Anarchism Definitions Marshall s Shatz

8/8/2019 Anarchism Definitions Marshall s Shatz

1/84

1

Anarchism :Definitions

Anarchism by Marshall S. Shatz


2/84

2

Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the

necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself

comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism

rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as wellas political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is

the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state

is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of

privilege and exploitation in the modern world.

Anarchist Thought

Although the roots of anarchist thought can be traced at least as farback as the 18th-century English writer William GODWIN, anarchism

as a revolutionary movement arose in the late 19th and early 20th

centuries. Its immediate objective was annihilation of the state and of

all authority imposed "from above downward." Once liberated from

political oppression, society would spontaneously rebuild itself "from

below upward." A multitude of grass-roots organizations would spring

up to produce and distribute economic goods and to satisfy other

social needs. Where necessary, these primary associations would formregional and even nation-wide federations. The state, with its

impersonal laws and coercive bureaucracies, would be supplanted by a

dense web of self-governing associations and free federations.

Like other radical ideologies of its time, anarchism intended to

complete the "unfinished business" of the French Revolution. It placed

special emphasis on the third of the values expressed in the rallying

cry "liberty, equality, and fraternity." Anarchists had an enduring faith

in the natural solidarity and social harmony of human beings. They

believed that the creation of the future society should be entrusted to

the free play of popular instincts, and any attempt by anarchists

themselves to offer more than technical assistance would impose a

new form of authority. They tended to concentrate, therefore, on the

task of demolishing the existing state order rather than on social

blueprints of the future.

While battling the established order, anarchists also battled thealternatives proposed by liberalism and socialism. Like Marxism,


3/84

3

anarchism was anticapitalist and scorned liberalism's dedication to

political liberty on the grounds that only the propertied classes could

afford to enjoy it. They rejected with equal vehemence, however, the

Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat," the idea of capturing and

using the capitalist state to achieve a classless society. Politicalinstitutions were seen as inherently corrupting, and even the most

selfless revolutionaries would inevitably succumb to the joys of power

and privilege. Instead of the state "withering away," as the Marxists

anticipated, it would simply perpetuate a new bureaucratic elite. This

disagreement led to a bitter conflict between Marx and the Russian

anarchist Michael BAKUNIN in the early 1870s, after which Marxism

and anarchism went their separate ways.

Anarchism in Practice

Anarchism attracted a following mainly in the countries of eastern and

southern Europe, where the state's repressiveness was especially

pronounced and communal traditions remained strong. There were

some exceptions: the ideas of the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph

PROUDHON left a permanent mark on the French industrial labor

movement, and Bakunin's views found adherents among thewatchmakers of Switzerland's Jura region. Anarchism had its greatest

impact in Russia, where numerous anarchist groups participated in the

revolutionary movement both before and during 1917. The two

outstanding anarchist theorists also were Russians: Bakunin, whose

advocacy of popular revolution had considerable influence, and Prince

Peter KROPOTKIN, whose writing spelled out some of the

constructive sides of the anarchist social vision. Spain and Italy also

had vigorous anarchist movements. In only two instances didanarchists have a real opportunity to put their social ideals into

practice. During the Russian civil war of 1917-21, (see RUSSIAN

REVOLUTIONS OF 1917), the peasant partisan movement led by

Nestor Makhno in the Ukraine tried to implement anarchist principles,

and in the SPANISH CIVIL WAR of 1936-39 anarchism was a

significant force in the regions of Catalonia and Andalusia. The results

of these experiments were limited and inconclusive. In the United

States, anarchism's influence was confined largely to some of the

European immigrant communities, but it did produce a striking


4/84

4

representative of American radicalism in the person of Emma

GOLDMAN.

Because anarchism regarded doctrinal and organizational discipline as

contradictions of its principles, it gave rise to a wide variety ofinterpretations. Anarchist-communists shared many of the collectivist

principles of socialism but sought to realize them in autonomous local

communities. Anarcho-SYNDICALISM was an adaptation of

anarchist ideas to modern industrial conditions. It advocated the

running of factories by the workers themselves rather than by owners

or managers, with trade unions (in French, syndicats) forming the

building blocks of a regenerated society. The novelist Leo Tolstoi

formulated a kind of Christian anarchism that rejected the state onreligious grounds, and there were anarchist-individualists who

proclaimed the sovereignty of the individual personality.

Contrary to widespread belief, terrorism was never an integral part of

anarchist theory or practice. Some anarchists, however, did engage in

what they called "propaganda by the deed," acts of terror and

assassination against state officials and property owners.

Except in Spain, anarchism as an organized movement virtually

ceased to exist after the Russian Revolutions. Anarchist ideas,

however, have had a longer life. In the 1960s and 1970s, currents of

the New left rediscovered anarchist theory, particularly the writings of

Kropotkin, and drew from it inspiration for some of their

communitarian and antibureaucratic impulses. They also found new

merit in the anarchist critique of Marxian socialism. At least some

elements of the outlook proved to have a surprising vitality and

contemporary relevance.

Bibliography: Avrich, Paul, Anarchist Portraits (1988) and The

Russian Anarchists (1967; repr. 1980); Guillet de Monthoux, Pierre,

Action and Existence (1983); Joll, James, the Anarchists (1964);

Shatz, Marshall S., ed., The Essential Works of Anarchism (1971);

Woodcock, George, Anarchism (1962).

See also: NIHILISM; SYNDICALISM.


5/84

5

Copyright 1995 by Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.

Libertarian Socialism

(Please also see this web site: Anarchists Against Nationalism andNational Socialism)

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word

"Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to

wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state

or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society

while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and

freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property"

(specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit,

rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the

individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration

of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of

capitalists.

Why "Libertarian"?

It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior,

distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's

early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-

slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite

group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of

production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory

movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almostevery case, the socialist movement has been divided along

authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian

side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist

state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less

split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the

late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the

Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence


6/84

6

was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster,

alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them

to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting

anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media-

before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritariansocialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian"

instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative

association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates

itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically

focuses on working class organisation and education in order to

achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.

Why "Socialism"?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers

democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production".

Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy

for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic

organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is

encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that

which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the

knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only

they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the

state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the

meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or

a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism

with a few token adjustments for bearability.

I've heard of "national socialism"... does that have anything to dowith "libertarian socialism"?

