~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

<html>

2

<head>

3

4

<title>A.2 What does anarchism stand for?</title>

5

6

</head>

7

<body>

8

9

<h1>A.2 What does anarchism stand for?</h1>

10

11

These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands

12

for in practice and what ideals drive it:

13

14

<div align="center"> The man

15

Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:

16

Power, like a desolating pestilence,

17

Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,

18

Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,

19

Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,

20

A mechanised automaton.

21

</div>

22

23

As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty,

24

desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider

25

individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most

26

important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality

27

does not exist in a vacuum but is a social phenomenon. Outside of

28

society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in

29

order to develop, expand, and grow.

30

31

Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal

32

effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society,

33

while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society

34

(as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts.

35

A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would

36

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

37

theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.

38

39

In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent,

40

anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three

41

principles: liberty, equality and solidarity.

42

These principles are shared by all anarchists. Thus we find,

43

the communist-anarchist Peter Kropotkin talking about a

44

revolution inspired by "the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality and

45

Solidarity." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 128] Individualist-anarchist

46

Benjamin Tucker wrote of a similar vision, arguing that anarchism

47

"insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism:

48

the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity."

49

[Instead of a Book, p. 363] All three principles are

50

interdependent.

51

52

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence,

53

creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the

54

chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and

55

develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and

56

personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the

57

society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be

58

based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote

59

Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it,

60

anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of association" [The End of Anarchism?, p. 35] (See further

61

section A.2.2 -- <a href =secA2.html#seca22> Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?</a>).

62

63

If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then

64

equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real

65

freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross

66

inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only

67

a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while

68

the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a

69

mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under

70

capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really

71

free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by

72

the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality

73

develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free

74

individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for

75

their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to

76

interact. (See also section A.2.5 -- <a href =secA2.html#seca25>Why are anarchists in favour of equality?</a>)

77

78

Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and

79

co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But

80

without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing

81

classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In

82

such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated,"

83

"dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism"

84

is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom

85

resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them.

86

Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a

87

partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed,

88

which weakens society as a whole. (See also section A.2.6 -- <a href =secA2.html#seca26>Why is solidarity important to anarchists?</a>)

89

90

It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or

91

self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:

92

93

"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers, and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 23]

94

</blockquote>

95

For anarchists, real wealth is other people and the planet on which we live. Or, in the words of Emma Goldman, it "consists in things of utility and

96

beauty, in things which help to create strong, beautiful bodies and

97

surroundings inspiring to live in . . . [Our] goal is the freest possible

98

expression of all the latent powers of the individual . . . Such free

99

display of human energy being possible only under complete individual

100

and social freedom," in other words "social equality." [Red Emma Speaks,

101

pp. 67-8]

102

103

Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are

104

idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society.

105

Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to

106

material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people

107

actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a materialist

108

theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction

109

and individuals' mental activity (see Michael Bakunin's God and the

110

State for the classic discussion of materialism versus idealism).

111

112

This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings,

113

not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding of things." [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 185]

114

115

Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability

116

of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to

117

be right. In other words, liberty.

118

119

<a name="seca21"><h2>A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?</h2>

120

121

As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or

122

"without (hierarchical) authority."

123

Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are

124

particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that

125

such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their

126

recommendations (see <a href =secB1.html#secB1> section B.1</a> for more

127

on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

128

129

Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human

130

being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words,

131

"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."

132

[The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently

133

degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the

134

dominated to

135

the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and

136

self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination

137

makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of

138

inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.

139

140

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively)

141

is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and

142

individuality.

143

144

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By

145

co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique

146

individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual

147

can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime,

148

if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for

149

others . . . My freedom is the

150

freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact,

151

except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in

152

the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals."

153

[Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]

154

155

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings

156

have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We

157

cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as

158

Bakunin reminds us:

159

160

"The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official." [quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]

161

</blockquote>

162

In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.

163

164

This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and,

165

as a result, people's "mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities

166

are dwarfed, stunted and crushed" (see <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a> for more details).

167

Thus one of "the grand truths of Anarchism" is that "to be really free

168

is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as

169

each allows all to do the same." This is why anarchists fight for a

170

better society, for a society which respects individuals and their

171

freedom. Under capitalism, "[e]verything is upon the market for sale:

172

all is merchandise and commerce" but there are "certain things that are

173

priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are

174

things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee

175

to all." Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their

176

dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt,

177

resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us

178

denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but

179

anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better

180

than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals,

181

"believe in peace at any price -- except at the price of liberty.

182

But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost.

183

Life . . . they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those

184

elements which make for enjoyment?" [Lucy Parsons, Liberty, Equality

185

& Solidarity, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p. 134]

186

187

So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact

188

in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty

189

(and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do

190

not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them

191

what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps

192

non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists,

193

would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel

194

this attitude needs any sort of explanation.

195

196

<a name="seca22"><h2>A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?</h2>

197

198

An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover

199

of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the

200

intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase."

201

[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196] Because human beings are thinking

202

creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think

203

for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For

204

anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:

205

206

"The very fact. . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being

207

different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for

208

liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait."

209

[Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 439]

210

</blockquote>

211

For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and

212

independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority.

213

Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom

214

will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only

215

in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie

216

men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life."

