class by another [see Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology of Freedom_].
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do *not* advocate
going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that
human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive,
and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this
claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or
*learned,* and as such, can be *unlearned* [see Ashley Montagu, _The
Nature of Human Aggression_ ]. We are not fatalists or genetic
determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change
the way they do things, including the way they organise society.
And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for
those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion
through its control of the state (see B.2.4), it is able to suppress the
majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller
scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within
authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of
their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:
"capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer:
just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches
and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation or union
may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do
so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all
over" [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 53].
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the
result that it is, indeed, "sick all over."
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement
is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of
mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful"
[Op. Cit., p. 53]. In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy
and confederation, which are the expression and environment of liberty.
Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and
equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and
debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray
Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent."
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9
and A.2.10.
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the
liberty of others.
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom"
to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate
authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty,
equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists
recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others.
As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for
everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which
does *not* mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 53].
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority
is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the
state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil
Disobedience" (1847)
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
As mentioned in A.2, anarchists are dedicated to social equality because
it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish.
However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much
of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before
discussing what anarchist *do* mean by equality, we have to indicate what
we *do not* mean by it.
Anarchists do *not* believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only
non-existent but would be *very* undesirable if it could be brought
about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences
not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why?
Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person
will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share" [Noam
Chomsky _Red and Black Revolution_, No. 2].
That some people *seriously* suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that
everyone should be *identical* is a sad reflection on the state of present-day
intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert
attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people
into discussions of biology.
Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have
*no* desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives
in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the
reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that
they standardise so much of life [see George Reitzer's _The
McDonaldization 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.
Section F.3 ("Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists generally place little or no
value on 'equality,' and what do they mean by that term?) discusses
anarchist ideas on equality further.
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and
happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.
Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the
"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of
the strongest motivations of human behaviour" [_To Be or To Have_, p.
107]. Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use
Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions,
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to
be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised
in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and
non-hierarchical.
Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and
is far from a denial of liberty. "What wonderful results this unique
force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation
with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Co-operation -- as
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival
and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary
co-operation. . . can create the basis for a free individual and
associational life" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 95].
Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity
(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those
subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the
recognition of common interests:
"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. *I*
want to be free! *I* hope to be happy! *I* want to appreciate all the
beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured *only* when all other
people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people
around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And *only* then can I eat my
fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other
people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a
question of *my own contentment,* only of *my own self,* when I rebel
against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ."
[Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), _The BrickBurner_ magazine quoted by
Karl S. Guthke, _B. Traven: The life behind the legends_, pp. 133-4]
To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to
all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept
with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation
with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at
the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates
now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly
successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and
at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also
good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health
and to liking one another." [_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_,
p. 7]
And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary
to resist those in power. By standing together, we can increase our
strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we
can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the
boss once and for all. "*Unions* will. . . multiply the individual's
means and secure his assailed property" [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its
Own, p. 258]. By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current
system with one more to our liking. There is power in "union."
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for
*another.* By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so
that we may enjoy *more,* not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --
that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others
based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone,
this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in
all probability I too will be dominated in turn.
As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule
us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to
let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will
touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you
are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in
in Luigi Galleani's _The End of Anarchism?_, p. 79 - different translation
in _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 197]
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means
by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a
leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people,
co-operating together as *equals.* The "big WE" is *not* solidarity, although
the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union.
It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are
conditioned to blindly obey leaders.
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be
freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through
their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As
Emma Goldman points out:
"history tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual]
gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts"
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 142].
Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves
by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") 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 "[b]etween man and his social environment there is a
reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what
they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. . . .
Fortunately existing society has not been created by the inspired will of
a dominating class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to
passive and unconscious instruments. . . . It is the result of a thousand
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . "
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 188]
Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that
limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the
process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation
begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose
from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs" [Op. Cit., page
142]. But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a
piece of chain with him." [Max Stirner, Op. Cit., p. 168]
In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision in our
hearts and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real
world.
Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait
for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political,
and given the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will
influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in
pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it,
"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." We can do
so by creating alternative social relationships and organisations, acting
as free people in a non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and
now can we lay the foundation for a free society.
Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous revolutionary
action" is usually results from and is based upon the patient work of many
years of organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The
process of "creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use another
IWW expression), by building alternative institutions and relationships, is
but one component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary
commitment and militancy.
As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of all kinds
is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an
integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate
the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want
the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond
to the state of their development and advance as they advance." [Op. Cit.
p. 90]
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is
an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,
since they embody the principle of authority. The argument for this
(if anybody needs one) is as follows:
A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series
of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually)
remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have
found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and
exploitation. For example, in his article "What Do Bosses Do?" (_Review
of Radical Political Economics_, 6, 7), a study of the modern factory,
Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy
is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater
control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective
exploitation.
Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat
of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic,
psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of
dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set
of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the
few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those
in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom
have virtually none.
Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in
hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover,
for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to
dismantle *all* forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist.
Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has an
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. If we take
the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we
would have to argue that the current statist system must be considered as
"anarchy" - no one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We
are free to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical
nature of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based
upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed
forces, states even) all because they are "voluntary." Anarchy is more
than being free to pick a master.
Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise
you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic.
For more on this see section A.2.14 (Why is voluntarism not enough?).
Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they
can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs
directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures
(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an
association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly
anarchistic.
We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism
is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see section F)
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we
have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially,
can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power
into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty
and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away
from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour
organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in
the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based
on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to grow
and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section
A.2.11, "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?").
We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress.
But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for
food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved without
the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty."
[_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 28]
Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict
as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should
not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of
conflict itself but the addition of competition." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest:
The Case Against Competition_, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid demand for
agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from contributing
their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is for this reason that most
anarchists reject consensus decision making in large groups (see section
A.2.12).
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of
all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative
conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by
elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable
and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of
the assembly which elected them. If the delegates act against their mandate
or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the
assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly
recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains
in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.
This power of recall is an essential tenet of any anarchist organisation.
The *key* difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an
anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system people
give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for them for a
fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises is irrelevant
as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power lies at the
top and those at the base are expected to obey. In an anarchist society this
relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected)
holds power in an anarchist community. Instead decisions are made using direct
democratic principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint
delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction between
policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and the co-ordination
and administration of any adopted policy (which is the job for delegates).
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be
run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as
the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and
international conferences in which all important issues and problems
affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition,
the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would
be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed,
and co-ordinated.
Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under
strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies
would have a limited tenure and have a fixed mandate - they are not able
to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for.
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go
back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification
any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual
or committee. In addition, the assemblies can call confederal conferences
to discuss new developments and to inform action committees about changing
wishes and to instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas.
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished, because the people
at the base of the organisation are in control, *not* their delegates.
Only this form of organisation can replace government (the initiative and
empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of
all). This form of organisation would exist in all activities which
required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as
Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures which
they could understand and control." For individual initiatives, the
individual involved would manage them.
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures
that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.
Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and
limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of
governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the
decisions. For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would
look like see section I.
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions
of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.
However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and
doomed to failure.
To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations
would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the
statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces
indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity,
uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality.
More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and
crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy,
see section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" and
related sections).
That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner
Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting
Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great solidarity that
existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic]
own strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations
must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a
mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_,
p. 58]
As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very
well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he
cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all"
[quoted in _Paths in Utopia_, Martin Buber, p. 33].
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "If you spend most of your waking life
taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will
become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and
you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life."
[_The Libertarian as Conservative_].
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a *massive* transformation
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating
in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual
capacities.
Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of
society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and
solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist
organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be
accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and
developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of
thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that
affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and
protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of
people enslaved by hierarchy.
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that *both*
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; *both* exploiters and exploited
are spoiled by exploitation" [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for Yourself_, p.
83]. This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as
well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of
command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated
to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the
submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [_The
Right to Be Greedy_, For Ourselves].
A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within
free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. The
reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.'
non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that
mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of
oppression." [John P. Clark, _Max Stirner's Egoism_, p. 93]
It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a
fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the
individual has three options;] he [or she] must submit to the will of
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest
good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity."
[Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 85]
Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means
by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings,
respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct
democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and
self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities
to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their
intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes
in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what
is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?
Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes
a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association
is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large
workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific
office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the
content of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within
the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e.
manage their own activity. This means that political obligation is not
owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state
or company, but to one's fellow "citizens."
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing
their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also
superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or
repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political
authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships
between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an
elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see
section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" for
more on this). Thus Proudhon:
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No
more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen,
each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [_The General
Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 245-6]
Such a society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the
workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject
to the approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist
or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the
guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free
society.
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,
_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct
democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept
of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular
vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or
refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity
to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to
impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive
imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed
obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association.
Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the
context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means
by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains
in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of
the error of its ways.
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the
good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that
anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband,
whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the
expense of those subject to their decisions.
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is
why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights.
This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases
itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions
and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will
have to take political action, including politically disobedient action
if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the
political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing
democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the
right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent,
or where necessary, to disobey." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_,
p. 162]
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links
between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations
themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have
associations joining confederations. The links between associations in
the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as
within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members
and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an
association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of
communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising
participation and self-management.
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 (What
sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in
section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta
speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of
the majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As can
be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the
minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's
words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they
have even heard what these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct
democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule"
nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what.
In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it
fits Malatesta's argument that:
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it
is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of
the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing
something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should
feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such
adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be
reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and
of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and
statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100]
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule
is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making
tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and
acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the
majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the
minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced
that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice
his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should
support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 132]
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less
than the whole, the right to use some *limited* discretion as to the
*means* to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the
unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice
of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly
represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced
by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights,
or person of any individual, except it be such as *all* members of the
association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results
from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for
*all* members of an association to agree) [_Trial by Jury_, p. 130-1f,
p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]
Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash.
In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most
decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required
for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and
minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights
in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created
through practical experience by the people directly involved.
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For
example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making
(see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think
that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most
anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the
best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with
anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.
A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based
upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put
into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling
the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles.
Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all
agree, has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing
his experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications,
because
"[i]n order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority
dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline
to vote on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially
amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in
American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of
the dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the
decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing
expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance
with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings
-- so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . '[C]onsensus' was ultimately
achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as participants
in the process.
"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of
all dialogue, *dissensus*. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that
still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority
decision, . . . [can be] replaced. . . . by dull monologues -- and the
uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making,
the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have
been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned
and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours
no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the
'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism",
_Democracy and Nature_, no. 8, p.8]
Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar
with one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own
experience has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions
by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common
intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizeable assembly
of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree
with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue." [Op. Cit., p. 7]
Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association.
While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually
impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its
other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association
by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent
in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are
fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted
by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique,
they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to
express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of
individuals.
In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the
"*creative* role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends to fade away in
the gray uniformity required by consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8]
We must stress that anarchists are *not* in favour of a mechanical decision
making process in which the majority just vote the minority away and
ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see
it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen
to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which
all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation
within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common
interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and
minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise
or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important
issues.