Definatly not. The National Socialist, or NAZI party controlled by

Adolf Hitler in Germany in the 1930's used the word "socialist" in

their party name because of the strong awareness workers there had of

class divisions and socialist theory at the time. The National Socialist

Party was actually a right-wing fascist movement that sought to winover working class people from the left. Workers were basically


7/84

7

tricked into believing that the NAZI party would solve their countries

economic problems by eliminating Jews and other minorities, and

expanding the country. The end result was mass murder of millions of

people and a totalitarian dictatorship. Some modern NAZIs and

"national anarchists" or "national libertarians" have claimed that therewas a "good" version of national socialism associated with Otto &

Gregor Strasser... but this national socialism was still racist and

exclusionary, and ultimatly led to a madman like Hitler taking power.

Now days there are people who call themselves "national socialists"

who attempt the same tactics of fooling people... hopefully they will

never succeed again. If a national socialist party ever came into power

it would be bitterly and ferociously opposed by libertarian socialists

all over the world.

What about the American "Libertarian Party"? Don't theyalready use the word "libertarian"?

The word "libertarian" has been widely used in conjunction with the

word "anarchist" and anti-authoritarian strands of socialist

organisations, groups, and individuals since the turn of the century.

For example, in the US, Sam Dolgoff started the still-runninganarcho-syndicalist publication "Libertarian Labor Review" in the

late 1980's, and Noam Chomsky has repeatedly spoken about alibertarian socialist solution to the oppression of workers worldwide.

In France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium

there are separate anarchist publications and/or groups all currently

using the name "Libertarian Alternative". In London, England the

Soliderity group published a series of periodicals since 1960, one of

the most recent entitled "Soliderity: A Journal of LibertarianSocialism", and George Woodcock wrote "Anarchism: A History of

Libertarian Ideas and Movements" in 1962 (some 9 years before the

creation of the US Libertarian Party.) In Cuba in 1959 there existed an

anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation called the "Libertarian

Association of Cuba". In the 1950's George Fontenis published

"The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism". In New York City,

July 1954 Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed the

Libertarian League, of which for a short time Murray Bookchin


8/84

8

was a member. Erlier, in 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff initiated the

Libertarian Book Club just before he died in 1950.

During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) a coalition group called the

United Libertarian Organisations (ULO) was created with theintent of spreading truthful information about the revolutionary

anarchist activities in Spain. The organisation consisted of groups

publishing Cultura Proletaria (Spanish), Il Martello (Italian), Delo

Truda (Russian anarchist),Il Proletario (Italian IWW), Freie Arbeiter

Stimme (Jewish Anarchist Federation), the American anarchist

publication, Vangaurd, as well as the Marine Transport Workers

Industrial Union and General Recruiting Union of the IWW, and the

Spanish Labor Press Bureau (administered by the CNT-FAIrepresentative in the United States and Canada, the Chicago anarchist

Maximilian Olay). The official organ of the ULO was called Spanish

Revolution (now available in facsimile from Greenwood Publishing

Corporation). Examples of articles are: Rural Collectives in Graus and

Imposta; Peasants Build a New Economy; Statistics on Industrial

Socialization in Catalonia; Organising the Textile Industry; Industrial

Democracy; Running a Department Store; Telephone System Run by

Workers; Peasant Communes in Aragon; etc. Anyone interested inconstructive economic and social achievements of the CNT-FAI in

revolutionary Spain should consult the pages ofSpanish Revolution.

In Spain in 1932 Issac Puente wrote the pamphlet "LibertarianCommunism", and the CNT adopted libertarian communism as its

goal at the 1936 Saragossa conference on the eve of the Spanish

Revolution. In France in 1926 the Dielo Trouda group of anarchists

who had fled Russia wrote the hotly debated "OrganisationalPlatform of the Libertarian Communists".

"Sebastien Faure, who founded Le Libertaire in 1895, is often

credited with having invented the word 'libertarian' as a convenient

synonym for 'anarchist.' However, Joseph Dejacque's use of the word

as early as 1858 suggests that it may have had a long currency before

Faure adopted it."

[George Woodcock,Anarchism, p. 281 (footnote)]


9/84

9

The term "libertarian" goes back at least to the 17th and 18th century

religious debates regarding free-will versus pre-destination, and was

used at that time to refer to persons who believed that individuals had

full liberty to act as they saw fit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known usage of

"libertarian" was in 1789 as part of "Belsham's Essays", in which he

appears to use the term in opposition to "necessitarian". It's hard to say

whether there was a direct connection with other uses of the term.

An early socialistic libertarian movement (in deeds if not in name) had

it's roots as far back as the French Revolution of 1789 in the poor serfs

who saw through the authoritarianism of the Jacobins (and thebourgeoisie in general) who had used these serfs to overthrow the

monarchy. [Further information is available from Peter Kropotkin'sThe Great French Revolution, 1789-1793 (pub: 1909)]

An earlier movement of "libertarian revolutionaries" were a

movement from the mid-1600's called "The Levellers". Though they

did not use the term "libertarian", they clearly had a libertarian

orientation. They had a socialistic and individualistic aspect like the

mutualists (mentioned below), and there was an even more socialistic

movement called "The Diggers" or "The True Levellers". (There was

also a group in San Francisco in the 1960's called The Diggers.)

It should be noted that there were two branches of libertarian socialists

in the nineteenth century... the communist libertarians, and the

mutualist libertarians. Both accepted the Labor Theory of Value, and

the worker's right to the wealth which he or she produces... but they

supported different means of achieving the goal of universal equalityand freedom for mankind. The mutualists included people such as

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and the like. There was

even a mutualist libertarian organisation (which came along still later

than the French and Spanish socialist's use of the term "libertarian")

called the Libertarian League in the 1920's. These people wereclearly "Social Revolutionaries" in that the interests of the "working

man" were of prime importance to them, though the more

communistic libertarians might have called the mutualists"gradualist", they were still, at heart, socialist.


10/84

10

There is ample proof from writings from the mid-1800s that indicate

that before the capitalists borrowed the term "libertarian", it was

already in use in a political context that one could loosely describe as

"pro-socialist". It was not until the 1950's that the capitalistic use of

the term came into vogue.

While a number of pro-capitalist "Libertarian" organisations and

publications tend to have recently appeared in the United States and a

few other countries, these entities serve the interests of small business

owners, landlords, investors and some upwardly-mobile professionals.

Essentially secular neo-conservative organisations, with strong

inspiration from the writings of the ultra-capitalist Ayn Rand,

economist Murray Rothbard, and science-fiction writer RobertHeinlein. Typical of these advocates of the sacredcy of private

property is a distortion of the theories of the moral individualist

philosophers of the 19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Lysander

Spooner, Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau, etc.) who respected

the rights of the individual but were highly critical of the

concentrations of wealth and power which led to capitalism and

economic oppression since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Due

to the elite privilege for the few over the many inherent in a 'pure'capitalist system, "libertarian" capitalism is un-democratic and anti-

libertarian. For more information see the essay "Libertarianism:

Bogus Anarchy", by Peter Sabatini, and a TV interview with Noam

Chomsky.