217

[Op. Cit., pp. 72-3]

218

</blockquote>

219

Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their

220

own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power

221

of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their

222

lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This

223

is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions

224

they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect

225

than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta

226

put it, "[f]or people to become educated to freedom and the management

227

of their own interests, they must be left to act for themselves, to

228

feel responsibility for their own actions in the good or bad that comes

229

from them. They'd make mistakes, but they'd understand from the

230

consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out new ways." [Fra

231

Contadini, p. 26]

232

233

So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of

234

one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be

235

achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will

236

produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich

237

the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed.

238

Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been

239

legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the

240

ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet

241

with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from

242

others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being.

243

This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in

244

political life as well." In fact, we "owe all the political rights and

245

privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to

246

the good will of their governments, but to their own strength." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 75]

247

248

It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of "Direct Action"

249

(see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>) for, as Emma Goldman argued,

250

we have "as much liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism

251

therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and

252

resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and

253

moral." It requires "integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In

254

short, it calls for free, independent spirits" and "only

255

persistent resistance" can "finally set [us] free. Direct action

256

against the authority in the shop, direct action against the

257

authority of the law, direct action against the invasive,

258

meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical,

259

consistent method of Anarchism." [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 76-7]

260

261

Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty,

262

used to resist oppression in the here and now as well as the

263

means of creating a free society. It creates the necessary

264

individual mentality and social conditions in which liberty

265

flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only within

266

society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes:

267

268

"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given

269

historical period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a

270

collective development -- which is not to deny that individuals play

271

an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged

272

to do so if they wish to be free." [Social Anarchism or Lifestyle

273

Anarchism, p. 15]

274

</blockquote>

275

But freedom requires the right kind of social environment in which

276

to grow and develop. Such an environment must be decentralised

277

and based on the direct management of work by those who do it.

278

For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas

279

self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management

280

ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all

281

their abilities -- particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in

282

contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the

283

activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus,

284

rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy

285

marginalises the many and ensures that their development

286

is blunted (see also <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>).

287

288

It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism.

289

As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority "dresses

290

itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the State;

291

and the economic form, that is private property." [cited by Peter

292

Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 43] Capitalism, like

293

the state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over

294

the worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management

295

of work out of the hands of those who do it. This means "that the

296

serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only

297

upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is,

298

of raw material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the

299

whole body of the workers." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf

300

Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50]

301

302

Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose

303

private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery

304

which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle

305

that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the

306

producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of

307

State, p. 158]

308

309

Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in

310

which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they

311

govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it

312

implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one

313

in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince"

314

individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm

315

supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support,

316

they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy.

317

And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means

318

only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations

319

or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations

320

of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on

321

direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives"

322

(see <a href="secA2.html#seca29">section A.2.9</a> for more on anarchist organisation). For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation

323

based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of

324

the people subjected to that power.

325

326

Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within

327

which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and

328

statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property

329

and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals

330

will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their

331

liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material,

332

intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us."

333

[Michael Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 261] That is why anarchists seek to ensure "that real

334

justice and real liberty might come on earth" for it is "all false,

335

all unnecessary, this wild waste of human life, of bone and sinew

336

and brain and heart, this turning of people into human rags, ghosts,

337

piteous caricatures of the creatures they had it in them to be, on

338

the day they were born; that what is called 'economy', the massing

339

up of things, is in reality the most frightful spending -- the

340

sacrifice of the maker to the made -- the lose of all the finer

341

and nobler instincts in the gain of one revolting attribute,

342

the power to count and calculate." [Voltairine de Cleyre, The

343

First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910, pp, 17-18]

344

345

(See

346

<a href="secBcon.html">section B</a> for further discussion

347

of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).

348

349

<a name="seca23"><h2>A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?</h2>

350

351

Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty

352

cannot exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett

353

pointed out:

354

355

"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to

356

co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose

357

that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity;

358

on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.

359

360

"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage

361

freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to

362

take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a

363

walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I

364

should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I

365

cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I

366

must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement,

367

and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is

368

absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree

369

with my friend to go for a walk.

370

371

"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that

372

it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt

373

to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom.

374

This is the difference between free agreement and government."

375

[Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348-9]

376

</blockquote>

377

As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from

378

creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only

379

means whereby each of

380

us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective

381

work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders."

382

[Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86] Thus

383

anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and

384

open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists "aren't

385

opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish hierarchical

386

structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure

387

at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that would build in

388

accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons,

389

task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources"

390

are based on "good social anarchist principles of organisation!"

391

["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist

392

Reader, p. 47 and p. 46]

393

394

The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange

395

at first, but it is understandable. "For those with experience only of

396

authoritarian organisation," argue two British anarchists, "it appears

397

that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that

398

those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in

399

organisation at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and Albert

400

Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In other words, because

401

we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are

402

authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible.

403

What is usually not recognised is that this mode of

404

organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific

405

kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and

406

exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind

407

of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with

408

the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the

409

labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.

410

411

Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human

412

societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on

413

co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access

414

to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour

415

according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings

416

based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised

417

dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and

418

resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of

419

one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom).