A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that liberal
scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being "collectivists" while
Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general for being "individualists."
This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as nonsense.
Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist individualists and collectivists
are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This can best shown be by
considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and "collectivist"
tendencies continually interact, often with the political and economic
structure swinging from one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism
and individualism are both one-sided aspects of human existence, and like
all manifestations of imbalance, deeply flawed.
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves
for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of
individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the
group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of individual
interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think,
only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the
"cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected,
since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies
their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough
individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the
leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this
phenomenon.
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of
society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This
means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group.
In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the
individuals involved in them. This is way we place so much stress on
groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express
themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social
relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom.
So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the
individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative
and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . .
[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to
individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society
or the collectivity - and the *State* or government which claims to
represent it - if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of
individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all
thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being
individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or
become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither
the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the
resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who
make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the
relationship between society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question
of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving
all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of
replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a
key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the
oppression of everyone else . . . " [_Anarchy_, pp. 36-37]
These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . .
is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his
individuality. . . . [It] has inevitably resulted in the crassest class
distinctions. . . [and] has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters,
while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of
self-seeking 'supermen.'" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 89]
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by
themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of
individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships
by their very nature, they help *shape* individuals. In other words,
groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact
on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to
the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists
fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian
manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups".
Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions
in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a
need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These
contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on
individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. *abstract* individualism.
In contrast, anarchists stress *social* "individualism" (another, perhaps
better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality"). Anarchism
"insists that the centre of gravity in society is the individual -- that he
[sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully . . . If he is to
develop freely and fully, he must be relieved from the interference and
oppression of others . . . [T]his has nothing in common with . . . 'rugged
individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby, not rugged.
At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the state and wails
for protection . . . Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the
many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and
political extortion." [Ibid., p. 397]
Anarchism rejects the *abstract* individualism of capitalism, with its
ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by
others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists
and grows.
A society based on "individual contracts" usually results in an inequality
of power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for
an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the
contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and,
most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state developed.
In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free" when they are
isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally in the
"state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a
"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy
with no basis in reality (human beings have *always* been social animals),
this "theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive
powers over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist
system, which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the
capitalist economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within
capitalism, individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the
owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See
sections A.2.14 and B.4 for further details).
In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both
individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each
implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of
individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of
collectivism.
Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the
individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit
suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom you live or work),
ultimately impoverishes the individual, since individuals do not exist
apart from society but can only exist within it. In addition, individualism
ends up denying the "select few" the insights and abilities of the
individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is a source of
self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction),
namely "the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full
development in the conditions of oppression of the mass by the 'beautiful
aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain uni-lateral." [Peter
Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 293]
True liberty and community exist elsewhere.
A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order to maximise
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in
free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop,
grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under
capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.
Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make contracts), and
promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement
and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can
evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under
capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For,
while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in section B.4, this is
not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty.
This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising
to obey in return for payment. However, as Carole Pateman points out in
_The Problem of Political Obligation_, "to promise to obey is to state,
that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to
exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer
equal, but subordinate." [page 19].
In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can
choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the
right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. To
paraphrase Rousseau:
Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free;
but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when
she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it
is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing
but an order taker.
Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a
sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism.
Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be
based upon force, power, and authority, *not* liberty. This of course
assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise
their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is
*not* enough to create a society that maximises liberty.
Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of social
relationships above others and that a true libertarian must allow people
the freedom to select their own social relationships. To answer the second
objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism),
those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate
their authority. And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who
desire to restrict the liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the
liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty.
Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We *are*
prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of
robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom.
We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.
Section A.2.9 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses
why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property
owners and the propertyless.
A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not
the case, however.
First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is
meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory
-- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so
on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human
nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with
changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of
"human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years, and war only become
part of "human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment
plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is.
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a *tabula rasa* (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). We do not wish to
enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to
think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are
sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to
prosper.
These two features, we think, suggest the viability of an
anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically
makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep
unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the
centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying
some innate needs within us.
In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the
human race *has* lived in anarchic communities, with little or no
hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive"
is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human
nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may
not be.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it
is often *non* anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while
our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the
rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those
bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming much worse
than they are. . . , there is [a] difference, and a very important one.
*We* admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for
the rulers. *They* make it, although sometimes unconsciously" [Peter
Kropotkin, _Act for Yourself_, p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then
giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice
and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
Today, however, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very
little *real* evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature,"
which is determined by our genes. These claims have been leapt upon by
the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for
this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in
power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and
"scientific" basis to rationalise that power. Like the social Darwinism
that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant
ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that
scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and
"natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are
transferred *back* onto society and history, being used to "prove" that
the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are
eternal *laws,* which are then appealed to as a justification for the
status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who
take this sleight-of-hand seriously.
This sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class
has always claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature,"
and hence supported doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to
justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin,
etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now,
of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human
nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific
priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One
thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it
is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the
moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist.
The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming
that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to
human nature, even though all past systems did not.
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the
same facts -- conclusions that may be *more* valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may
be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live
in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists
working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on
*co-operation* within species, quite unlike their counterparts in
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on *competitive struggle*
within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant
political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive
individualism) is pure coincidence, of course. Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_
was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British Social
Darwinism projected onto nature and human life.
A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a *human*
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human
beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be
"perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free.
Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who
are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs,
thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by
reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties,
or community and workplace assemblies.
Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section
A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- people
who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority,
people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of
hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such
claims about human perfection. We recognise that vesting power in the
hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not
perfect and need to be accountable to others.
It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" man or
woman is often raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit
real anarchism and justify the retention of hierarchical authority,
specifically in capitalist relations of production. However, a moment's
reflection will show that their "objection" discredits their own claim to
be anarchists for they explicitly assume an anarchist society without
anarchists! Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still
needed authority and statism would soon become authoritarian and statist
(i.e. non-anarchist) again.
This is because even if the government were overthrown tomorrow, the same
system would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government
rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool
and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the
superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long
as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off
the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown
accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barret,
_Objections to Anarchism_].
In other words, anarchy needs *anarchists* in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have
freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that
command-and-obedience relations are necessary. The implicit assumption in
the idea of a "new" anarchist person is that freedom will be given, not
taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring
"perfect" people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for
self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society.
Anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary, because
the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity,
but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.
"If, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could
be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is
true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the
other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves
get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny --- the government -- then
indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished" [Ibid.].
A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we
know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people
are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All
aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain
people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, Fabians or Objectivists, it
is assumed that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that
these people should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by
fine, flowing rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes
with which the ideologues attempt to dull people's critical thought by
telling them want they want to hear.
It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural"
elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an
"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great
mass of "second-handers" or who will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown
"ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody reading an elitist text will
consider him or herself to be part of the "select few." It's "natural" in
an elitist society to consider elites to be natural and yourself a
potential member of one!
Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which
has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes
since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This ideology
merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content.
During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being
adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that
human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need
"direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary
mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people
are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a
carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.
In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or
cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can
say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial
look at history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers of
those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if this
intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this
is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy
and the conformity produced by authority. (See also section B.1 for more
on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black points outs:
"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better
explanation for the creeping cretinisation all around us than even such
significant moronising mechanisms as television and education. People who
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is
so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally
grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into
the families *they* start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than
one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the
vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and
expertise in everything. They're used to it" [_The Abolition of Work_].
When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it
being *given* to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. Only
self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and distorting
effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few examples
of such self-liberation prove that most people, once considered incapable
of freedom, are more than up for the task.
Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their
authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves from the
debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in the words
of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on our knees."
As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary
achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the
loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do
so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged.
This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over his
economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping
her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides."
The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful
experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution, To
quote Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn
European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to
preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves
to reason about freedom" [quoted by Noam Chomsky, _Red and Black
Revolution_, issue 2].
A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?
No, and this is for two reasons. Terrorism means either targeting or not
worrying about killing innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be
created by ordinary people. One does not convince people of one's ideas by
blowing them up. Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One
cannot blow up a social relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the
actions of an elite few destroying rulers *on behalf of* the majority.
For so long as people feel the need for rulers, hierarchy will exist (see
section A.2.16 for more on this). As we have stressed earlier, freedom
cannot be given, only taken.
Moreover anarchists are *not* against individuals but the institutions and
social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power over
others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist revolution
is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin pointed out, "we do
not want the death of men but the abolition of positions and things" [_The
Lullers_].
How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly this
is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are
*not* anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Bader-Meinhoff
gang were often called "anarchists" despite their self-proclaimed
Marxist-Leninism. Smears, unfortunately, work. But the main reason for
the association of terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda
by deed" period in the anarchist movement.
This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1890 -- was marked by a small number
of individual anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class
(royalty, politicians and so forth). This was done for two reasons:
firstly, in revenge for the 20,000-plus deaths due to the French state's
brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many anarchists were
killed (propaganda by the deed began and was most frequent in France); and
secondly, as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their
oppressors could be defeated.
It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this
tactic, which in any case was a failure, as it gave the state an excuse to
clamp down on both the anarchist and labour movements as well as giving the
media a chance to associate anarchism with mindless violence, thus
alienating much of the population from the movement.
In addition, the assumption behind propaganda by the deed, i.e. that everyone
was waiting for a chance to rebel, was false. In fact, people are products
of the system in which they live; hence they accepted most of the myths
used to keep that system going. With the failure of propaganda by deed,
anarchists turned back to what most of the movement had been doing
anyway: encouraging the class struggle and the process of self-liberation.
This turn back to the roots of anarchism can be seen from the rise in
anarchosyndicalist unions after 1890 (see section A.5.3).
Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed,
few would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination under all
circumstances. Bombing a village because there might be an enemy in it is
terrorism, whereas taking out a murdering dictator is defence at best and
revenge at worst. As anarchists have long pointed out, if by terrorism it is
meant "killing innocent people," then the state is the greatest terrorist
of them all. If the people committing "acts of terror" are really anarchists,
they would do everything possible to avoid harming innocent people and never
use the statist line that "collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable.
So, to summarise. Terrorism has been used by anarchists. It has also been
used by many other political, social and religious groups and parties. For
example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus, Nationalists, Republicans, Mohammedans,
Sikhs, Marxists, Fascists, Jews and Patriots have all committed acts of
terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas have been labelled as "terrorist
by nature" - which shows anarchism`s threat to the status quo. There is
nothing more likely to discredit and marginalise an idea than for malicious
and/or ill-informed persons to portray those who believe and practice it
as "mad bombers" with no opinions or ideals at all, just an insane urge
to destroy.
Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism
as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of
anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that in our case
it is necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time and time again.
So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been
anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been
terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised that
social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of existence.
A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?
Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share
a common belief in the need for an individual to develop within themselves
their own sense of ethics. All anarchists agree with Max Stirner that
an individual must free themselves from the confines of existing morality
and question that morality - "I decide whether it is the *right thing* for
me; there is no right *outside* me." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 189]
Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject *any* concept
of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some universal
concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral relativism
is almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists (moral relativism
is the view that there is no right or wrong beyond what suits an individual
while moral absolutism is that view that what is right and wrong is
independent of what individuals think).