The Libertarian or sometimes-called "anarcho-" capitalist movement

was a reaction from the political right-wing against US president

FDR's sweeping social democratic laws passed as a response to apowerful labor movement in the 1930's. The libertarian left had little

interest in nationalizations or state-social-programs, arguing that they

placed power into the hands of elite managers and not the workers

themselves. The destruction of the original libertarian movement in

the United States, (by mass deportations and imprisonment), as well as

in Europe (The Fascist victories in Spain, Italy and Germany) left a

vacuum in which was possible for one Dean Russell of the capitalist

"Foundation for Economic Education" to write an article in the FEE

publication, " Ideas on Liberty" of May, 1955 entitled "Who is a


11/84

11

Libertarian?" which advocated that the right should "trademark and

reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'" In

other cases, conservative Science Fiction writers such as Robert

Heinlein and Poul Anderson used the term in their writing to depict

fictionally virtuous forms of capitalism. It should be noted that thesewriters and others like them (Ann MaCaffrey, Daniel F. Galouye,

Keith Laumer, etc.) supported the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam

War. For more information see the article "Starship Stormtroopers" by

Micheal Moorcock.

What these people did not know or chose to ignore was that at least

two US libertarian socialist organisations already existed, one formed

in July 1954 called the Libertarian League, started by RussellBlackwell, and the other formed in 1949 and called the LibertarianBook Club, an idea initiated by Gregory P. Maximoff, and formerly

established by a number of anarchists, including: Bill & Sarah Taback,

Joseph & Hannah Spivack, Joseph Aaronstam, Ida Pilot (a

professional translator) and her companion Valerio Isca, and Esther

and Sam Dolgoff. The Libertarian League of the 1920' was a

simmilarly socialistic organization, but no longer existed. The

Libertarian Book Club is based in New York City, and is still activetoday.

(This information is from the book "Fragments: A Memoir", by Sam

Dolgoff, Pub. 1986 Refract Publications, Cambridge, England)

In Webster's New International Dictionary, the definition of

'Libertarian' is stated to be: "One who holds to the principle of free

will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual

liberty of thought and action." Clearly, in comparison to the

authoritarian Soviet Union and Red China of the 1940's and 50's,

liberal capitalism could be made to appear more "libertarian" than

socialism if one were to accept that China and the USSR were the

definitive examples of "socialism". But, if one were to have listened to

the original socialistic libertarians (the anarchists) all along, it would

have been clear that both the "socialism" of so-called "Communist"


12/84

12

countries, and the idea of a "libertarian (or anarcho-) capitalism" were

a farce.

Finaly, it should be noted that most of the modern pro-capitalist

"libertarian" writing suffers from a severe defect: they overlook thefact that capitalism in every form ever tried throughout history is

inherently authoritarian (i.e the boss/worker relationship), and thus

incompatible with libertarianism in any form. However, if you ignore

and skip over those portions that talk about capitalist ideas, there are

some really eloquent arguments for individual rights, liberties, and

responsibilities in these writings.

Unlike right-wing Libertarians, Liberals and Social Democrats,libertarian socialists reject participation in the mainstream

representative voting process. Libertarian socialism is, in effect, a

revolutionary theory and approach to political life. Libertarian

Socialism's anti-state stance might even give it the label "Laissez-fair

socialism"- if a politician (or capitalist) were to approach some

anarchist workers in France and ask them what it was he could do for

them, they would reply, "Laissez-nous faire."- essentially, "leave us

alone". Libertarian socialists understand that it is the workers whocreate and maintain everything in the world, and they do not need

leaders to direct them in the affairs of their lives. What is the least a

government could do for workers? Keep the Government and

capitalists off their back-- but it is far better to avoid the need for

"politricksters" and capitalist rulers in the first place.

What about individual liberty?

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism andthe main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to

fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate

authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold

that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when

given enough information and therefore stress education rather than

regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from

her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or

her own exploitation... the state is the force which permits this lack offreedom to continue.


13/84

13

Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between

different social classes: the property-owning class, and the working

class. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and

capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the

state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexualconduct between consenting individuals, and related issues.

Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes",

drug, alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a waste of

time, and an unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of

humanities woes arise from the inherently coercive, undemocratic and

un-libertine capitalist and state systems which human society is

currently forced to follow. The answer is not regulation or limitation,but organisation and education with a working-class emphasis.

Libertarian Socialists reject the "social democratic" solution of

keeping the state & military apparatus around but raising taxes to

support social programs. These are merely "band-aids" for problems

which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to get

worse. World problems will not be solved by "professionals", free-

market entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or stateist

bureaucrats. Only the people, organised and educated, can solve theirown problems.

Libertarian socialists believe in a form of the free market - but a truly

free "market" (of ideas and aspirations, not money and wealth), not the

capitalist construct that exists today which is based on a minority

controlling the world's resources and the rest forced to work for them

or pay them rent. A free market where workers are free to organise

unions without fear of repression, and where exploitation of workersthrough profits does not exist. People who run their own individual

businesses (or trades) without exploiting anyone would be left alone..

but large projects would be based on mutual free associations, which

would last for the duration of the project - where each member

affected would have an equal say in how the project is carried out and

what wages are paid. Instead of huge government or corporate

structures, individuals would truly have control over their lives when

working together, or alone. In a true free market, production facilities

would be owned and controlled by the workers themselves, not


14/84

14

capitalist bosses or government bureaucrats. Libertarian communists

specificly wish to abolish money, the basis for the concentration of

power (wealth).

What do Libertarian Socialists feel about Racism, Sexism, andHomophobia?

It has always been impossible for workers to challenge capitalism

effectively so long as divisions of people based on gender, skin color,

or sexual orientation have continued. Racism in particular has been

used from the start as a way of dividing workers along an arbitrary

basis and weakening any chances for solid organisation. So long as

there is always someone being looked down upon, someone forced toaccept lower wages because of their low status in society, wages in a

competitive system can always be pushed to what the lowest and most

desperate will accept. It should also go without saying that there is no

scientific proof of the existence of separate human "races" which are

truly incapable of getting along, nor is there scientific proof that

women are inherently physically weaker or less intellectually capable

than men. The issue of "hate speech" and pornography must always

take into account the importance of artistic freedom and the necessityto criticize what one disagrees with. When it is clear that a conscious

effort is being made to denigrate or divide a group of people from

another, with some economic or political goal as it's motivation,

libertarian socialists would resist such actions on the basis that they

would divide and weaken any chance for eventual liberation from

capitalism. Finally, so long as any group is prejudiced against,

humanity will wage war against itself for irrational reasons, using

such divisions as a means to an end when seen fit. If peopleunderstand that they too can be discriminated against, based on

ANYTHING about them, it should be obvious that such

discrimination, like any other human activity, has potential to be self-

destructive in it's consequences.