420

421

It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate

422

going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the

423

hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent

424

development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to

425

suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that

426

human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive,

427

and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this

428

claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or

429

learned, and as such, can be unlearned (see Ashley Montagu,

430

The Nature of Human Aggression). We are not fatalists or genetic

431

determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change

432

the way they do things, including the way they organise society.

433

434

And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because

435

presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and

436

power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social

437

pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for

438

those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion

439

through its control of the state (see <a href =secB2.html#secb23> section

440

B.2.3</a>), it is able to suppress

441

the majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a

442

smaller scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people

443

within authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a

444

denial of their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:

445

446

"Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organisation

447

is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is

448

organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or

449

unconscious . . . But there is organisation and organisation.

450

Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer:

451

just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches

452

and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation or union

453

may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do

454

so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all

455

over." [Op. Cit., p. 198]

456

</blockquote>

457

Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the

458

result that it is, indeed, "sick all over."

459

460

For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation

461

and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement

462

is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a

463

free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of

464

mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful."

465

[Op. Cit., p. 199] As we discuss in

466

<a href="secA2.html#seca214">section A.2.14</a>, anarchists stress

467

that free agreement has to be complemented by direct democracy (or, as it

468

is usually called by anarchists, self-management) within the association

469

itself otherwise "freedom" become little more than picking masters.

470

471

Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power

472

back into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected

473

by the decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:

474

475

"Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a

476

joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his

477

[or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council

478

within its own territory . . . should act directly and by itself

479

in administering the interests which it includes, and should

480

exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [The General

481

Idea of the Revolution,

482

p. 276]

483

</blockquote>

484

It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests.

485

For anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management.

486

With the abolition of the State, society "can, and must, organise

487

itself in a different fashion, but not from top to bottom . . . The

488

future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards,

489

by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their

490

unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a

491

great federation, international and universal. Then alone will be

492

realised the true and life-giving order of freedom and the common

493

good, that order which, far from denying, on the contrary affirms

494

and brings into harmony the interests of individuals and of society."

495

[Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 205-6] Because a "truly popular

496

organisation begins . . . from below" and so "federalism becomes a

497

political institution of Socialism, the free and spontaneous

498

organisation of popular life." Thus libertarian socialism "is

499

federalistic in character." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy

500

of Bakunin, pp. 273-4 and p. 272]

501

502

Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or

503

self-management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the

504

expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory)

505

democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need

506

for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and

507

which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls

508

"the creative role of dissent." Federalism is necessary to ensure

509

that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in

510

a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To

511

ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being

512

imposed from the top down by a few rulers.

513

514

Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct

515

democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections <a href =secA2.html#seca29> A.2.9</a>

516

and <a href =secA2.html#seca211> A.2.11</a>.

517

518

<a name="seca24"><h2>A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?</h2>

519

520

No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do

521

whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

522

523

For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or

524

to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since

525

authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention

526

human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.

527

528

The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule

529

others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for

530

everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which

531

does not mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the

532

'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and

533

certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

534

535

In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority

536

is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the

537

state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil

538

Disobedience" (1847)

539

540

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."

541

</blockquote>

542

543

<a name="seca25"><h2>A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?</h2>

544

545

As mentioned in <a href=secA2.html>above</a>, anarchists are dedicated to

546

social equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty

547

can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about

548

"equality," and much

549

of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before

550

discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what

551

we do not mean by it.

552

553

Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only

554

non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought

555

about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences

556

not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why?

557

Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane

558

person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]

559

560

That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that

561

everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day

562

intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert

563

attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people

564

into discussions of biology. "The

565

uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of

566

equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal

567

implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities,

568

that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all

569

have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It

570

furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity,

571

not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality

572

does not mean is that all men are alike." [The Fear of Freedom,

573

p. 228] Thus it would be fairer to say that anarchists seek equality

574

because we recognise that everyone is different and, consequently,

575

seek the full affirmation and development of that uniqueness.

576

577

Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have

578

no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives

579

in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the

580

reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that

581

they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation

582

of Society on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and

583

conformity). In the words of Alexander Berkman:

584

585

"The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition and

586

custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman]

587

a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . .

588

All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed

589

in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [What is

590

Anarchism?, p. 165]

591

</blockquote>

592

593

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common

594

grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social

595

relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.

596

597

"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which

598

would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others!

599

"Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise

600

that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests.

601

To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs

602

medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount

603

of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. As Alexander

604

Berkman put it:

605

606

"equality does not mean

607

an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake

608

of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict

609

camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not

610

mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the

611

same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse

612

in fact."

613

614

"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.

615

616

"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest

617

possible variety of activity and development. For human character

618

is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out

619

your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities

620

and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]

621

</blockquote>

622

For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or

623

"equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical

624

society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are

625

related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each

626

generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones.

627

This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without

628

a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources)

629

becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for

630

the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those

631

who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers

632

created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what

633

they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society

634

depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start.

635

From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists

636

desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical

637

system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see).

638

639

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual

640

diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:

641

642

"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various

643

individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? Some

644

will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will

645

always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two

646

identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And

647

it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much

648

more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On

649

the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this

650

diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual

651

complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite

652

diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the

653

very basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for

654

equality." ["All-Round Education", The Basic

655

Bakunin, pp. 117-8]

656

</blockquote>

657

Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray

658

Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta

659

used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By

660

this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in

661

ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to

662

be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would

663

be of no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the

664

collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution."