It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive
"egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral relativism goes,
this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged upon society by various
Moralists and true-believers because it bases itself, however slimly, upon
the idea of individual reason. However, as it denies the existence (or
desirability) of ethics it is but the mirror image of what it is rebelling
against. Neither option empowers the individual or is liberating.
Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to
authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion about
things (and will tolerate anything) or who blindly follow the commands of
the ruling elite are of great value to those in power. Both are rejected by
most anarchists in favour of an evolutionary approach to ethics based upon
human reason to develop the ethical concepts and interpersonal empathy to
generalise these concepts into ethical attitudes within society as well as
within individuals. An anarchistic approach to ethics therefore shares the
critical individual investigation implied in moral relativism but grounds
itself into common feelings of right and wrong. As Proudhon argued:
"All progress begins by abolishing something; every reform rests upon
denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based upon the proved
insufficiency of the old idea."
Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life itself,
are in a constant process of evolution. This leads them to reject the various
notions of "God's Law," "Natural Law," and so on in favour of theory of
ethical development based upon the idea that individuals are entirely
empowered to question and assess the world around them - in fact, they
require it in order to be truly free. You cannot be an anarchist and blindly
accept *anything*! Mikhail Bakunin, one of the founding anarchist thinkers,
expressed this radical scepticism as so:
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will
save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems.
Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on the mythology of
spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done through
logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions
than obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly
better than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism.
So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, "nature has thus
to be recognised as the *first ethical teacher of man.* The social instinct,
innate in men as well as in all the social animals, - this is the origin
of all ethical conceptions and all subsequent development of morality."
[_Ethics_, p. 45]
Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that,
essentially (according to anarchists), an individual's ethical viewpoints
are derived from three basic sources:
1) from the society an individual lives in. As Kropotkin pointed out,
"Man's conceptions of morality are completely dependent upon the form that
their social life assumed at a given time in a given locality. . . this
[social life] is reflected in the moral conceptions of men and in the moral
teachings of the given epoch." [_Ethics_, p. 315] In other words, experience
of life and of living.
2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical norms,
as indicated above. This is the core of Erich Fromm's argument that "Man
must accept the responsibility for himself and the fact that only using his
own powers can he give meaning to his life. . .*there is no meaning to life
except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers, by
living productively.*" [_Man for Himself_, p. 45] In other words, individual
thought and development.
3) The feeling of empathy - "the true origin of the moral sentiment.. .[is]
simply in the feeling of sympathy." ["Anarchist Morality", _Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 94] In other words, an individual's ability to
feel and share experiences and concepts with others.
This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of
ethics. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]he more powerful your imagination, the
better you can picture to yourself what any being feels when it is made
to suffer, and the more intense and delicate will your moral sense be. . .
And the more you are accustomed by circumstances, by those surrounding you,
or by the intensity of your own thought and your imagination, to *act* as
your own thought and imagination urge, the more will the moral sentiment grow
in you, the more will it became habitual" [Op. Cit., p. 95]
So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim "treat others as
you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances." Anarchists
are neither egoists nor altruists when it come to moral stands, they are
simply *human.*
As Kropotkin noted, "egoism" and "altruism" both have their roots in the
same motive - "however great the difference between the two actions in
their result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the quest for
pleasure." [Op. Cit., p. 85]
For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by themselves
and requires the full use of an individual's mental abilities as part of
a social grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism and other forms of
authority weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the number of
outlets for them to exercise their reason under the dead weight of hierarchy
as well as disrupting community, little wonder that life under capitalism
is marked by a stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.
Capitalist society gets the ethical behaviour it deserves.
In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it is
little wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By disempowering
individuals from developing their own ethical ideas and instead encouraging
blind obedience to external authority (and so moral relativism once
individual's think that they are without that authority's power), capitalist
society ensures an impoverishment of individuality and ego. As Erich Fromm
puts it:
"The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism,
not in the idea that mortal virtue is the same as the pursuit of
self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest;
not that they are *not concerned with their self-interest,* but that they
are *not* concerned enough with the interest of their real self; *not* in
the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves."
[_Man for Himself_, p. 139]
Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame
of reference - ethical ideas must be an expression of what gives us pleasure
as a whole individual (both rational and emotional, reason and empathy).
This leads all anarchists to reject the false division between egoism and
altruism and recognise that what many people (for example, capitalists)
call "egoism" results in individual self-negation and a reduction of
individual self-interest. As Kropotkin argues:
"What was it that morality, evolving in animal and human societies, was
striving for, if not for the opposition to the promptings of narrow
egoism, and bringing up humanity in the spirit of the development of
altruism? The very expressions 'egoism' and 'altruism' are incorrect,
because there can be no pure altruism without an admixture of personal
pleasure - and consequently, without egoism. It would therefore be more
nearly correct to say that ethics aims at *the development of social
habits and the weakening of the narrowly personal habits.* These last
make the individual lose sight of society through his regard for his own
person, and therefore they even fail to attain their object, i.e. the
welfare of the individual, whereas the development of habits of work
in common, and of mutual aid in general, leads to a series of beneficial
consequences in the family as well as society." [_Ethics_, pp. 307-8]
Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism
(i.e. "God's Law," "Natural Law," "Man's Nature," "A is A") and the
narrow egotism which moral relativism so easily lends itself to. Instead,
anarchists recognise that there exists concepts of right and wrong which
exist outside of an individual's evaluation of their own acts.
This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between
individuals does develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin,
be summarised as " Is it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it hurtful?
Then it is bad." ["Anarchist Morality", Op. Cit., p. 91] What acts human
beings think of as right or wrong is not, however, unchanging and the
"estimate of what is useful or harmful . . .changes, but the foundation
remains the same." [Op. Cit., p. 92]
This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental basis
of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical criterion
for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while recognising
the root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider ethics as fundamentally a
*human* idea - the product of life, thought and evolution created by
individuals and generalised by social living and community.
So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything
that denies the most precious achievement of history: the liberty,
uniqueness and dignity of the individual.
Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy, they
can place themselves into the position of those suffering the behaviour.
Acts which restrict individuality can be considered unethical for two
(interrelated) reasons:
Firstly, the protection and development individuality in all enriches the
life of every individual and it gives pleasure to individuals because of
the diversity it produces. This egoist basis of ethics reinforces the
second (social) reason, namely that individuality is good for society for
it enriches the community and social life, strengthening it and allowing
it to grow and evolve. As Bakunin constantly argued, progress is marked by
a movement from "the simple to the complex" or, in the words of Herbert
Read, it "is measured by the degree of differentiation within a society.
If the individual is a unit in a corporate mass, his [or her] life will be
limited, dull, and mechanical. If the individual is a unit on his [or her]
own, with space and potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop -
develop in the only real meaning of the word - develop in consciousness of
strength, vitality, and joy." ["The Philosophy of Anarchism," in _Anarchy and
Order_, p. 37]
This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,
diversity is strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic ethical
insight. In its most basic form, it provides a guide to "help us distinguish
which of our actions serve the thrust of natural evolution and which of them
impede them." [Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology of Freedom_, p. 342]
So, the ethical concept "lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the
entire animal world and in the conceptions of equity, which constitutes one
of the fundamental primary judgements of human reason." [_Ethics_, pp. 311-2]
Therefore anarchists embrace "the permanent presence of a *double tendency*
- towards greater development on the one side, of *sociality*, and, on the
other side, of a consequent increase of the intensity of life which results
in an increase of happiness for the *individuals*, and in progress -
physical, intellectual, and moral. [Op. Cit., pp. 19-20]
Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private property
and so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of individuals
is of prime concern and that our ability to empathise with others,
to see ourselves in others (our basic equality and common individuality,
in other words).
Hence anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a given
set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective interpersonal
conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic bounds and discussion
between equals. Hence anarchism is based on a humanistic approach to ethical
ideas, one that evolves along with society and individual development.
Hence an *ethical* society is one in which "[d]ifference among people will
be respected, indeed fostered, as elements that enrich the unity of
experience and phenomenon . . . [the different] will be conceived of as
individual parts of a whole all the richer because of its complexity."
[Murray Bookchin, _Post Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 82]=20
A.3 What types of anarchism are there?
Anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into broad
categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they consider to
be most suitable to human freedom. However, all types of anarchists share
a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker:
"In common with founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition
of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all
other means of production, the use of which must be available to all
without distinction. . . .the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that
the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all
institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation
has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression.
The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over
man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other."
[_Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 17].
It is within this context that anarchists disagree. The main
differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists,
although the economic arrangements each desire are not
mutually exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists have always
been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being
restricted mostly to the United States. In addition, anarchists
disagree over syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights
and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are
only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas,
the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant
state of change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected
in a movement that values freedom so highly.
To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the
sort of society we would like to live in.
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and
anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.
The first is in regard to the 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 non-violent 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 prefer 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 co-operate to meet their
common needs. Therefore, *all* anarchists emphasise the importance
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
anarchists agree with Bakunin:
"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 Galleani 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." [p. 40]
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
anarchist society. This, in all likelihood, "opens. . . the way for
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' 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 co-operatives
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 (see section C.4 "Why does the market become
dominated by big business?").
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 co-operative 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 co-operative labour. (For more discussion on
the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, see section G - "Is
individualist anarchism capitalistic?")
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply involve
differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist is
between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is
based around a form of market socialism - workers co-operates 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 co-operatives.
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products
freely between co-operatives. Only by extending the principle of co-operation
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 co-operatives but see confederations of these associations as being
the focal 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.
However, 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' organisations must create "not only
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary
period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced
that a Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees
and statutes of a government, but only by the solidaric
collaboration of the workers with hand and brain in each special
branch of production; that is, through the taking over of the
management of all plants by the producers themselves under such
form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry
are independent members of the general economic organism and
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the
products in the interest of the community on the basis of free
mutual agreements" [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 55].
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social anarchists
is slight and purely revolves around the question of anarcho-syndicalist
unions. 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.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back to
the 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 agriculture [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 co-operation 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 organisation
Earth First! (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a
close working relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it
shares 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 task is ahead" [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 40].
Nevertheless, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose capitalist wars,
often being jailed for their activities. Emma Goldman and Alexander
Berkman where both arrested and deported from America for organising a
No-Conscription League in 1917. The anarcho-syndicalist IWW was crushed
by a ruthless wave of government repression due to the threat its
organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful elites
who favoured war.
The attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence *is*
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use seems to contradict anarchist
principles. Many anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with
pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be
counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to
repress the movement. All anarchists support non-violent direct action
and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical
change. Many anarchists, such as Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman, have
been key figures of the peace movement.
However, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All
agree that a revolution which *institutionalises* violence will just
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence.
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject it
except in self-defence.
A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist
movements to remind them of their principles.
Anarchism and feminism have always been closely linked. Many outstanding
feminists have also been anarchists, including the pioneering Mary
Wollstonecraft (author of _A Vindication of the Rights of Woman_), the
Communard Louise Michel, Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays "The Traffic in
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage
and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). _Freedom_, the world's
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886. In
addition, all the major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were supporters
of women's equality. The "Free Women" movement in Spain during the Spanish
revolution is a classic example of women anarchists organising themselves
to defend their basic freedoms and create a society based on women's
freedom and equality (see _Free Women of Spain_ by Martha Ackelsberg
for more details on this important organisation).