What libertarian socialist organisations exist?

Currently the most prominent organisations along

libertarian socialist lines are the International ofAnarchist Federations (IFA), and the syndicalist union


15/84

15

known as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), the anarcho-

syndicalist International Workers Association (IWA), and various

anarchist organisations & groups world-wide.

Are there any major libertarian socialist theorists?

Aside from the significant number of anarchist theorists such as

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and

Alexander Berkman, some important contributors to libertarian

socialist theory and philosophy would be Noam Chomsky, Daniel

Guerin, and Murray Bookchin.

Defining Anarchism

Written by Jason Justice

NOTE: THIS ESSAY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED... IT HAS SEVERAL

ERRORS AND I AM IN CONTACT WITH THE AUTHOR (8/26/02)

Anarchism has been defined many ways by many different sources.

The word anarchism is taken from the word anarchy which is drawnfrom dual sources in the Greek language. It is made up of the Greek

words av (meaning: absence of [and pronounced "an"] and apxn

(meaning: authority or government [and pronounced "arkhe"]). Today,

dictionary definitions still define anarchism as the absence of

government. These modern dictionary definitions of anarchism are

based on the writings and actions of anarchists of history and present.

Anarchists understand, as do historians of anarchism and good

dictionaries and encyclopedias, that the word anarchism represents apositive theory. Exterior sources, however, such as the media, will

frequently misuse the word anarchism and, thus, breed

misunderstanding.

A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International

Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political

theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint

and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association ofindividuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." Other


16/84

16

dictionaries describe anarchism with similar definitions. The

Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a

political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary

and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary

cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such astheNew Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the

political doctrine that all governments should be abolished."

These similar dictionary definitions of anarchism reflect the evolution

of the theory of anarchism made possible by anarchist intellectuals

and movements. As a result, dictionary definitions, although fair, only

reflect watered down definitions of the word anarchism. Professor

Noam Chomsky, in fact, has refuted the definition, as written in the New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, describing

anarchism as a "political doctrine." According to Chomsky,

"...anarchism isn't a doctrine. It's at most a historical tendency, a

tendency of thought and action, which has many different ways of

developing and progressing and which, I would think, will continue as

a permanent strand of human history." Other modern definitions of

anarchism are thoroughly explained, not as a word, but as a history of

movements, people and ideas. TheEncyclopedia of the American Left,in fact, gives a three page history of anarchism, yet does not once

define the word.

Prior to the existence of the word anarchism people used the term"Libertarian Socialism," which meant the same thing as anarchism.Libertarian socialism was used largely by Mexican radicals in the

early eighteenth century [This is not true. The term "libertarian

socialism" was not used until the 20th century. The use of the term"libertarian" as a substitute for "anarchist" started in France in the late

1800's. -Ed.].

William Godwin was the first proclaimed anarchist in history and thefirst to write about anarchism. He was born in 1756 in Weisbech, the

capital of North Cambridgeshire. He later married feminist Mary

Wollstonecraft and had a daughter, Mary Shelley - author ofFrankenstein. Godwin published a book called Political Justice in

1793 which first introduced his ideas about anarchism, Godwin was


17/84

17

forgotten about, however, and after his death Pierre Joseph

Proudhon became a leading anarchist figure in the world. His bookWhat is Property? incorporated greater meaning to the word

anarchism; anarchism became not only a rejection of established

authority but a theory opposing ownership of land and property aswell.

Anarchism fully blossomed as a defined theory when Russian

anarchists Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin

(1842-1921) started to write and speak. Bakunin had a major influence

in the world and introduced anarchism to many people. Kropotkin was

one of the many people inspired by Bakunin. Kropotkin wrote many

books on anarchism, including Muitual Aid, Fields Factories andWorkshops, and The Conquest of Bread, and greatly aided in the

evolution of the theory of anarchism. Kropotkin wrote the first adept

encyclopedia definition of anarchism in the eleventh edition of the

Encyclopedia Britannica in 1910. His definition was fifteen pages

long. He started the definition by introducing the word anarchism as:

the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under

which society is conceived without government - harmony in such asociety being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to

any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various

groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of

production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite

variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being, In a society

developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already

now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still

greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of itsfunctions.

Following Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy furthered the ideas which make up

the meaning of the word anarchism. Tolstoy introduced Christian

anarchism (rejecting church authority but believing in God) and

broadened anarchism's meaning. Tolstoy, in favor of the growth of

anarchism, wrote "The anarchists are right in the assertion that,

without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of

Authority under existing conditions."


18/84

18

As the 20th century emerged anarchism began to peak and the

definition of anarchism became concrete with the growth of new

anarchist writers and movements. The execution and imprisonment of

eight anarchists in Chicago in 1886 sparked anarchism's growth in the

United States. The "Haymarket Eight" flourished anarchists such asVoltairine de Cleyre and Lucy Parsons. Parsons was born intoslavery and later became an anarchist and an ardent speaker and

working class rebel; the Chicago police labled Parsons, "...more

dangerous than a thousand rioters." Emma Goldman also became apart of the anarchist movement due to the Chicago Martyrs.

Described as a "damn bitch of an anarchist," Goldman also broadened

the meaning of anarchism and introduced the greatest and most

important ideas of anarchist feminism in history which prevail, as aresult of Goldman, to this day.

Emma Goldman's life long comrade, Alexander Berkman, played amajor part in helping to define the word anarchism. He wrote a book

calledABC of Anarchism which defined and describes anarchism and

is still read today. Berkman wrote, "Anarchism means you should be

free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose

upon you. It means you should be free to do the things you want to do;and that you should not be compelled to do what you do not want to

do."

Anarchism was put into action by giant movements throughout history

which proved its definition was more than theoretical. The communal

efforts of anarchism were seen in the Paris Commune in the early

19th century, the revolutionary organizing of Mexican working class

rebels was proven possible by anarchists such as Ricardo FloresMagon and revolutionaries like Emiliano Zapata, and the Spanish

Revolution of 1936-39 proved anarchists' capability of creatinganarchism within small sectors of the world. Certainly today we can

see anarchism in action in places like Mondragon, Spain, where

anarchists are working in collectives and trying to live free of

authority.