665

[Michael Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]

666

667

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them,

668

are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and

669

are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural

670

differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power.

671

For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be

672

means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life

673

(machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of

674

others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest).

675

Similarly, if workers manage their own work, there is no class of

676

capitalists to grow rich off their labour. Thus Proudhon:

677

678

"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?

679

680

"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of

681

this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.

682

683

"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of

684

citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that

685

caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of

686

the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists

687

of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into

688

the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every

689

citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist,

690

labourer and expert or artist." [No Gods, No Masters,

691

vol. 1, pp. 57-8]

692

</blockquote>

693

Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions

694

as the key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management

695

as the means to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to

696

social equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example,

697

means that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on

698

how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong

699

believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."

700

701

This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that

702

everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different

703

people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they

704

will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is

705

also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert

706

committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the

707

topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some

708

people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed

709

in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical staff voting on

710

how doctors should perform an operation!

711

712

In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without

713

the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality)

714

to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the

715

individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both,

716

some will have power over others, making decisions for them (i.e.

717

governing them), and thus some will be more free than others. Which

718

implies, just to state the obvious, anarchists seek equality in all

719

aspects of life, not just in terms of wealth. Anarchists "demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure

720

of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power."

721

[Malatesta and Hamon, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 20] Thus self-management is needed to ensure both liberty and equality.

722

723

Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express

724

themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working

725

in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the

726

uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving

727

common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello,

728

From the Ground Up, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression

729

of individuality and so is a necessary base for individual liberty.

730

731

Section F.3 (<a href =secF3.html>"Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists

732

place little or no value on equality?"</a>) discusses anarchist ideas on equality

733

further. Noam Chomsky's essay "Equality" (contained in The Chomsky

734

Reader) is a good summary of libertarian ideas on the subject.

735

736

<a name="seca26"><h2>A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?</h2>

737

738

Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link

739

between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can

740

work together to meet their common interests in an environment that

741

supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual

742

aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and

743

happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.

744

745

Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the

746

"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]

747

748

Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use

749

Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions,

750

or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to

751

be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised

752

in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and

753

non-hierarchical.

754

755

Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for

756

life and is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed

757

Errico Malatesta, "is the only environment in which Man can express

758

his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the

759

greatest possible wellbeing." This "coming together of individuals

760

for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each,"

761

results in "the freedom of each not being limited by, but

762

complemented -- indeed finding the necessary raison d'etre in

763

solidarity and co-operation means treating each other as equals,

764

refusing to treat others as means to an end and creating relationships

765

which support freedom for all rather than a few dominating the many.

766

Emma Goldman reiterated this theme, noting "what wonderful results

767

this unique force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened

768

by co-operation with other individualities . . . co-operation -- as

769

opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the

770

survival and evolution of the species. . . . only mutual aid and

771

voluntary co-operation . . . can create the basis for a free

772

individual and associational life." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 118]

773

774

Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our

775

common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity

776

(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those

777

subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the

778

recognition of common interests:

779

780

"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love

781

of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be

782

happy! I want to appreciate all the beauties of the

783

world. But my freedom is secured only when all

784

other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people

785

around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and

786

meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then

787

can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other

788

people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a

789

question of my own contentment, only of my own

790

self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens

791

my freedom and my happiness. . ." [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven),

792

The BrickBurner magazine quoted by

793

Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the legends, pp. 133-4]

794

</blockquote>

795

To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of

796

Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one

797

is an injury to all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and

798

liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:

799

800

"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept

801

with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation

802

with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism

803

dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at

804

the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates

805

now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly

806

successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and

807

at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also

808

good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health

809

and to liking one another." [No Contest: The Case Against

810

Competition, p. 7]

811

</blockquote>

812

And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only

813

because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary

814

to resist those in power. Malatesta's words are relevant here:

815

816

"the oppressed masses who have never completely resigned themselves

817

to oppress and poverty, and who . . . show themselves thirsting for

818

justice, freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they

819

will not be able to achieve their emancipation except by union and

820

solidarity with all the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in

821

the world." [Anarchy, p. 33]

822

</blockquote>

823

By standing together, we can increase our

824

strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we

825

can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the

826

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

827

system with one more to our liking: "in union there is strength." [Alexander

828

Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 74]

829

830

Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own

831

freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for

832

another. By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so

833

that we may enjoy more, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --

834

that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others

835

based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone,

836

this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in

837

all probability I too will be dominated in turn.

838

839

As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our

840

liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule

841

us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in Luigi Galleani's

842

The End of Anarchism?, p. 79 - different translation in The Ego

843

and Its Own, p. 197]

844

845

Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means

846

by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is

847

strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity

848

should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a

849

leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people,

850

co-operating together as equals. The "big WE" is not solidarity, although

851

the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union.

852

It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are

853

conditioned to blindly obey leaders.

854

855

<a name="seca27"><h2>A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?</h2>

856

857

Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be

858

freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through

859

their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective

860

action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As

861

Emma Goldman points out:

862

863

"History tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual]

864

gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts."