Anarchism and feminism have shared much common history and a concern
about individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,
either." [quoted by Clifford Harper, _Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. 182]
It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have noted, women were
among the first victims of hierarchical society, which is thought to have
begun with the rise of patriarchy and ideologies of domination during the
late Neolithic era. Marilyn French argues [in _Beyond Power_] that the
first major social stratification of the human race occurred when
men began dominating women, with women becoming in effect a "lower"
and "inferior" social class.
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to the strong connections between
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical feminist
perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic theory
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is
to *obey* the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable
of questioning or even of thinking clearly." [Ibid.] Similarly, the
Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists in recognising
the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it." [_The Raven_,
no. 21, p. 6]
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values,
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity,
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however,
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See
e.g. Riane Eisler, _The Chalice and the Blade_; Elise Boulding, _The
Underside of History_). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation,
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political
forms [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and the Development of
Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., _Capitalist Patriarchy
and the Case for Socialist Feminism_, pp. 56-77]. Like all anarchists,
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and
public condemnation." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 211]
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies or either the right or left. It
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies,
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujures Libres put
it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a
masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_.
p.2] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further discussion on patriarchy
and hierarchy).
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's "only
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege" and if these
institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will still
be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg,
Op. Cit., pp. 90-91, p. 91]
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist
project as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Anarcha-feminism continues
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong,
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same
chance of being a boss as a man does.
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism
as a denial of liberty. The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
separated from the struggle against hierarchy *as such.* As L. Susan
Brown puts it:
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination,
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserver individual
existential freedom, for both men and women." [_The Politics of
Individualism_, p. 144]
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of the
origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
for example, Carline Merchant, _The Death of Nature_, 1980). Both women
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not
only external constraints but also internal ones.
A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally
regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics"
or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature,
education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so
forth.
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately
attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms
to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and
exploitation. Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be
considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple
"war-is-hell" model and allows the reader to see how militarism is
connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or
methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional
patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism
"implies the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that
expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with
a system of values based on freedom and community" [_The Anarchist
Moment: Reflections on Culture, Nature and Power_].
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution
if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in
the majority of the population. For mass acquiescence in the current
system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their
"character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is
produced by many forms of conditioning and socialisation that have
developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five
or six thousand years.
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place.
For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give
orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself --
are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable
with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and
indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of
failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals
of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and
ruling class were quickly created. These failures are generally
attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists,
and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians
only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth
of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary
people.
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a lengthy period of
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated
or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing
and educational methods. We will explore this issue more fully in section
B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian
civilisation?), J.6 (What methods of child rearing do anarchists
advocate?), and J.5.13 (What are Modern Schools?).
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought
and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist
movement. For anarchists, its important to <i>"build the new world in the
shell of the old"</i> in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist
culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider
consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist
activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian
alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchists movement is one
that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both
activities feeding into and supporting the other.
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and
that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in
accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 75]
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas.
As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an anarchist
sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from
about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in its Zen
form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit., p. 53,
p. 65] Some combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist
influences. However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of
Christian Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers
that "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be
none like that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there
"is no authority except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion
with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a
true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is
up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that
(to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) _The Kingdom of
God is within you_.
Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the
world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all
been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private
property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which
could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although
one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon
communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually
appeared within radical Christian movements (indeed, the Bible
would have been used to express radical libertarian aspirations
of the oppressed, which, in later times, would have taken the form
of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus clergyman's John Ball's
egalitarian comments during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then a gentleman?"
The history of Christian anarchism includes the *Heresy of the
Free Spirit* in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the
*Anabaptists* in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within
Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of
William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions
in his _Practical Christian Socialism_ in 1854. However, Christian
anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement
with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of
the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom
force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would
certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing
to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing
wrong." [_The Kingdom of God is Within You_, p. 242]
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society
self-organised from below:
"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for
themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for
themselves but for others?" [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 306]
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy
is that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of
solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within *ourselves*,
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised *in our
own behaviour.*" [_A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 251-2]
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon,
had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land,
arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and
its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such
narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there
is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for
landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always
those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage."
[Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in
anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (possession
is "always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice
and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence."
[Ibid.]). Indeed, he argues that:
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor
-- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection
by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations
of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more
do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one
owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of
famine." [Ibid.]
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals
and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible
for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man
whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore,
"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [_The
Kingdom Of God is Within You_, p. 338, p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy
argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral,
self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can
take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within
society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted
. . . *resistance to evil*; and to one of the ways of resistance -
by active force - he added another way: *resistance through
disobedience, the passive force.*" [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his
ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural
Russian life *and* the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as _Fields,
Factories and Workshops_), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry
George.
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain
out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation
of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a
free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist).
The *Catholic Worker Group* in the United States was also heavily
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded the paper the _Catholic
Worker_ in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in
general can also be found in *Liberation Theology* movements in Latin
and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism
amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that
Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by state socialist
ideas rather than anarchist ones).
In countries where Churches hold *de facto* political power, such as in
Ireland, in parts of South America, in nineteenth and early twentieth
century Spain and so forth, typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious
because the Church has the power to suppress dissent and class struggle.
So, while most anarchists are atheists (and so agree with Bakunin that
if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom and dignity,
to abolish it) there is a minority tradition within anarchism which
draws anarchist conclusions from religion. In addition, most social
anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as dogmatic and extreme, seeing
the need (sometimes) for violence to resist greater evils. However,
most anarchists would agree with Tolstoyians on the need for individual
transformation of values as a key aspect of creating an anarchist
society and on the importance of non-violence as a general tactic
(although, we must stress, that few anarchists totally reject the
use of violence in self-defence, when no other option is available).
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without
adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form
of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such
as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,
. . . [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
coexistence of different anarchist schools." [_Anarchist Ideology and
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898_, p. 135]
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain
who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of
their two theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt
to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be
clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic
plan on anyone -- even in theory. Thus the economic preferences
of anarchists should be of "secondary importance" to abolishing
capitalism and the state, with free experimentation the one rule
of a free society.
Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives"
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the
New Social Order" within _Bakunin on Anarchism_, the collectivists did
see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin
had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism
was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero,
Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the
main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue
was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played
a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied
by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists
stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed
trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the
importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat
anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy
and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists
who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
way into the pages of _La Revolte_ in Paris. This provoked many anarchists
to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say
the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max
Nettlau, _A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 198-9] Over time, most
anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the
economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to
stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state)
rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate.
As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the
labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working
class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to
communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after
a revolution.
Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There Benjamin
Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not anarchists while
John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Just as people
like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist
groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself
simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without
Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different
experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order
to determine the most appropriate form." [Peter Marshall, _Demanding
the Impossible_, p. 393]
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
adjectives" (see Nettlau's _A Short History of Anarchism_, pages 195 to
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types
of anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are
flawed. However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism
(communism, syndicalism, religious etc.) are not mutually exclusive and
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance
is reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue
that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist
movement. After all, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a
use of "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly
agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being
discussed were *anti-capitalist* (i.e. socialistic). In other
words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along
with the state and once this was the case free experimentation
would develop. In other words, the struggle against the state was
just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and exploitation
and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists
do not seek the abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not
anarchists and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the
so-called "anarchist" capitalists (see section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism
is not anarchist).
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?
Although Gerard Winstanley (_The Law of Freedom_, 1652) and William
Godwin (_Enquiry Concerning Political Justice_, 1793) had begun to
unfold the philosophy of anarchism in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was
not until the second half of the 19th century that anarchism emerged as a
coherent theory with a systematic, developed programme. This work was
mainly started by four people -- a German, *Max Stirner* (1806-1856), a
Frenchman, *Pierre-Joseph Proudhon* (1809-1865), and two Russians,
*Mikhail Bakunin* (1814-1876) and *Peter Kropotkin* (1842-1921). They took
the ideas in common circulation within sections of the working population
and expressed them in written form.
Born in the atmosphere of German romantic philosophy, Stirner's anarchism
(set forth in _The Ego and Its Own_) was an extreme form of individualism,
or *egoism,* which placed the unique individual above all else -- state,
property, law or duty. His ideas remain a cornerstone of anarchism.
Stirner attacked both capitalism and state socialism, laying the
foundations of both communist and individualist anarchism by his egoist
critique of capitalism and the state that supports it.
In place of capitalism, Max Stirner urges the "union of egoists," free
associations of unique individuals who co-operate as equals in order to
maximise their freedom and satisfy their desires (including emotional ones
for solidarity, or "intercourse" as Stirner called it).
Individualism by definition includes no concrete programme for changing
social conditions. This was attempted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the
first to describe himself openly as an anarchist. His theories of
*mutualism* and *federalism* had a profound effect on the growth
of anarchism as a mass movement and spelled out clearly how an
anarchist world could function and be co-ordinated. Proudhon's
ideas are the immediate source for both social and individualist
anarchism, with each thread emphasising different aspects of mutualism.
Proudhon's major works include _What is Property_, _Economic
Contradictions_, and _The Political Capacity of the Working Classes_.
Mikhail Bakunin, the central figure in the development of modern anarchist
activism and ideas, emphasised the role of *collectivism,* *mass insurrection,*
and *spontaneous revolt* in the launching of a free, classless society.
He also emphasised the social nature of humanity and individuality,
rejecting the abstract individualism of liberalism as a denial of freedom.
His ideas become dominant in the 20th century among large sections of the
radical labour movement. Many of his ideas are almost identical to what
would later be called syndicalism. Bakunin influenced many union movements
-- especially in Spain, where a major anarchist social revolution took
place. His works include _God and the State_, _The Paris Commune and the
Idea of the State_, and many others. _Bakunin on Anarchism_, edited by Sam
Dolgoff is an excellent collection of his major writings.
Peter Kropotkin, a scientist by training, fashioned a sophisticated and
detailed anarchist analysis of modern conditions linked to a thorough-going
prescription for a future society -- *communist-anarchism* -- which
continues to be the most widely-held theory among anarchists. He
identified *mutual aid* as the best means by which individuals can develop
and grow, pointing out that competition *within* humanity (and other
species) was often not in the best interests of those involved. His major
works included _Mutual Aid_, _The Conquest of Bread_, _Field, Factories,
and Workshops_, _Modern Science and Anarchism_, _Act for Yourself_, _The
State: Its Historic Role_, and many others.
The various theories proposed by these "founding anarchists" are not,
however, mutually exclusive: they are interconnected in many ways, and to
some extent refer to different levels of social life. Individualism
relates closely to the conduct of our private lives: only by recognising
the uniqueness and freedom of others and forming unions with them can we
protect and maximise our own uniqueness and liberty; mutualism relates to
our general relations with others: by mutually working together and
co-operating we ensure that we do not work for others. Production under
anarchism would be collectivist, with people working together for their
own, and the common, good, and in the wider political and social world
decisions would be reached communally.
Anarchist ideas of course did not stop developing when Kropotkin died.