Although the word anarchism is understood by many in its classic

sense (that defined by dictionaries and by anarchists of history), the


19/84

19

word is often misused and misunderstood. Anarchism, because of the

threat it imposes upon established authority, has been historically, and

is still, misused by power holders as violence and chaos. As anarchist

historian George Woodcock put it, "Of the more frivolous is the idea

that the anarchist is a man who throws bombs and wishes to wreaksociety by violence and terror. That this charge should be brought

against anarchists now, at a time when they are the few people who

are not throwing bombs or assisting bomb throwers, shows a curious

purblindness among its champions." The claim that anarchism is chaos

was refuted long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote:

I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not. It is not bombs,

disorder, or chaos. It is notrobbery or murder. It is nota war of eachagainst all. It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of

man.Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

These refutations of stereotypes associated with anarchism are

sometimes trampled by the popular misuse of the word anarchism. It

is not uncommon for a Middle Eastern nation in the midst of U.S.-

imposed turmoil to be labeled by the media as "complete anarchy," a

phrase which undermines the true definition of the word anarchismand all those who toiled, and who do toil, to make the word anarchism

mean what it does today.

Modern anarchists still work hard to help anarchism maintain itsvalidity and history. Anarchism today is being used to find solutions

to the problems of power; not just state power, but corporate power

and all immediate forms of domination among individuals and

organizations. Anarchists such as L. Susan Brown have introduced

ideas such as existential individualism, while other anarchists remainloyal to anarcho-syndicalism and class struggle. Anarchism has alsobeen spread around the world through music and bands such as Crass,

introducing anarchism and anti-speciesism and urging self-sufficiency

among workers and community members. Other anarchists such as

Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, an ex-Black Panther, are introducing new

means of organizing and directly challenging racism. Furthermore,

anarchism has become integrated into ecological issues thanks in part

to eco-anarchist ideas and freethinking organizations such as Earth


20/84

20

First! Also, we see anarchists working to keep anarchism, in theory

and practice, alive and well around the world with anarchist

newspapers such as Love and Rage in Mexico and the United States,

anarchist book publishers such as AK Press in the U.S. and the U.K.,

and political prisoner support groups such as the Anarchist BlackCross.

As documented, the word anarchism has a long history. Although the

word is simply derived from Greek tongue, the philosophy and actions

of anarchists in history and present give the word anarchism proper

definition. Dictionary definitions, as quoted, are sometimes fair to

anarchism, but far from complete. The misuse of the word anarchism

is unfortunate and has been a problem anarchists have had to deal withfor the last century. Because of the misuse of anarchism, the simple

dictionary definitions of anarchism, and the different interpretations of

anarchism the word can take on many meanings, but the truly accurate

meaning of the word anarchism can be found in anarchist history,

anarchist writings and anarchist practice.

THE NEXT MOVE IS YOURS

Written by Jason Justice

PLEASE REPRINT AND DISTRIBUTE

MISCONCEPTIONS OF ANARCHISM

(This talk discussed the main principles of constructive anarchism.)

Anarchism Is Not Absolute Anti-social Individualism

Anarchism does not connote absolute, irresponsible, anti-social

individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects

every form of organization and self-discipline. Absolute individual

freedom can be attained only in isolation- if at all: "What really takesaway liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which


21/84

21

renders one powerless." ( Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, Freedom

Press, p. 87)

Anarchism is synonymous with the term "free socialism" or "social

anarchism." As the term "social" itself implies, anarchism is the freeassociation of people living together and cooperating in free

communities. The abolition of capitalism and the state; workers' self-

management of industry; distribution according to needs; free

association; are principles which, for all socialist tendencies,

constitute the essence of socialism. To distinguish themselves from

fundamental differences about how and when these aims will be

realized, as well as from the anti-social individualists, Peter Kropotkin

and the other anarchist thinkers defined anarchism as the "left wing ofthe socialist movement." The Russian anarchist Alexei Borovoi

declared that the proper basis for anarchism in a free society is the

equality of all members in a free organization. Social anarchism could

be defined as the equal right to be different.

Anarchism Is Not Unlimited Liberty Nor the Negation ofResponsibility

In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will

have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted

agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-

government(or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government

means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced

obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the

members of every association freely make the rules of their

association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make.

Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary

agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.

The Right to Secede

Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable

right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their

own forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important

of all political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to thereintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession


22/84

22

will not paralyze the association. People with strong, overriding

common interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by

seceding will compromise their differences. Those who have little or

nothing in common with the collectivity will not hurt the association

by seceding, but will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction,thereby promoting general harmony.

Essential Difference Between Anarchism and the State

The vast difference between the anarchist concept of freely accepted

authority in the exchange of services which is the administration of

things, differs fundamentally from the authority of the state, which is

the rule over its subjects, the people. For example, repairing mytelevision: the authority of the expert mechanic ends when the repairs

are made. The same applies when I agree to paint the mechanic's

room. The reciprocal exchange of goods and services is a limited, not

a personal, cooperative relationship which automatically excludes

dictatorship. But the state, on the contrary, is an all-pervading

apparatus governing every aspect of my life from conception to death,

whose every decree I am compelled to obey or suffer harrassment,

abrogation of rights, imprisonment and even death.

People can freely secede from a group or association, even organize

one of their own. But they cannot escape the jurisdiction of the state.

If they finally do succeed in escaping from one state to another they

are immediately subjected to the jurisdiction of the new state.

Replacing the State

Anarchist concepts are not artificially concocted by anarchists. Theyare derived from tendencies already at work. Kropotkin, who

formulated the sociology of anarchism, insisted that the anarchist

conception of the free society is based on "those data which are

already supplied by the observation of life at the present time." The

anarchist theoreticians limited themselves to suggest the utilization of

all the useful organisms in the old society in order to construct a new

one. That the "elements of the new society are already developing in

the collapsing bourgeois society" (Marx) is a fundamental principleshared by all tendencies in the socialist movement. The anarchist


23/84

23

writer, Colin Ward, sums up this point admirably: "If you want to

build the new society, all the materials are already at hand."

Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the

natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherevermutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-

government became necessary. It springs from the ineluctable

interdependence of mankind and the will to harmony. This form of

organization is federalism. Society without order (as the term

"society" implies) is inconceivable. But the organization of order is

not the exclusive monopoly of the state. Federalism is a form of order

which preceded the usurpation of society by the state and will survive

it.