865

[Red Emma Speaks, p. 167]

866

</blockquote>

867

Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves

868

by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this

869

process will be discussed in section J (<a href=secJcon.html>"What Do

870

Anarchists Do?"</a>) and will

871

not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people

872

organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that

873

empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for

874

them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing what anarchists call "direct action" -- see

875

<a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a> for details).

876

877

Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved in

878

it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative,

879

imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be

880

developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico

881

Malatesta pointed out:

882

883

"Between man and his social environment there is a reciprocal action.

884

Men make society what it is and society makes men what they are, and

885

the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. To transform society

886

men [and women] must be changed, and to transform men, society must be

887

changed . . . Fortunately existing society has not been created by

888

the inspired will of a dominating class, which has succeeded in

889

reducing all its subjects to passive and unconscious instruments of

890

its interests. It is the result of a thousand internecine struggles,

891

of a thousand human and natural factors . . .

892

893

"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must take advantage

894

of all the means, all the possibilities and the opportunities that

895

the present environment allows us to act on our fellow men [and

896

women] and to develop their consciences and their demands . . .

897

to claim and to impose those major social transformations which

898

are possible and which effectively serve to open the way to

899

further advances later . . . We must seek to get all the people

900

. . . to make demands, and impose itself and take for itself all

901

the improvements and freedoms it desires as and when it reaches

902

the state of wanting them, and the power to demand them . . .

903

we must push the people to want always more and to increase its

904

pressures [on the ruling elite], until it has achieved complete

905

emancipation." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas,

906

pp. 188-9]

907

</blockquote>

908

Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through

909

their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that

910

limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the

911

process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This

912

process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and

913

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

914

only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op. Cit., p.

915

167] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,

916

"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a piece of chain with him." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 168] By changing

917

the world, even in a small way, we change ourselves.

918

919

In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist

920

militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only

921

self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision

922

and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real

923

world.

924

925

Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait

926

for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political,

927

and given the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will

928

influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in

929

pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it,

930

"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself."

931

We can do so by creating alternative social

932

relationships and organisations, acting as free people in a

933

non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and now can

934

we lay the foundation for a free society. Moreover, this process

935

of self-liberation goes on all the time:

936

937

"Subordinates of all kinds exercise their capacity for critical

938

self-reflection every day -- that is why masters are thwarted,

939

frustrated and, sometimes, overthrown. But unless masters are

940

overthrown, unless subordinates engage in political activity,

941

no amount of critical reflection will end their subjection and

942

bring them freedom." [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract,

943

p. 205]

944

</blockquote>

945

Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life

946

to reject, resist and thwart authority and bring them to their

947

logical conclusion -- a society of free individuals, co-operating

948

as equals in free, self-managed associations. Without this process

949

of critical self-reflection, resistance and self-liberation a

950

free society is impossible. Thus, for anarchists, anarchism comes

951

from the natural resistance of subordinated people striving to

952

act as free individuals within a hierarchical world. This process

953

of resistance is called by many anarchists the "class

954

struggle" (as

955

it is working class people who are generally the most subordinated

956

group within society) or, more generally, "social struggle."

957

It is

958

this everyday resistance to authority (in all its forms) and the

959

desire for freedom which is the key to the anarchist revolution.

960

It is for this reason that "anarchists emphasise over and over

961

that the class struggle provides the only means for the workers

962

[and other oppressed groups] to achieve control over their

963

destiny." [Marie-Louise Berneri, Neither East Nor West,

964

p. 32]

965

966

Revolution is a process, not an event, and every

967

"spontaneous revolutionary action" usually results

968

from and is based upon the patient work of many years of

969

organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The

970

process of "creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use

971

another I.W.W. expression), by building alternative

972

institutions and relationships, is but one component of what

973

must be a long tradition of revolutionary commitment and

974

militancy.

975

976

As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular

977

organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence

978

of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an integral

979

part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate

980

the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . ,

981

we want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the

982

people and correspond to the state of their development

983

and advance as they advance." [Op. Cit., p. 90]

984

985

Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is

986

impossible. Only when individuals free themselves, both materially

987

(by abolishing the state and capitalism) and intellectually (by

988

freeing themselves of submissive attitudes towards authority),

989

can a free society be possible. We should not forget that capitalist

990

and state power, to a great extent, is power over the minds of those

991

subject to them (backed up, of course, with sizeable force if the

992

mental domination fails and people start rebelling and resisting). In

993

effect, a spiritual power as the ideas of the ruling class dominate

994

society and permeate the minds of the oppressed. As long as this

995

holds, the working class will acquiesce to authority, oppression

996

and exploitation as the normal condition of life. Minds submissive

997

to the doctrines and positions of their masters cannot hope to win

998

freedom, to revolt and fight. Thus the oppressed must overcome the

999

mental domination of the existing system before they can throw

1000

off its yoke (and, anarchists argue, direct action is the means

1001

of doing both -- see sections <a href="secJ2.html">J.2</a>

1002

and <a href="secJ4.html">J.4</a>). Capitalism and statism

1003

must be beaten spiritually and theoretically before it is beaten

1004

materially (many anarchists call this mental liberation "class

1005

consciousness" -- see <a href="secB7.html#secb74">section B.7.4</a>). And self-liberation through

1006

struggle against oppression is the only way this can be done. Thus

1007

anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term) "the spirit of

1008

revolt."