Neither are they the products of just four men. Anarchism is by its very
nature an evolving theory, with many different thinkers and activists. Of
the many other anarchists who could be mentioned here, we can mention but
a few.
In the United States Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were two of the
leading anarchist thinkers and activists. Goldman united Stirner's
egoism with Kropotkin's communism into a passionate and powerful
theory which combined the best of both. She also placed anarchism
at the centre of feminist theory and activism (see _Anarchism and
Other Essays_ and _Red Emma Speaks_). Alexander Berkman, Emma's
lifelong companion, produced a classic introduction to anarchist
ideas called _What is Communist Anarchism?_ (also known as the _ABC
of Anarchism_). Both he and Goldman were expelled by the US government
to Russia after the 1917 revolution there as they were considered
too dangerous to be allowed to remain in the land of the free. Voltairine
de Cleyre also played an important role in the US anarchist movement,
enriching both US and international anarchist theory with her articles,
poems and speeches. Her work includes such classics as _Anarchism
and American Traditions_ and _Direct Action_.
Italy, with its strong and dynamic anarchist movement, has produced some
of the best anarchist writers. Errico Malatesta spent over 50 years fighting
for anarchism across the world and his writings are amongst the best in
anarchist theory (see _Anarchy_ or _The Anarchist Revolution_ and _Malatesta:
Life and Ideas_, both edited by Vernon Richards). Luigi Galleani produced a
very powerful anti-organisational anarchist-communism which proclaimed that
"Communism is simply the economic foundation by which the individual has the
opportunity to regulate himself and carry out his functions" [_The End of
Anarchism?_]. Camillo Berneri, before being murdered by the Communists
during the Spanish Revolution, continued the fine tradition of critical,
practical anarchism associated with Italian anarchism.
As far as individualist anarchism goes, the undoubted "king" was Ben
Tucker. Tucker in his _Instead of Book_ used his intellect and wit to
attack all who he considered enemies of freedom (mostly capitalists, but
also a few social anarchists as well!). Tucker was followed by Lawrence
Labadie who carried the individualist-anarchist torch after Tucker's
death, believing that "that freedom in every walk of life is the greatest
possible means of elevating the human race to happier conditions."
Undoubtedly the Russian Leo Tolstoy is the most famous writer associated
with religious anarchism and has had the greatest impact in spreading the
spiritual and pacifistic ideas associated with that tendency. Influencing
such notable people as Gandhi and the *Catholic Worker Group* around Dorothy
Day, Tolstoy presented a radical interpretation of Christianity which
stressed individual responsibility and freedom above the mindless
authoritarianism and hierarchy which marks so much of mainstream
Christianity. Tolstoy's works, like those of that other radical libertarian
Christian William Blake, have inspired many Christians towards a libertarian
vision of Jesus' message which has been hidden by the mainstream churches.
Thus Christian Anarchism maintains, along with Tolstoy, that "Christianity
in its true sense puts an end to government" (see, for example, Tolstoy's
_The Kingdom of God is within you_ and Peter Marshall's _William Blake:
Visionary Anarchist_).
More recently, Noam Chomsky (in _Deterring Democracy_, _Necessary
Illusions_, _World Orders, Old and New_ and many others) and Murray
Bookchin (_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, _The Ecology of Freedom_, _Towards an
Ecological Society_, and _Remaking Society_, among others) have kept the
social anarchist movement at the front of political theory and analysis.
Bookchin's work has placed anarchism at the centre of green thought and
has been a constant threat to those wishing to mystify or corrupt the
movement to create an ecological society. Colin Ward in _Anarchy in
Action_ and elsewhere has updated Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_ by uncovering
and documenting the anarchistic nature of everyday life even within
capitalism. His work on housing has emphasised the importance of
collective self-help and social management of housing against the
twin evils of privatisation and nationalisation.
We could go on; there are many more writers we could mention. But
besides these, there are the thousands of "ordinary" anarchist militants
who have never written books but whose common sense and activism have
encouraged the spirit of revolt within society and helped build the new
world in the shell of the old. As Kropotkin noted, "anarchism originated
among the people, and it will preserve its vitality and creative force so
long as it remains a movement of the people."
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?
Anarchism, more than anything else, is about the efforts of millions of
revolutionaries changing the world in the last two centuries. Here we
will discuss some of the high points of this movement, all of them of a
profoundly anti-capitalist nature.
Anarchism *is* about radically changing the world, not just making the
present system less inhuman by encouraging the anarchistic tendencies
within it to grow and develop. While no purely anarchist revolution has
taken place yet, there have been numerous ones with a highly anarchist
character and level of participation. And while these have
*all* been destroyed, in each case it has been at the hands of outside
force brought against them (backed either by Communists or Capitalists),
not because of any internal problems in anarchism itself. These revolutions,
despite their failure to survive in the face of overwhelming force, have
been both an inspiration for anarchists and proof that anarchism
is a viable social theory and can be practised on a large scale.
It is important to point out that these examples are of wide-scale social
experiments and do not imply that we ignore the undercurrent of anarchist
practice which exists in everyday life, even under capitalism. Both Peter
Kropotkin (in _Mutual Aid_) and Colin Ward (in _Anarchy in Action_) have
documented the many ways in which ordinary people, usually unaware of
anarchism, have worked together as equals to meet their common interests.
As Colin Ward argues, "an anarchist society, a society which organises
itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the
snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism
and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal
loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism."
[_Anarchy in Action_, p. 14].
Anarchism is not only about a future society, it is also about the social
struggle happening today. It is not a condition but a process, which we
create by our self-activity and self-liberation.
By the 1960's, however, many commentators were writing off the anarchist
movement as a thing of the past. Not only had fascism finished off
European anarchist movements in the years before and during the war, but
in the post-war period these movements were prevented from recovering by
the capitalist West on one hand and the Leninist East on the other. Over
the same period of time, anarchism had been repressed in the US, Latin
America, China, Korea (where a social revolution with anarchist content
was put down before the Korean War), and Japan. Even in the one or two
countries that escaped the worst of the repression, the combination of
the Cold War and international isolation saw libertarian unions like the
Swedish SAC become reformist.
But the 60's were a decade of new struggle, and all over the world the
'New Left' looked to anarchism as well as elsewhere for its ideas. Many
of the prominent figures of the massive explosion of May 1968 in France
considered themselves anarchists. Although these movements themselves
degenerated, those coming out of them kept the idea alive and began to
construct new movements. The death of Franco in 1976 saw a massive
rebirth of anarchism in Spain, with up to 500,000 people attending the
CNT's first post-Franco rally. The return to a limited democracy in some
South American countries in the late 70's and 80's saw a growth in
anarchism there. Finally, in the late 80's it was anarchists who struck
the first blows against the Leninist USSR, with the first protest march
since 1928 being held in Moscow by anarchists in 1987.
Today the anarchist movement, although still weak, organises tens of
thousands of revolutionaries in many countries. Spain, Sweden and Italy all
have libertarian union movements organising some 250,000 between them.
Most other European countries have several thousand active anarchists.
Anarchist groups have appeared for the first time in other countries,
including Nigeria and Turkey. In South America the movement has recovered
massively. A contact sheet circulated by the Venezuelan anarchist group
_Corrio A_ lists over 100 organisations in just about every country.
Perhaps the recovery is slowest in North America, but there, too, all the
libertarian organisations seem to be undergoing significant growth. As
this growth accelerates, many more examples of anarchy in action will be
created and more and more people will take part in anarchist organisations
and activities, making this part of the FAQ less and less important.
However, it is essential to highlight mass examples of anarchism working
on a large scale in order to avoid the specious accusation of "utopianism."
As history is written by the winners, these examples of anarchy in action are
often hidden from view in obscure books. Rarely are they mentioned in the
schools and universities (or if mentioned, they are distorted). Needless to
say, the few examples we give are just that, a few.
Anarchism has a long history in many countries, and we cannot attempt to
document every example, just those we consider to be important. We are also
sorry if the examples seem Eurocentric. We have, due to space and time
considerations, had to ignore the syndicalist revolt (1910 to 1914) and the
shop steward movement (1917-21) in Britain, Germany (1919-21), Portugal (1974),
the Mexican revolution, anarchists in the Cuban revolution, the struggle
in Korea against Japanese (then US and Russian) imperialism during and after
the Second World War, Hungary (1956), the "the refusal of work" revolt
in the late 1960's (particularly in "the hot Autumn" in Italy, 1969),
the UK miner's strike (1984-85), the struggle against the Poll
Tax in Britain (1988-92), the strikes in France in 1986 and 1995,
the Italian COBAS movement in the 80's and 90's, and numerous other major
struggles that have involved anarchist ideas of self-management (ideas
that usually develop from the movement themselves, without anarchists
necessarily playing a major, or "leading", role). For anarchists,
revolutions and mass struggles are "festivals of the oppressed," when
ordinary people start to act for themselves and change both themselves
and the world.
A.5.1 The Paris Commune
The Paris Commune of 1871 played an important role in the development of
both anarchist ideas and the movement. As Bakunin commented at the time:
"revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] has just attempted its first
striking and practical demonstration in the Paris Commune" [_Bakunin on
Anarchism_, p. 263].
The Paris Commune was created after France was defeated by Prussia in the
Franco-Prussian war. The French government tried to send in troops to
regain the Parisian National Guard's cannon to prevent it from falling into
the hands of the population. The soldiers refused to fire on the jeering
crowd and turned their weapons on their officers. This was March 18th; the
Commune had begun.
In the free elections called by the Parisian National Guard, the citizens
of Paris elected a council made up of a majority of Jacobins and
Republicans and a minority of socialists (mostly Blanquists --
authoritarian socialists -- and followers of the anarchist Proudhon). This
council proclaimed Paris autonomous and desired to recreate France as a
confederation of communes (i.e. communities). Within the Commune, the
elected council people were recallable and paid an average wage. In
addition, they had to report back to the people who had elected them.
Why this development caught the imagination of anarchists is clear -- it
has strong similarities with anarchist ideas. In fact, the example of the
Paris Commune was in many ways similar to how Bakunin had predicted that a
revolution would have to occur -- a major city declaring itself
autonomous, organising itself, leading by example, and urging the rest of
the planet to follow it. (See "Letter to Albert Richards" in _Bakunin on
Anarchism_). The Paris Commune began the process of creating a new
society, one organised from the bottom up.
Many anarchists played a role within the Commune -- for example Louise
Michel, the Reclus brothers, and Eugene Varlin (the latter murdered in the
repression afterwards). As for the reforms initiated by the Commune, such
as the re-opening of workplaces as co-operatives, anarchists can see their
ideas of associated labour beginning to be realised. In the Commune's call
for federalism and autonomy, anarchists see their "future social
organisation. . . [being] carried out from the bottom up, by the free
association or federation of workers, starting with associations, then
going into the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally,
culminating in a great international and universal federation" [Bakunin,
ibid., p. 270].
However, for anarchists the Commune did not go far enough. It did not
abolish the state within the Commune, as it had abolished it beyond it.