There is barely a single form of organization which, before it was

usurped by the state, was not originally federalist in character. To this

day only the listing of the vast network of local, provincial, national

and international federations and confederations embracing the totality

of social life would easily fill volumes. The federated form of

organization makes it practical for all groups and federations to reap

the benefits of unity and coordination while exercising autonomywithin their own spheres, thus expanding the range of their own

freedom. Federalism - synonym for free agreement - is the

organization of freedom. As Proudhon put it, "He who says freedom

without saying federalism, says nothing."

After the Revolution

Society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labor, and all the

deeply rooted institutions now usefully functioning will in some formcontinue to function for the simple reason that the very existence of

mankind depends upon this inner cohesion. This has never been

questioned by anyone. What Is needed is emancipation from

authoritarian institutions over society and authoritarianism within the

organizations themselves. Above all, they must be infused with

revolutionary spirit and confidence in the creative capacity of the

people. Kropotkin, in working out the sociology of anarchism, has

opened an area of fruitful research which had been largely neglectedby social scientists busily mapping out new areas for state control.


24/84

24

The anarchists were primarily concerned with the immediate problems

of social transformation that will have to be faced in any country after

a revolution. It was for this reason that the anarchists tried to work out

measures to meet the pressing problems most likely to emerge during

what the anarchist writer-revolutionary Errico Malatesta called "theperiod of reorganization and transition." A summary of Malatesta's

discussion of some of the more important questions follows.

Crucial problems cannot be avoided by postponing them to the distant

future - perhaps a century or more - when anarchism will have been

fully realized and the masses will have finally become convinced and

dedicated anarcho-communists. We anarchists must have our own

solution if we are not to play the role of "useless and impotentgrumblers," while the more realistic and unscrupulous authoritarians

seize power. Anarchy or no anarchy, the people must eat and be

provided with the necessities of life. The cities must be provisioned

and vital services cannot be disrupted. Even if poorly served the

people in their own interests would not allow anyone to disrupt these

services unless and until they are reorganized in a better way, and this

cannot be achieved in a day.

The organization of the anarchist-communist society on a wide scale

can only be achieved gradually as material conditions permit, and the

masses convince themselves of the benefits to be gained and as they

gradually become psychologically accustomed to radical alterations in

their way of life. Since free and voluntary communism (Malatesta's

synonym for anarchism) cannot be imposed, Malatesta stressed the

necessity for the coexistence of various economic forms - collectivist,

mutualist, individualist - on condition that there will be noexploitation of others. Malatesta was confident that the convincing

example of successful libertarian collectives will

attract others into the orbit of the collectivity . . . for my part, I do not

believe that there is "one" solution to the social problem, but a

thousand different and changing solutions, in the same way as social

existence is different in time and space. [Errico Malatesta, Life and

Ideas, edited by Vernon Richards, Freedom Press, London, pp. 36,

100, 99, 103-4, 101, 151, 159]


25/84

25

"Pure" Anarchism Is a Utopia

"Pure" anarchism is defined by the anarchist writer George Woodcock

as "the loose and flexible affinity group which needs no formal

organization and carries on anarchist propaganda through an invisiblenetwork of personal contacts and intellectual influences." Woodcock

argues that "pure" anarchism is incompatible with mass movements

like anarcho-syndicalism because they need

stable organizations precisely because it moves in a world that is only

partially governed by anarchist ideals . . . and make compromises with

day-to-day situations . . . [anarcho-syndicalism] has to maintain the

allegiance of masses of [workers] who are only remotely conscious of

the final aim of anarchism. [Anarchism, pp. 273-4]If these statements are true, anarchism is a Utopia, because there will

never be a time when everybody will be a "pure" anarchist and

because humanity will forever have to make "compromises with the

day-to-day situation." This is not to say that anarchism excludes

"affinity groups." Indeed, it is precisely because the infinite variety of

voluntary organizations which are formed, dissolved and

reconstructed according to the fluctuating whims and fancies of

individual adherents reflect individual preferences that they constitutethe indispensable condition for the free society.

But the anarchists insist that production, distribution, communication

exchange and the other indispensable which must be coordinated on a

world-wide scale in our modern interdependent world must be

supplied without fail by "stable" organizations and cannot be left to

the fluctuating whims of individuals. They are social obligations

which every able-bodied individual must fulfill if he or she expects toenjoy the benefits of collective labor. It should be axiomatic that such

indispensable "stable" associations, anarchistically organized, are not

a deviation. They constitute the essence of anarchism as a viable

social order.

Charting the Road to Freedom

Anarchists are not so naive as to expect the installation of the perfect

society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shedtheir ingrown prejudices and outworn habits on the "day after the


26/84

26

revolution." We are not concerned with guessing how society will

look in the remote future when heaven on earth will at last be attained.

But we are above everything else, concerned with the direction of

human development. There is no "pure" anarchism. There is only the

application of anarchist principles to the realities of social living. Theone and only aim of anarchism is to propel society in an anarchist

direction.

Thus viewed, anarchism is a believable, practical guide to social

organization. It is otherwise doomed to Utopian dreams, nor a living

force.

From "Fragments: A Memoir", by Sam Dolgoff (Refract Publications,

1986)

Anarchism

from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.

Written by Peter Kropotkin

ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life andconduct under which society is conceived without government -

harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law,

or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded

between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely

constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the

satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a

civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary

associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of humanactivity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute

themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an

interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and

federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and

international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible

purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications,

sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the

territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of anever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable


27/84

27

needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable.

On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it

is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and

readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and

influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as noneof the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man

would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive

work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he

be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by

obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both

lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind. He would beguided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily

would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his

own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would

thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties,

intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork

for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great

number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which

is not possible either under the present system of individualism, orunder any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular

state).

The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a

utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have

been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis

of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism

may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress ofmodern technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all

the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the

rapid spread of &ee initiative and free understanding in all branches of

activity - including those which formerly were considered as the

proper attribution of church and state - are steadily reinforcing the no-

government tendency.

As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with

all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the


28/84

28

now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist

production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs

against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They

are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics

from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce generalwell-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist

production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out

also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for

permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to

appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly

accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating

the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the

anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main supportof that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether,

whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the

referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and

modern history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern

European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the

instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the rulingminorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these

monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to

the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines,

the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management

of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions

already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions,

defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument

of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers ofbureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of

decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of

the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from

the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the

centre to the periphery.

In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all

evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from

time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called


29/84

29

revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed.

Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution,

and these periods must be taken advantage of - not for increasing and

widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the

organization in every township or commune of the local groups ofproducers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the

international, federations of these groups.

In virtue of the above principles the anarchists refuse to be party to the

present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood

into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the working men not

to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly, since

the foundation of the International Working Men's Association in1864-1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly

amongst the labour organizations and to induce those unions to a

direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in

parliamentary legislation.

The historical development of Anarchism

The conception of society just sketched, and the tendency which is its

dynamic expression, have always existed in mankind, in opposition to

the governing hierarchic conception and tendency - now the one and

now the other taking the upper hand at different periods of history. To

the former tendency we owe the evolution, by the masses themselves,

of those institutions - the clan, the village community, the guild, the

free medieval city - by means of which the masses resisted the

encroachments of the conquerors and the power-seeking minorities.

The same tendency asserted itself with great energy in the great

religious movements of medieval times, especially in the early

movements of the reform and its forerunners. At the same time it

evidently found its expression in the writings of some thinkers, since

the times of Lao-tsze, although, owing to its non-scholastic and

popular origin, it obviously found less sympathy among the scholars

than the opposed tendency.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Adler in his Geschichte des

Sozialismus und Kommunismus, Aristippus (b. c. 430 BC), one of thefounders of the Cyrenaic school, already taught that the wise must not


30/84

30

give up their liberty to the state, and in reply to a question by Socrates

he said that he did not desire to belong either to the governing or the

governed class. Such an attitude, however, seems to have been

dictated merely by an Epicurean attitude towards the life of the

masses.

The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno

(342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy,

who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without

government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the

omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and

proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual -

remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to

it by providing man with another instinct - that of sociability. When

men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will

unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no

need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public

worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the

exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us

and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, thefact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows

how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the

mouthpiece.

In medieval times we find the same views on the state expressed by

the illustrious bishop of Alba, Marco Girolamo Vida, in his first

dialogue De dignitate reipublicae (Ferd. Cavalli, in Mem. dell'Istituto

Veneto, xiii.; Dr E. Nys, Researches in the History of Economics). Butit is especially in several early Christian movements, beginning with

the ninth century in Armenia, and in the preachings of the early

Hussites, particularly Chojecki, and the early Anabaptists, especially

Hans Denk (cf. Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertaufer), that one finds

the same ideas forcibly expressed - special stress being laid of course

on their moral aspects.

Rabelais and Fenelon, in their utopias, have also expressed similar

ideas, and they were also current in the eighteenth century amongst


31/84

31

the French Encyclopaedists, as may be concluded from separate

expressions occasionally met with in the writings of Rousseau, from

Diderot's Preface to the Voyage of Bougainville, and so on. However,

in all probability such ideas could not be developed then, owing to the

rigorous censorship of the Roman Catholic Church.

These ideas found their expression later during the great French

Revolution. While the Jacobins did all in their power to centralize

everything in the hands of the government, it appears now, from

recently published documents, that the masses of the people, in their

municipalities and 'sections', accomplished a considerable constructive

work. They appropriated for themselves the election of the judges, the

organization of supplies and equipment for the army, as also for thelarge cities, work for the unemployed, the management of charities,

and so on. They even tried to establish a direct correspondence

between the 36,000 communes of France through the intermediary of

a special board, outside the National Assembly (cf. Sigismund

Lacroix, Actes de la commune de Paris).

It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols.,

1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economicalconceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to

the ideas developed in his remarkable work. Laws, he wrote, are not a

product of the wisdom of our ancestors: they are the product of their

passions, their timidity, their jealousies and their ambition. The

remedy they offer is worse than the evils they pretend to cure. If and

only if all laws and courts were abolished, and the decisions in the

arising contests were left to reasonable men chosen for that purpose,

real justice would gradually be evolved. As to the state, Godwinfrankly claimed its abolition. A society, he wrote, can perfectly well

exist without any government: only the communities should be small

and perfectly autonomous. Speaking of property, he stated that the

rights of every one 'to every substance capable of contributing to the

benefit of a human being' must be regulated by justice alone: the

substance must go 'to him who most wants it'. His conclusion was

communism. Godwin, however, had not the courage to maintain his

opinions. He entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and


32/84

32

mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political

Justice (8vo, 1796).

Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu'est-ce que la propriete? first

memoir), the name of anarchy with application to the no governmentstate of society. The name of 'anarchists' had been freely applied

during the French Revolution by the Girondists to those

revolutionaries who did not consider that the task of the Revolution

was accomplished with the overthrow of Louis XVI, and insisted upon

a series of economical measures being taken (the abolition of feudal

rights without redemption, the return to the village communities of the

communal lands enclosed since 1669, the limitation of landed

property to 120 acres, progressive income-tax, the nationalorganization of exchanges on a just value basis, which already

received a beginning of practical realization, and so on).

Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and used the

word anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated, as is known, all

schemes of communism, according to which mankind would be driven

into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of

state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by Louis Blancand the collectivists. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on

property that 'Property is theft', he meant only property in its present,

Roman-law, sense of 'right of use and abuse'; in property-rights, on the

other hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the

best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the same

time he did not want violently to dispossess the present owners of

land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He preferred to

attain the same end by rendering capital incapable of earning interest;and this he proposed to obtain by means of a national bank, based on

the mutual confidence of all those who are engaged in production,

who would agree to exchange among themselves their produces at

cost-value, by means of labour cheques representing the hours of

labour required to produce every given commodity. Under such a

system, which Proudhon described as 'Mutuellisme', all the exchanges

of services would be strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would

be enabled to lend money without interest, levying only something

like I per cent, or even less, for covering the cost of administration.


33/84

33

Everyone being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be

required to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly

rent for the use of it. A general 'social liquidation' would thus be

rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same applied to

mines, railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief relations

between citizens would be based on free agreement and regulated by

mere account keeping. The contests might be settled by arbitration. A

penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government,

and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known

characteristics of Proudhon's work.

It is worth noticing that French mutualism had its precursor in

England, in William Thompson, who began by mutualism before he

became a communist, and in his followers John Gray (A Lecture on

Human Happiness, 1825; The Social System, 1831) and J. F. Bray

(Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy, 1839). It had also its

precursor in America. Josiah Warren, who was born in 1798 (cf. W.

Bailie, Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, Boston, 1900),

and belonged to Owen's 'New Harmony', considered that the failure ofthis enterprise was chiefly due to the suppression of individuality and

the lack of initiative and responsibility. These defects, he taught, were

inherent to every scheme based upon authority and the community of

goods. He advocated, therefore, complete individual liberty. In 1827

he opened in Cincinnati a little country store which was the first

'equity store', and which the people called 'time store', because it was

based on labour being exchanged hour for hour in all sorts of produce.