1009

1010

Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation,

1011

solidarity and direct action. Direct action is the means of creating

1012

anarchists, free people, and so "Anarchists have always advised

1013

taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry

1014

on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector,

1015

any indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary

1016

improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his

1017

[or her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State

1018

that supports it, and wakes up his [or her] thoughts concerning the

1019

possibility of organising consumption, production and exchange without

1020

the intervention of the capitalist and the state," that is, see the

1021

possibility of a free society. Kropotkin, like many anarchists,

1022

pointed to the Syndicalist and Trade Union movements as a means of

1023

developing libertarian ideas within existing society (although he,

1024

like most anarchists, did not limit anarchist activity exclusively

1025

to them). Indeed, any movement which "permit[s] the working men

1026

[and women] to realise their solidarity and to feel the community

1027

of their interests . . . prepare[s] the way for these conceptions"

1028

of communist-anarchism, i.e. the overcoming the spiritual domination of

1029

existing society within the minds of the oppressed. [Evolution and

1030

Environment, p. 83 and p. 85]

1031

1032

For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the

1033

"history of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and

1034

disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to authority

1035

in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through

1036

rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, Not a Life Story, Just a

1037

Leaf from It, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation

1038

(and self-organisation, self-management and self-activity). Little

1039

wonder Bakunin considered "rebellion" as one of the

1040

"three fundamental principles [which] constitute the essential

1041

conditions of all human development, collective or individual, in

1042

history." [God

1043

and the State, p. 12] This is simply because individuals and

1044

groups cannot be freed by others, only by themselves. Such

1045

rebellion (self-liberation) is the only means by which existing

1046

society becomes more libertarian and an anarchist society a possibility.

1047

1048

<a name="seca28"><h2>A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?</h2>

1049

1050

No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if

1051

one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,

1052

since they embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman

1053

argued, "it is not only government in the sense of the state which

1054

is destructive of every individual value and quality. It is the

1055

whole complex authority and institutional domination which

1056

strangles life. It is the superstition, myth, pretence, evasions,

1057

and subservience which support authority and institutional

1058

domination." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 435] This means that

1059

"there is and will always

1060

be a need to discover and overcome structures of hierarchy, authority

1061

and domination and constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery

1062

[i.e. capitalism], racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc."

1063

[Noam Chomsky, Language and Politics, p. 364]

1064

1065

1066

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships

1067

as well as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be

1068

an anarchist means to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if

1069

anybody needs one) is as follows:

1070

1071

A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series

1072

of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually)

1073

remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have

1074

found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and

1075

exploitation. For example, in his classic article "What Do Bosses Do?" (Review of Radical Political Economy, Vol. 6, No. 2), a study of the

1076

modern factory,

1077

Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy

1078

is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater

1079

control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective

1080

exploitation.

1081

1082

Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat

1083

of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic,

1084

psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of

1085

dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set

1086

of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the

1087

few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those

1088

in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom

1089

have virtually none.

1090

1091

Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential

1092

features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in

1093

hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover,

1094

for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and

1095

authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose

1096

both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to

1097

dismantle all forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist.

1098

This applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure

1099

of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in

1100

nature:

1101

1102

"a fascist system. . . [is] absolutist - power goes from top down . . .

1103

the ideal state is top down control with the public essentially

1104

following orders.

1105

1106

"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you look at what they

1107

are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of directors to

1108

managers to lower managers to ultimately the people on the shop

1109

floor, typing messages, and so on. There's no flow of power or

1110

planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and make

1111

suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The structure

1112

of power is linear, from the top down." [Keeping the Rabble in

1113

Line, p. 237]

1114

</blockquote>

1115

1116

David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company

1117

and the state well when he writes:

1118

1119

"Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the

1120

bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on up

1121

through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything

1122

from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion

1123

of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require

1124

us to see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it

1125

can forbid us free time to engage in political activity; it

1126

can suppress freedom of speech, press and assembly -- it can use

1127

ID cards and armed security police, along with closed-circuit

1128

TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with 'disciplinary

1129

layoffs' (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced,

1130

by circumstances, to accept much of this, or join the millions

1131

of unemployed. . . In almost every job, we have only the 'right'

1132

to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are expected

1133

to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft."

1134

["For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social

1135

self-management", Reinventing Anarchy, Again,

1136

Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4]

1137

</blockquote>

1138

1139

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its

1140

forms, including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support

1141

archy -- which an anarchist, by definition,

1142

cannot do. In other words, for anarchists, "[p]romises to obey,

1143

contracts of (wage)

1144

slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate

1145

status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and

1146

restrain individual autonomy." [Robert Graham, "The Anarchist

1147

Contract, Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich

1148

(ed.), p. 77] Hierarchy, therefore, is against the basic principles which

1149

drive anarchism. It denies what makes us human and "divest[s] the

1150

personality of its most integral traits; it denies the very notion

1151

that the individual is competent to deal not only with the

1152

management of his or her personal life but with its most

1153

important context: the social context." [Murray Bookchin,

1154

The Ecology of Freedom, p. 202]

1155

1156

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has a

1157

hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is for

1158

two reasons. Firstly, under

1159

capitalism workers are

1160

driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty)

1161

to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the

1162

economic conditions workers face by creating "massive disparities

1163

in wealth . . . [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the

1164

capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value."