The Communards organised themselves "in a Jacobin manner" (to use
Bakunin's cutting term). As Peter Kropotkin pointed out, it did not "break
with the tradition of the State, of representative government, and it did
not attempt to achieve within the Commune that organisation from the
simple to the complex it inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and
free federation of the Communes" [_Fighting the Revolution_, p. 16]. In
addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough, making no
attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives and forming associations
of these co-operatives to co-ordinate and support each other's economic
activities. However, as the city was under constant siege by the French
army, it is understandable that the Communards had other things on their
minds.
Instead of abolishing the state within the commune by organising
federations of directly democratic mass assemblies, like the Parisian
"sections" of the revolution of 1789-93 (see Kropotkin's _Great French
Revolution_ for more on these), the Paris Commune kept representative
government and suffered for it. "Instead of acting for themselves. . .
the people, confiding in their governors, entrusted them the charge of
taking the initiative" [Kropotkin, _Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 19], and
so the council became "the greatest obstacle to the revolution" [Bakunin,
Op. Cit. p. 241].
The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected
it, and thus more and more irrelevant. And as its irrelevance grew, so
did its authoritarian tendencies, with the Jacobin majority creating a
"Committee of Public Safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution."
The Committee was opposed by the libertarian socialist minority and
was, fortunately, ignored in practice by the people of Paris as they
defended their freedom against the French army, which was attacking
them in the name of capitalist civilisation and "liberty." On May 1st,
government troops entered the city, followed by seven days of
bitter street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of the
bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over 25,000
people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after they had
surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves.
For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold. Firstly,
a decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary political
form of a free society. Secondly, "there is no more reason for a
government inside a Commune than for government above the Commune" [Peter
Kropotkin, _Fighting the Revolution_, p. 19]. This means that an
anarchist community will be based on a confederation of neighbourhood and
workplace assemblies freely co-operating together. Thirdly, it is
critically important to unify political and economic revolutions into a
*social* revolution. "They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put
off the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed was
*to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!*" [Peter
Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 19]
A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs
The socialist festival of May Day, although hijacked in recent years by
Leninists, originated with the execution of four anarchists in Chicago in
1886 for organising workers in the fight for the eight-hour day. The
American Federation of Labour had issued a call for strikes on May 1st,
1886, in support of this demand.
In Chicago the anarchists were the main force in the union movement, and
partially as a result of their presence, the unions translated this call
into strikes on May 1st. A meeting was called to protest police brutality
in the course of these strikes. (The police had attacked pickets,
killing one). As the meeting was breaking up it was attacked by the
police. A bomb was thrown into the police ranks, who opened fire on the
crowd. In the aftermath, all known anarchists were rounded up, the police
being told to "Make the raids first and look up the law afterwards" by
the state attorney.
Eight anarchists were put on trial for accessory to murder. No pretence
was made that any of the accused had carried out or even planned the
bomb. Instead the jury were told "Law is on trial. Anarchy is on trial.
These men have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and indicted
because they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the thousands who
follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of
them, hang them and you save our institutions, our society." The jury was
composed of businessmen and the relative of one of the cops killed, so,
not surprisingly, the accused were convicted. Seven were sentenced to
death, one to 15 years' imprisonment.
An international campaign resulted in two of the death sentences being
commuted to life. Of the remaining five, one cheated the executioner and
killed himself on the eve of the execution. The remaining four were hanged
on November 11th 1887. They are known in Labour history as the Haymarket
Martyrs.
Albert Spies (one of the Martyrs) addressed the court after he had been
sentenced to die:
"If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labour movement . . .
the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil
in misery and want, expect salvation -- if this is your opinion, then
hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but there and there, behind
you -- and in front of you, and everywhere, flames blaze up. It is a
subterranean fire. You cannot put it out."
At the time and in the years to come, this defiance of the state and
capitalism was to win thousands to anarchism, particularly in the US itself.
To understand why the state and business class were so determined to hang
the Chicago Anarchists, it is necessary to realise they were considered
the "leaders" of a massive radical union movement. In 1884, the Chicago
Anarchists produced the world's first daily anarchist newspaper, the
_Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeiting_. This was written, read, owned and published
by the German immigrant working class movement. The combined circulation
of this daily plus a weekly (_Vorbote_) and a Sunday edition (_Fackel_) more
than doubled, from 13,000 per issues in 1880 to 26,980 in 1886. Anarchist
weekly papers existed for other ethnic groups as well.
Anarchists were very active in the Central Labour Union, making it, in the
words of Albert Parsons (one of the Martyrs), "the embryonic group of the
future 'free society.'" In addition to their union organising, the Chicago
anarchist movement also organised social societies, picnics, lectures,
dances, libraries and a host of other activities. These all helped to
forge a distinctly working-class revolutionary culture in the heart of the
"American Dream." The threat to the ruling class and their system was too
great to allow it to continue (particularly with memories of the vast
uprising of labour in 1877 still fresh -- see _Strike!_ by J. Brecher for
details of this strike movement as well as the Haymarket events). Hence
the repression, kangaroo court, and the state murder of those the state
and capitalist class considered "leaders" of the movement.
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions
Just before the turn of the century in Europe, the anarchist movement
began to create one of the most successful attempts to apply
anarchist organisational ideas in everyday life. This was in response
to the disastrous "propaganda by deed" period, in which individual
anarchists assassinated government leaders in attempts to provoke a
popular uprising and in revenge for the mass murders of the Communards. In
response to this failed and counterproductive campaign, anarchists went
back to their roots and to the ideas of Bakunin, beginning to build mass
revolutionary unions (syndicalism and anarchosyndicalism).
In the period from the 1890's to the outbreak of World War I, anarchists
built revolutionary unions in most European countries, which became most
widespread in Italy and France. In addition, anarchists in South and North
America were also successful in organising syndicalist unions. Almost all
industrialised countries had some syndicalist movement, although Europe and
South America had the biggest and strongest ones. These unions were
organised in a confederal manner, from the bottom up, along anarchist
lines. They fought with capitalists on a day-to-day basis around the issue
of better wages and working conditions, but they also sought to overthrow
capitalism through the revolutionary general strike.
That anarchist organisational techniques encouraged member participation,
empowerment and militancy, and that they also successfully fought for
reforms and promoted class consciousness, can be seen in the growth of
anarcho-syndicalist unions and their impact on the labour movement. The
Industrial Workers of the World, for example, still inspires union
activists and has, throughout its long history, provided many union songs
and slogans.
Most of the syndicalist unions were severely repressed during World War I,
but in the immediate post-war years they reached their height. This wave
of militancy was known as the "red years" in Italy, where it attained its
high point with factory occupations (see section A.5.5). But these years
also saw the destruction of these unions in country after county, through
two influences. On the one hand, the apparent success of the Russian
revolution led many activists to turn to authoritarian politics. The
Communist parties deliberately undermined the libertarian unions,
encouraging fights and splits. More importantly, however, these years saw
capitalism go on the offensive with a new weapon -- fascism. Fascism arose
in Italy and Germany as an attempt by capitalism to physically smash the
widespread organisations the working class had built. In both these
countries, anarchists were forced to flee into exile, vanish from sight, or
became victims of assassins or concentration camps. In the USA, the IWW
was crushed by a wave of repression backed whole-heartedly by the media, the
state, and the capitalist class.
In Spain, however, the CNT, the anarcho-syndicalist union, continued to
grow, claiming one and a half million members by 1936. The capitalist class
embraced fascism to save their power from the dispossessed, who were
becoming confident of their power and their right to manage their own
lives (see section A.5.6). Elsewhere, capitalists supported authoritarian
states in order to crush the labour movement and make their countries
safe for capitalism. Only Sweden escaped this trend, where the syndicalist
union the SAC is still organising workers (and is, in fact, like many
other syndicalist unions, growing as workers turn away from bureaucratic
unions whose leaders seem more interested in protecting their privileges
and cutting deals with management than defending their members).
A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.
The Russian revolution of 1917 saw a huge growth in anarchism in that
country and many experiments in anarchist ideas. However, in popular
culture the Russian Revolution is seen not as a mass movement by ordinary
people struggling towards freedom but as the means by which Lenin imposed
his dictatorship on Russia. The Russian Revolution, like most history, is
a good example of the maxim "history is written by those who win." Both
capitalist and Leninist histories of the period between 1917 and 1921
ignore what the anarchist Voline called "the unknown revolution" -- the
revolution called forth from below by the actions of ordinary people.
The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of the
masses, and the revolution carried on in this vein until the new,
"socialist" state was powerful enough to stop it. For the Left, the end
of Tsarist was the culmination of years of effort by socialists and
anarchists everywhere, representing the progressive wing of human thought
overcoming traditional oppression, and as such was duly praised by leftists
around the world.
In the workplaces and streets and on the land, more and more people became
convinced that abolishing feudalism politically was *not* enough. The
overthrow of the Tsar made little real difference if feudal exploitation
still existed in the economy, so workers started to seize their workplaces
and peasants, the land. All across Russia, ordinary people started to
build their own organisations, unions, co-operatives, factory committees
and councils (or "soviets" in Russian). These organisations were initially
organised in anarchist fashion, with recallable delegates and being
federated with each other.
The anarchists participated in this movement, encouraging all tendencies
to self-management. As Jacques Sadoul (a French officer) noted in early
1918:
"The anarchist party is the most active, the most militant of the
opposition groups and probably the most popular. . . .The Bolsheviks are
anxious." [quoted by Daniel Guerin, _Anarchism_, pp. 95-6]
Anarchists were particularly active in the movement for workers
self-management of production (see M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and
Workers Control_).
But by early 1918, the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party,
once they had seized power, began the physical suppression of their
anarchist rivals. Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks,
since the Bolshevik leaders had hidden their state-building ideology
behind support for the soviets.
However, this support quickly "withered away" as the Bolsheviks showed
that they were, in fact, not seeking true socialism but were instead securing
power for themselves and pushing not for collective ownership of land and
productive resources but for government ownership. The Bolsheviks,
for example, systematically destroyed the workers' control movement, even
though it was successfully increasing production in the face of difficult
circumstances.
Lenin suppressed workers' control on the spurious grounds that it would
reduce the productivity of labour -- an argument that has subsequently
been shown to be false by cases where workers' control has been established
(see section C.2.4). It's interesting to note that today's capitalist
apologists, who often claim workers' control would reduce productivity,
are actually using a discredited Leninist argument.
While eliminating the workers' control movement, the Bolsheviks also
systematically undermined, arrested, and killed their most vocal
opponents, the anarchists, as well as restricting the freedom of the
masses they claimed to be protecting. Independent unions, political
parties, the right to strike, self-management in the workplace and
on the land -- all were destroyed in the name of "socialism." For
insiders, the Revolution had died a few months after the Bolsheviks
took over. To the outside world, the Bolsheviks and the USSR came to
represent "socialism" even as they systematically destroyed the
basis of real socialism. The Bolsheviks put down the libertarian
socialist elements within their country, the crushing of the uprisings
at Kronstadt and in the Ukraine being the final nails in the coffin of
socialism and the subjugation of the soviets.
The Kronstadt uprising of February, 1921, was, for anarchists, of immense
importance. This is because it was the first major uprising of ordinary
people for real socialism.
"Kronstadt was the first entirely independent attempt of the people to free
themselves of all control and carry out the social revolution: this attempt
was made directly. . . by the working classes themselves, without political
shepherds, without leaders, or tutors" [Voline, _The Unknown Revolution_,
quoted by Guerin, Ibid., p. 105].