'Cost - the limit of price', and consequently 'no interest', was the mottoof his store, and later on of his 'equity village', near New York, which

was still in existence in 1865. Mr Keith's 'House of Equity' at Boston,

founded in 1855, is also worthy of notice.

While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of

Proudhon found supporters and even a practical application in the

United States, his political conception of anarchy found but little echo

in France, where the Christian socialism of Lamennais and the

Fourierists, and the state socialism of Louis Blanc and the followers of


34/84

34

Saint-Simon, were dominating. These ideas found, however, some

temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses

Hess in 1843, and Karl Grun in 1845, who advocated anarchism.

Besides, the authoritarian communism of Wilhelm Weitling having

given origin to opposition amongst the Swiss working men, WilhelmMarr gave expression to it in the 1840S.

On the other side, individualist anarchism found, also in Germany, its

fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable

works (Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum and articles contributed to the

Rheinische Zeitung) remained quite overlooked until they were

brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay.

Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book,

L'lndividualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has shown how the

development of the German philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and 'the

absolute' of Schelling and the Geist of Hegel, necessarily provoked,

when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the preaching of the same

'absolute' in the camp of the rebels. This was done by Stirner, who

advocated, not only a complete revolt against the state and against the

servitude which authoritarian communism would impose upon men,but also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral

bonds - the rehabilitation of the 'I', the supremacy of the individual,

complete 'amoralism', and the 'association of the egotists'. The final

conclusion of that sort of individual anarchism has been indicated by

Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not

to permit all members of the community to develop in a normal way,

but to permit certain better endowed individuals 'fully to develop',

even at the cost of the happiness and the very existence of the mass ofmankind. It is thus a return towards the most common individual ism,

advocated by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed

man owes in his history precisely the state and the rest, which these

individualists combat. Their individualism goes so far as to end in a

negation of their own starting-point - to say nothing of the

impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in

the conditions of oppression of the masses by the 'beautiful

aristocracies'. His development would remain unilateral. This is why

this direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and


35/84

35

useful advocacy of the full development of each individuality, finds a

hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles.

Anarchism in the International Working Men's Association

A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of socialism

followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris

working men in June 1848 and the fall of the Republic. All the

socialist press was gagged during the reaction period, which lasted

fully twenty years. Nevertheless, even anarchist thought began to

make some progress, namely in the writings of Bellegarrique

(Caeurderoy), and especially Joseph Dejacque (Les Lazareacute'ennes,

L 'Humanisph=E8re, an anarchist-communist utopia, lately discoveredand reprinted). The socialist movement revived only after 1864, when

some French working men, all 'mutualists', meeting in London during

the Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen,

founded the International Working Men's Association. This

association developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct

economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the

political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed until

1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the Inter nationalAssociation was prohibited in France after the uprising of the

Commune, the German working men, who had received man hood

suffrage for elections to the newly constituted imperial parliament,

insisted upon modifying the tactics of the International, and began to

build up a Social Democratic political party. This soon led to a

division in the Working Men's Association, and the Latin federations,

Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could not be

represented), constituted among themselves a Federal union whichbroke entirely with the Marxist general council of the Inter national.

Within these federations developed now what may be described as

modern anarchism. After the names of 'Federalists' and 'Anti-

authoritarians' had been used for some time by these federations the

name of 'anarchists', which their adversaries insisted upon applying to

them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated.

Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin

federations for the development of the principles of anarchism, which


36/84

36

he did in a number of writings, pamphlets and letters. He demanded

the complete abolition of the state, which - he wrote is a product of

religion, belongs to a lower state of civilization, represents the

negation of liberty, and spoils even that which it undertakes to do for

the sake of general well-being. The state was an historically necessaryevil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally

necessary. Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from

universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and

each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its

neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one

becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are

free. Free federations of the communes would constitute free nations.

As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in

common with his Federalist comrades of the International (Cesar De

Paepe, James Guillaume, Schwitzguebel), a 'collectivist anarchist' -

not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the 1840s, or of their

modern Social Democratic followers, but to express a state of things

in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the

labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of

labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group foritself. Social revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at

that time by all socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the

new conditions.

The Jurassic, the Spanish and the Italian federations and sections of

the International Working Men's Association, as also the French, the

German and the American anarchist groups, were for the next years

the chief centres of anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrainedfrom any participation in parliamentary politics, and always kept in

close contact with the labour organizations. However, in the second

half of the 'eighties and the early 'nineties of the nineteenth century,

when the influence of the anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the

1st of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general

strike for an eight hours' day, and in the anti-militarist propaganda in

the army, violent prosecutions were directed against them, especially

in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona

Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago anarchists


37/84

37

in 1887). Against these prosecutions the anarchists retaliated by acts

of violence which in their turn were followed by more executions

from above, and new acts of revenge from below. This created in the

general public the impression that violence is the substance of

anarchism, a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that inreality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open

action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them

outlaws. (Cf. Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson, and Report of

the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in 'Freedom Pamphlets'; A Concise

History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists, by Dyer Lum

(New York, 1886); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches, etc.).

Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction ofProudhonian 'mutuellisme', but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to

which a third direction, Christian-anarchism, was added by Leo

Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-anarchism,

began amongst some prominent modern writers.

The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking,

corresponding with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable

following in the United States, creating quite a school, of which themain writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, Lysander

Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose unfinished work,

Natural Law, was full of promise), and several others, whose names

will be found in Dr Nettlau's Bibliographie de l'anarchie.

A prominent position among the individualist anarchists in America

has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was

started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of

Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement

that anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of

individuals, be it a secret league of a few persons, or the Congress of

the United States, has the right to oppress all mankind, provided it has

the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality

ought to be the law, and 'mind every one your own business' is the

unique moral law of anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general

and thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and

would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would


38/84

38

be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others. He further

indicated (following H. Spencer) the difference which exists between

the encroachment on somebody's rights and resistance to such an

encroachment; between domination and defence: the former being

equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment of a criminal uponan individual, or the encroachment of one upon all others, or of all

others upon one; while resistance to encroachment is defensible and

necessary. For their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have

the right to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is

also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker

thus follows Spencer, and, like him, opens (in the present writer's

opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all

the functions of the state. His criticism of the present state is verysearching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very

powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows

Proudhon.

The individualist anar

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rdamed
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Anarchism Definitions Marshall s Shatz

Documents