1165

Therefore:

1166

1167

"To portray the parties to an employment contract,

1168

for example, as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious

1169

inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker

1170

and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship

1171

of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as

1172

the epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual

1173

liberty and social justice." [Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70]

1174

</blockquote>

1175

It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action

1176

and organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working

1177

people and allows them to assert their autonomy (see

1178

<a href="secJcon.html">section J</a>).

1179

1180

Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association

1181

is voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state

1182

system must be considered as "anarchy." In a modern democracy no

1183

one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We are free

1184

to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature

1185

of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based

1186

upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed

1187

forces, states even) all because they are "voluntary." As Bob Black

1188

argues, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring

1189

identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements

1190

in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy

1191

is fetishism at its worst." [The Libertarian as Conservative,

1192

The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 142]

1193

Anarchy is more than being free to pick a master.

1194

1195

Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise

1196

you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic.

1197

For more on this see section A.2.14 (<a href="secA2.html#seca214">

1198

Why is voluntarism not enough?</a>).

1199

1200

Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they

1201

can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs

1202

directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures

1203

(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an

1204

association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly

1205

anarchistic.

1206

1207

We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,

1208

apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its

1209

association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a

1210

capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"

1211

capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on

1212

hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism

1213

is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see <a href =secFcon.html>

1214

Section F</a>)

1215

1216

<a name="seca29"><h2>A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?</h2>

1217

1218

Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We

1219

consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we

1220

have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a

1221

rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially,

1222

can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power

1223

into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty

1224

and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away

1225

from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour

1226

organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in

1227

the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.

1228

1229

Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals

1230

must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of

1231

freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based

1232

on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),

1233

as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to grow

1234

and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic

1235

collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct

1236

democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section

1237

A.2.11 -- <a href =secA2.html#seca211> Why do most anarchists support direct

1238

democracy?</a>).

1239

1240

We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some

1241

sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from

1242

it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will

1243

always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress.

1244

But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for

1245

food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved

1246

without the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty."

1247

[The End of Anarchism?, p. 28] Anarchism aims to "rouse the spirit of

1248

initiative in individuals and in groups." These will "create in their

1249

mutual relations a movement and a life based on the principles of free

1250

understanding" and recognise that "variety, conflict even, is life

1251

and that uniformity is death." [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 143]

1252

1253

Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict

1254

as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should

1255

not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of

1256

conflict itself but the addition of competition." Indeed, "a rigid

1257

demand for agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from

1258

contributing their wisdom to a group effort." [Alfie Kohn, No

1259

Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 156] It is

1260

for this reason that most anarchists reject consensus decision making in

1261

large groups (see section <a href="secA2.html#seca212">A.2.12</a>).

1262

1263

So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of

1264

all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative

1265

conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by

1266

elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable

1267

and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of

1268

the assembly which elected them. Thus in an anarchist society,

1269

"we'll look after our affairs ourselves and decide what to

1270

do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action, there

1271

is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell

1272

them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . .

1273

nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates,

1274

instead of people being individuals whom we've given the right

1275

to order us about, would be people . . . [with] no authority,

1276

only the duty to carry out what everyone involved wanted."

1277

[Errico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, p. 34] If the delegates act against their mandate

1278

or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the

1279

assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly

1280

recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains

1281

in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.

1282

1283

This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power

1284

of recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation.

1285

The key difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an

1286

anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for

1287

example, people give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for

1288

them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises

1289

is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power

1290

lies at the top and those at the base are expected to obey. Similarly,

1291

in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected minority of

1292

bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey.

1293

1294

In an anarchist society this

1295

relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected)

1296

holds power in an anarchist community. Instead decisions are made using direct

1297

democratic principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint

1298

delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction between

1299

policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and the co-ordination

1300

and administration of any adopted policy (which is the job for delegates).

1301

1302

These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely

1303

associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be

1304

run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental

1305

assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as

1306

the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and

1307

international conferences in which all important issues and problems

1308

affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition,

1309

the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would

1310

be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed,

1311

and co-ordinated. The delegates would simply "take their given mandates

1312

to the relative meetings and try to harmonise their various needs

1313

and desires. The deliberations would always be subject to the control

1314

and approval of those who delegated them" and so "there would be

1315

no danger than the interest of the people [would] be forgotten."

1316

[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 36]

1317

1318

Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and

1319

administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under

1320

strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies

1321

would have a limited tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses,

1322

have a fixed mandate -- they are not able to make decisions on behalf

1323

of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the delegates

1324

to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall

1325

by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first

1326

place. In this way any committees required to

1327

co-ordinate join activities would be, to quote Malatesta's words, "always

1328

under the direct control of the population" and so express the

1329

"decisions taken at popular assemblies." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 175 and p. 129]

1330

1331

Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions

1332

reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any

1333

compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go

1334

back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification

1335

any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the

1336

community that has delegated a particular task to a particular

1337

individual or committee. In addition,

1338

they can call confederal conferences to discuss new developments and to

1339

inform action committees about changing wishes and to instruct them on

1340

what to do about any developments and ideas.