In the Ukraine, anarchist ideas were most successfully applied. In areas
under the protection of the Makhnovist movement, working class people
organised their own lives directly, based on their own ideas and needs --
true social self-determination. Under the leadership of Nestor Makhno, a
self-educated peasant, the movement not only fought against both Red and
White dictatorships but also resisted the Ukrainian nationalists.
In opposition to the call for "national self-determination," i.e. a new
Ukrainian state, Makhno called instead for working class self-determination
in the Ukraine and across the world. The Makhnovists organised worker and
peasant conferences (some of which the Bolsheviks tried to ban) as well
as free soviets, unions and communes. He became known as the Ukrainian
"Robin Hood."
The Makhnovists argued that the "freedom of the workers and peasants is
their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and
peasants themselves to act, to organise themselves, to agree among themselves
in all aspects of their lives, as they see fit and desire. . .The Makhnovists
can do no more that give aid and counsel. . .In no circumstances can they,
nor do they wish to, govern." [Peter Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Ibid.,
p. 99]
In Alexandrovsk, the Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of
action - their Revkom (Revolutionary Committee) would handle political
affairs and the Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them "to go and
take up some honest trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the
workers." [Peter Arshinov in _The Anarchist Reader_, p. 141]
The Makhnovists rejected the Bolshevik corruption of the soviets and
instead proposed "the free and completely independent soviet system of
working people without authorities and their arbitrary laws." Their
proclamations stated that the "working people themselves must freely choose
their own soviets, which carry out the will and desires of the working
people themselves, that is to say. ADMINISTRATIVE, not ruling soviets."
Economically, capitalism would be abolished along with the state -
the land and workshops "must belong to the working people themselves, to
those who work in them, that is to say, they must be socialised." [_The
History of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 271 and p. 273]
The anarchist experiment of self-management in the Ukraine came to a bloody
end when the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists (their former allies
against the "Whites," or pro-Tsarists) when they were no longer needed.
The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the funeral
of Kropotkin in 1921, when some 10,000 marched behind his coffin. Many of
these had been released from prison for the day and were to be murdered by
Leninists in later years. From about 1921 on, anarchists started
describing the USSR as a "state-capitalist" nation to indicate that
although individual bosses might have been eliminated, the Soviet state
bureaucracy played the same role as individual bosses do in the West.
For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role played by
anarchists, the following books are recommended: _The Unknown Revolution_
by Voline; _The Guillotine at Work_ by G.P. Maximov; _The Bolshevik Myth_
and _The Russian Tragedy_, both by Alexander Berkman; _The Bolsheviks and
Workers Control_ by M. Brinton; _The Kronstadt Uprising_ by Ida Mett; _The
History of the Makhnovist Movement_ by Peter Arshinov. Many of these books
were written by anarchists active during the revolution, many imprisoned
by the Bolsheviks and deported to the West due to international pressure
exerted by anarcho-syndicalist delegates to Moscow who the Bolsheviks were
trying to win over to Leninism. The majority of such delegates stayed
true to their libertarian politics and convinced their unions to reject
Bolshevism and break with Moscow. By the early 1920's all the
anarcho-syndicalist union confederations had joined with the anarchists
in rejecting the "socialism" in Russia as state capitalism and party
dictatorship.
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
After the end of the First World War there was a massive radicalisation
across Europe and the world. Union membership exploded, with strikes,
demonstrations and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly due
to the war, partly to the apparent success of the Russian Revolution.
Across Europe, anarchist ideas became more popular and anarcho-syndicalist
unions grew in size. For example, in Britain, the ferment produced the
shop stewards' movement and the strikes on Clydeside, in Germany, the
rise of industrial unionism, and in Spain, a massive growth in the
anarcho-syndicalist CNT. In addition, it also, unfortunately, saw the
rise and growth of both social democratic and communist parties.
In August, 1920, there were large-scale stay-in strikes in Italy in
response to an owner wage cut and lockout. These strikes began in the
engineering factories and soon spread to railways, road transport, and
other industries, with peasants seizing land. The strikers, however, did
more than just occupy their workplaces, they placed them under workers'
self-management. Soon 500,000 "strikers" were at work, producing for
themselves. Errico Malatesta, who took part in these events, writes:
"workers thought that the moment was ripe to take possession once [and]
for all the means of production. They armed for self-defence. . . and
began to organise production on their own. . . . It was the right of
property abolished in fact. . . it was a new regime, a new form of social
life that was being ushered in. And the government stood by because it
felt impotent to offer opposition" [_Life and Ideas_, p. 134].
During this period the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) grew in size to nearly
one million members and the influence of the Italian Anarchist Union (UAI)
with its 20,000 members grew correspondingly. As the Welsh Marxist historian
Gwyn A. Williams points out "Anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists were
the most consistently and totally revolutionary group on the left. . .the most
obvious feature of the history of syndicalism and anarchism in 1919-20: rapid
and virtually continuous growth. . .The syndicalists above all captured
militant working-class opinion which the socialist movement was utterly
failing to capture." [_Proletarian Order_, pp. 194-195]
Daniel Guerin provides a good summary of the extent of the movement:
"the management of the factories. . .[was] conducted by technical and
administrative workers' committees. Self-management went quite a long
way. . .the self-management issued its own money. . . Very strict
self-discipline was required. . . [and] very close solidarity was
established between factories. . . . [where] ores and coal were put
into a common pool, and shared equitably" [_Anarchism_, p. 109].
Over the occupied factories, flew "a forest of red and black flags" as "the
council movement outside Turin was essentially anarcho-syndicalist" [Williams,
Op. Cit., p. 241, p. 193]. Railway workers refused to transport troops, workers
broke into strikes against the orders of the reformist unions and peasants
occupied the land. Such activity were "either directly led or indirectly
inspired by anarcho-syndicalists." [Ibid., p. 193]
However, after four weeks of occupation, the workers decided to leave the
factories. This was because of the actions of the socialist party and the
reformist trade unions. They opposed the movement and negotiated with the
state for a return to "normality" in exchange for a promise to extend
workers' control legally, in association with the bosses. This promise was
not kept. The lack of independent inter-factory organisation made workers
dependent on trade union bureaucrats for information on what was going on
in other cities, and they used that power to isolate factories, cities,
and factories from each other. This lead to a return to work, "in spite
of the opposition of individual anarchists dispersed among the factories"
[Malatesta, Op. Cit. p. 136]. The local syndicalist union confederations
could not provide the necessary framework for a fully co-ordinated
occupation movement, as the reformist unions refused to work with them;
and although the anarchists were a large minority, they were still a
minority.
This period of Italian history explains the growth of Fascism in Italy. As
Tobias Abse points out, "the rise of fascism in Italy cannot be detached
from the events of the *biennio rosso,* the two red years of 1919 and
1920, that preceded it. Fascism was a preventive counter-revolution. .
.launched as a result of the failed revolution" ["The Rise of Fascism in
an Industrial City", p. 54, in _Rethinking Italian Fascism_, pp. 52-81]
As Malatesta argued at the time of the factory occupations, "[i]f we do
not carry on to the end, we will pay with tears of blood for the fear we
now instil in the bourgeoisie." Later events proved him right, as the
capitalists and rich landowners backed the fascists in order to teach the
working class their place. However, even in the dark days of fascist
terror, the anarchists resisted the forces of totalitarianism. "It is no
coincidence that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism was in
. . .towns or cities in which there was quite a strong anarchist,
syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition" [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit.,
p. 56].
The anarchists participated in, and often organised sections of, the
_Arditi del Popolo_, a working-class organisation devoted to the
self-defence of workers' interests. The Arditi del Popolo organised and
encouraged working-class resistance to fascist squads, often defeating
larger fascist forces. The Arditi was the closest Italy got to the idea of
a united, revolutionary working-class front against fascism, as had been
suggested by Malatesta and the UAI. However, both the socialist and
communist parties withdrew from the organisation, with the socialists
signing a "Pact of Pacification" with the Fascists. The leaders of the
authoritarian socialists preferred defeat and fascism than risk their
followers becoming "infected" by anarchism.
Even after the fascist state was created, anarchists resisted both inside
and outside Italy. Many Italians, both anarchist and non-anarchist,
travelled to Spain to resist Franco in 1936. During the Second World War,
anarchists played a major part in the Italian Partisan movement. It was
the fact that the anti-fascist movement was dominated by anti-capitalist
elements that led the USA and the UK to place known fascists in
governmental positions in the places they "liberated" (often where the
town had already been taken by the Partisans, resulting in the Allied
troops "liberating" the town from its own inhabitants!).
It is hardly surprising that anarchists were the most consistent and
successful opponents of Fascism. The two movements could not be further
apart, one standing for total statism in the service of capitalism while
the other for a free, non-capitalist society. Neither is it surprising
that when their privileges and power were in danger, the capitalists and
the landowners turned to fascism to save them. This process is a common
feature in history (to list just three examples, Italy, Germany, and Chile).
A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.
Spain in the 1930's had the largest anarchist movement in the world. At
the start of the Spanish "Civil" war, over one and one half million
workers and peasants were members of the CNT (the National Confederation
of Labour), an anarcho-syndicalist union federation, and 30,000 were
members of the FAI (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). The total
population of Spain at this time was 24 million.
The social revolution which met the Fascist coup on July 18th, 1936, is
the greatest experiment in libertarian socialism to date. Here the last
mass syndicalist union, the CNT, not only held off the fascist rising but
encouraged the widespread take-over of land and factories. Over seven million
people, including about two million CNT members, put self-management into
practise in the most difficult of circumstances and actually improved both
working conditions and output.
In the heady days after the 19th of July, the initiative and power truly
rested in the hands of the rank-and-file members of the CNT and FAI. It
was ordinary people, undoubtedly under the influence of Faistas (members
of the FAI) and CNT militants, who, after defeating the fascist uprising,
got production, distribution and consumption started again (under more
egalitarian arrangements, of course), as well as organising and
volunteering (in their tens of thousands) to join the militias, which were
to be sent to free those parts of Spain that were under Franco. In every
possible way the working class of Spain were creating by their own
actions a new world based on their own ideas of social justice and freedom
-- ideas inspired, of course, by anarchism and anarchosyndicalism.
George Orwell's eye-witness account of revolutionary Barcelona in late
December, 1936, gives a vivid picture of the social transformation that had
begun:
"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution
was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it
probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was
ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was
something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever
been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every
building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red
flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was
scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the
revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images
burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs
of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been
collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes
painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and
treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had
temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even
'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said
'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. . . Above all, there was a belief in the
revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era
of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings
and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." [_Homage to Catalonia_, pp. 2-3]
The full extent of this historic revolution cannot be covered here. It will
be discussed in more detail in section I.8 of the FAQ. All that can be done
is to highlight a few points of special interest in the hope that these
will give some indication of the importance of these events and encourage
people to find out more about it.
All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers' self-management
*or* workers' control (that is, either totally taking over *all* aspects of
management, in the first case, or, in the second, controlling the old
management). In some cases, whole town and regional economies were
transformed into federations of collectives. The example of the Railway
Federation (which was set up to manage the railway lines in Catalonia,
Aragon and Valencia) can be given as a typical example. The base of the
federation was the local assemblies:
"All the workers of each locality would meet twice a week to examine all
that pertained to the work to be done... The local general assembly named a
committee to manage the general activity in each station and its annexes. At
[these] meetings, the decisions (direccion) of this committee, whose members
continued to work [at their previous jobs], would be subjected to the
approval or disapproval of the workers, after giving reports and answering
questions."
The delegates on the committee could be removed by an assembly at any time
and the highest co-ordinating body of the Railway Federation was the
"Revolutionary Committee," whose members were elected by union assemblies in
the various divisions. The control over the rail lines, according to Gaston
Leval, "did not operate from above downwards, as in a statist and centralised
system. The Revolutionary Committee had no such powers. . . The members of
the. . . committee being content to supervise the general activity and to
co-ordinate that of the different routes that made up the network."
[Gaston Leval, _Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 255].
On the land, tens of thousands of peasants and rural day workers created
voluntary, self-managed collectives. The quality of life improved as
co-operation allowed the introduction of health care, education, machinery and
investment in the social infrastructure. As well as increasing production,
the collectives increased freedom. As one member puts it, "it was
marvelous. . . to live in a collective, a free society where one could say
what one thought, where if the village committee seemed unsatisfactory one
could say. The committee took no big decisions without calling the whole
village together in a general assembly. All this was wonderful." [Ronald
Frazer, _Blood of Spain_, p. 360]
On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational schools, a
libertarian health service, social centres, and so on. The Mujeres Libres
(free women) combated the traditional role of women in Spanish society,
empowering thousands both inside and outside the anarchist movement (see
_The Free Women of Spain_ by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more information on
this very important organisation). This activity on the social front only
built on the work started long before the outbreak of the war; for
example, the unions often funded rational schools, workers centres,
and so on.
The voluntary militias that went to free the rest of Spain from Franco
were organised on anarchist principles and included both men and women.
There was no rank, no saluting and no officer class. Everybody was equal.
George Orwell, a member of the POUM militia, makes this clear:
"The essential point of the [militia] system was the social equality
between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the
same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on
terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general
commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette,
you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any
rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was
understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood
that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not
as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s, but there
was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no
heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the
militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society.
Of course there was not perfect equality, but there was a nearer
approach to it than I had ever seen or that I would have though
conceivable in time of war. . . " [Op. Cit., p. 26]
In Spain, however, as elsewhere, the anarchist movement was smashed
between Leninism (the Communist Party) and Capitalism (Franco) on the
other. Unfortunately, the anarchists placed anti-fascist unity before
the revolution, thus helping their enemies to defeat both them and the
revolution. Whether they were forced by circumstances into this position
or could have avoided it is still being debated.
Orwell's account of his experiences in the militia's indicates why the
Spanish Revolution is so important to anarchists:
"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size
in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism
were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens
of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin,
all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory
it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There
is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a
foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental
atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised
life -- snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. -- had simply
ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared
to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England;
there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned
anyone else as his master. . . One had been in a community where hope was
more normal than apathy or cynicism, where the word 'comrade' stood for
comradeship and not, as in most countries, for humbug. One had breathed the
air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that
Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world
a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving'
that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the
grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of
Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men
to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique'
of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people
Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all . . . In
that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of
everything but no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what
the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of
disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. . ." [Op. Cit., pp. 83-84]
For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following books are
recommended: _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ by Vernon Richards;
_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_ by Jose Peirats; _Free Women of
Spain_ by Martha A. Ackelsberg; _The Anarchist Collectives_ edited by Sam
Dolgoff; "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in _The
Chomsky Reader_); _The Anarchists of Casas Viejas_ by Jerome R. Mintz; and
_Homage to Catalonia_ by George Orwell.
A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968.
The May-June events in France placed anarchism back on the radical
landscape after a period in which many people had written the movement off
as dead. This revolt of ten million people grew from humble beginnings.
Expelled by the university authorities of Nanterre in Paris for
anti-Vietnam War activity, a group of anarchists (including Daniel
Cohn-Bendit) promptly called a protest demonstration. The arrival of 80
police enraged many students, who quit their studies to join the battle
and drive the police from the university.
Inspired by this support, the anarchists seized the administration
building and held a mass debate. The occupation spread, Nanterre was
surrounded by police, and the authorities closed the university down.
The next day, the Nanterre students gathered at the Sorbonne University in
the centre of Paris. Continual police pressure and the arrest of over 500
people caused anger to erupt into five hours of street fighting. The
police even attacked passers-by with clubs and tear gas.
A total ban on demonstrations and the closure of the Sorbonne brought
thousands of students out onto the streets. Increasing police violence
provoked the building of the first barricades. Jean Jacques Lebel, a
reporter, wrote that by 1 a.m., "[l]iterally thousands helped build
barricades. . . women, workers, bystanders, people in pyjamas, human
chains to carry rocks, wood, iron." An entire night of fighting left 350
police injured. On May 7th, a 50,000-strong protest march against the police
was transformed into a day-long battle through the narrow streets of the
Latin Quarter. Police tear gas was answered by molotov cocktails and the
chant "Long Live the Paris Commune!"
By May 10th, continuing massive demonstrations forced the Education
Minister to start negotiations. But in the streets, 60 barricades had
appeared and young workers were joining the students. The trade unions
condemned the police violence. Huge demonstrations throughout France
culminated on May 13th with one million people on the streets of Paris.
Faced with this massive protest, the police left the Latin Quarter.
Students seized the Sorbonne and created a mass assembly to spread the
struggle. Occupations soon spread to every French University. From the
Sorbonne came a flood of propaganda, leaflets, proclamations, telegrams,
and posters. Slogans such as "Everything is Possible," "Be Realistic,
Demand the Impossible," "Life without Dead Times," and "It is Forbidden to
Forbid" plastered the walls. "All Power to the Imagination" was on everyone's
lips. As Murray Bookchin pointed out, "the motive forces of revolution
today. . . are not simply scarcity and material need, but also *the
quality of everyday life,.. the attempt to gain control of one's own
destiny*" [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, pp. 249-250].
On May 14th, the Sud-Aviation workers locked the management in its offices
and occupied their factory. They were followed by the Cleon-Renault,
Lockhead-Beauvais and Mucel-Orleans factories the next day. That night
the National Theatre in Paris was seized to become a permanent assembly
for mass debate. Next, France's largest factory, Renault-Billancourt, was
occupied. Often the decision to go on indefinite strike was taken by the
workers without consulting union officials. By May 17th, a hundred Paris
Factories were in the hands of their workers. The weekend of the 19th of
May saw 122 factories occupied. By May 20th, the strike and occupations
were general and involved six million people. Print workers said they did
not wish to leave a monopoly of media coverage to TV and radio, and agreed
to print newspapers as long as the press "carries out with objectivity the
role of providing information which is its duty." In some cases
print-workers insisted on changes in headlines or articles before they
would print the paper. This happened mostly with the right-wing papers
such as 'Le Figaro' or 'La Nation'.
With the Renault occupation, the Sorbonne occupiers immediately prepared
to join the Renault strikers, and led by anarchist black and red banners,
4,000 students headed for the occupied factory. The state, bosses,
unions and Communist Party were now faced with their greatest nightmare --
a worker-student alliance. Ten thousand police reservists were called up
and frantic union officials locked the factory gates. The Communist Party
urged their members to crush the revolt. They united with the government
and bosses to craft a series of reforms, but once they turned to the
factories they were jeered out of them by the workers.
The struggle itself and the activity to spread it was organised by
self-governing mass assemblies and co-ordinated by action committees. The
strikes were often run by assemblies as well. As Murray Bookchin argues,
the "hope [of the revolt] lay in the extension of self-management in all
its forms -- the general assemblies and their administrative forms, the
action committees, the factory strike committees -- to all areas of the
economy, indeed to all areas of life itself" [Ibid., pp. 251-252]. Within
the assemblies, "a fever of life gripped millions, a rewaking of senses
that people never thought they possessed" [Ibid., p. 251]. It was not a
workers' strike or a student strike. It was a *peoples'* strike that cut
across almost all class lines.
On May 24th, anarchists organised a demonstration. Thirty thousand
marched towards the Palace de la Bastille. The police had the Ministries
protected, using the usual devices of tear gas and batons, but the Bourse
(Stock Exchange) was left unprotected and a number of demonstrators set
fire to it.
It was at this stage that some left-wing groups lost their nerve. The
Trotskyist JCR turned people back into the Latin Quarter. Other groups
such as UNEF and Parti Socialiste Unife (United Socialist Party) blocked
the taking of the Ministries of Finance and Justice. Cohn-Bendit said of
this incident "As for us, we failed to realise how easy it would have
been to sweep all these nobodies away. . . .It is now clear that if, on 25
May, Paris had woken to find the most important Ministries occupied,
Gaullism would have caved in at once. . . . " Cohn-Bendit was forced into
exile later that very night.
As the street demonstrations grew and occupations continued, the state
prepared to use overwhelming means to stop the revolt. Secretly, top
generals readied 20,000 loyal troops for use on Paris. Police occupied
communications centres like TV stations and Post Offices. By Monday, May
27th, the Government had guaranteed an increase of 35% in the industrial
minimum wage and an all round-wage increase of 10%. The leaders of the
CGT organised a march of 500,000 workers through the streets of Paris two
days later. Paris was covered in posters calling for a 'Government of the
People.' Unfortunately the majority still thought in terms of changing
their rulers rather than taking control for themselves.
By June 5th most of the strikes were over and an air of what passes for
normality within capitalism had rolled back over France. Any strikes
which continued after this date were crushed in a military-style operation
using armoured vehicles and guns. On June 7th, they made an assault on the
Flins steelworks which started a four-day running battle which left one
worker dead. Three days latter, Renault strikers were gunned down by
police, killing two. In isolation, those pockets of militancy stood no
chance. On June 12th, demonstrations were banned, radical groups
outlawed, and their members arrested. Under attack from all sides, with
escalating state violence and trade union sell-outs, the General Strike
and occupations crumbled.
So why did this revolt fail? Certainly not because "vanguard" Bolshevik
parties were missing. It was infested with them. Fortunately, the
traditional authoritarian left sects were isolated and outraged. Those
involved in the revolt did not require a vanguard to tell them what to do,
and the "workers' vanguards" frantically ran after the movement trying to
catch up with it and control it.
No, it was the lack of independent, self-managed confederal organisations
to co-ordinate struggle which resulted in occupations being isolated from
each other. So divided, they fell. In addition, Murray Bookchin argues
that "an awareness among the workers that the factories had to be
*worked,* not merely occupied or struck," was missing [Ibid., p. 269].
This awareness would have been encouraged by the existence of a strong
anarchist movement before the revolt. The anti-authoritarian left, though
very active, was too weak among striking workers, and so the idea of
self-managed organisations and workers self-management was not
widespread. However, the May-June revolt shows that events can change
very rapidly. The working class, fused by the energy and bravado of the
students, raised demands that could not be catered for within the confines
of the existing system. The General Strike displays with beautiful clarity
the potential power that lies in the hands of the working class. The mass
assemblies and occupations give an excellent, if short-lived, example of
anarchy in action and how anarchist ideas can quickly spread and be
applied in practice.