1341

1342

In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation

1343

or society are not representatives (as they are in a democratic

1344

government). Kropotkin makes the difference clear:

1345

1346

"The question of true delegation versus representation can be better

1347

understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men [and women],

1348

who meet each day in their work and share common concerns . . . who

1349

have discussed every aspect of the question that concerns them and

1350

have reached a decision. They then choose someone and send him [or

1351

her] to reach an agreement with other delegates of the same kind. . .

1352

The delegate is not authorised to do more than explain to other

1353

delegates the considerations that have led his [or her] colleagues

1354

to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he [or she]

1355

will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition

1356

which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens

1357

when true delegation comes into being." [Words of a

1358

Rebel, p. 132]

1359

</blockquote>

1360

Unlike in a representative system, power is not delegated into the

1361

hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for

1362

the association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the

1363

first place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated

1364

and subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of

1365

the assemblies they came from rather than their own. In this way

1366

government is replaced by anarchy, a network of free associations

1367

and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated

1368

delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from

1369

the bottom up.

1370

1371

Only this system would ensure the "free organisation of the people,

1372

an organisation from below upwards." This "free federation from

1373

below upward" would start with the basic "association" and their

1374

federation "first into a commune, then a federation of communes

1375

into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into an

1376

international fraternal association." [Michael Bakunin, The

1377

Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 298] This network of anarchist communities would work on three levels. There

1378

would be "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of

1379

federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the

1380

organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different

1381

functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the

1382

satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary,

1383

and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas,

1384

for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and

1385

Environment, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free

1386

association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.

1387

1388

By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of

1389

life, because the people

1390

at the base of the organisation are in control, not their delegates.

1391

Only this form of organisation can replace government (the initiative and

1392

empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of

1393

all). This form of organisation would exist in all activities which

1394

required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as

1395

Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures which

1396

they could understand and control." [quoted by Cornelius Castoriadis,

1397

Political and Social Writings, vol. 2, p. 97] For individual initiatives, the

1398

individual involved would manage them.

1399

1400

As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures

1401

that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.

1402

Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and

1403

limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of

1404

governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the

1405

decisions.

1406

1407

For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would

1408

look like see <a href="secIcon.html">section I</a>. Anarchy,

1409

however, is not some distant goal but rather

1410

an aspect of current struggles against oppression and exploitation.

1411

Means and ends are linked, with direct action generating mass

1412

participatory organisations and preparing people to directly manage

1413

their own personal and collective interests. This is because anarchists,

1414

as we discuss in <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>, see the framework of a free society

1415

being based on the organisations created by the oppressed in their

1416

struggle against capitalism in the here and now. In this sense,

1417

collective struggle creates the organisations as well as the individual

1418

attitudes anarchism needs to work. The struggle against oppression is

1419

the school of anarchy. It teaches us not only how to be anarchists but

1420

also gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like,

1421

what its initial organisational framework could be and the experience

1422

of managing our own activities which is required for such a society to

1423

work. As such, anarchists try to create the kind of world we want

1424

in our current struggles and do not think our ideas are only applicable

1425

"after the revolution." Indeed, by applying our principles today we

1426

bring anarchy that much nearer.

1427

1428

<a name="seca210"><h2>A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?</h2>

1429

1430

The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will

1431

have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions

1432

of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.

1433

1434

However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and

1435

doomed to failure. To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations

1436

would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the

1437

statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces

1438

indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity,

1439

uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality.

1440

More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and

1441

crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy,

1442

see section B.1 -- <a href =secB1.html>"Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?"</a>).

1443

1444

That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)

1445

liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner

1446

Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting

1447

Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great solidarity that existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic]

1448

own strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations

1449

must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a

1450

mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 67f]

1451

1452

As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures

1453

restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all

1454

very well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one

1455

thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he

1456

cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all."

1457

[quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 33]

1458

1459

The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.

1460

Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in

1461

the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will

1462

become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and

1463

you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." ["The Libertarian as Conservative," The Abolition of Work and other

1464

essays, pp. 147-8]

1465

1466

This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation

1467

in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred

1468

organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their

1469

abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating

1470

in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and

1471

society, they can ensure the full development of their individual

1472

capacities.

1473

1474

With the free participation of all in social life, we would quickly

1475

see the end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people existing

1476

to make ends meet and being used to increase the wealth and power of

1477

the few as under capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see (to

1478

quote Kropotkin) "the well-being of all" and it is "high time for

1479

the worker to assert his [or her] right to the common inheritance,

1480

and to enter into possession of it." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 35

1481

and p. 44] For only taking possession of the means of life (workplaces,

1482

housing, the land, etc.) can ensure "liberty and justice, for liberty

1483

and justice are not decreed but are the result of economic

1484

independence. They spring from the fact that the individual is

1485

able to live without depending on a master, and to enjoy . . .

1486

the product of his [or her] toil." [Ricardo Flores Magon, Land

1487

and Liberty, p. 62] Therefore liberty requires the abolition of

1488

capitalist private property rights in favour of "use rights."

1489

(see <a href="secB3.html">section B.3</a> for more details). Ironically, the "abolition of

1490

property will free the people from homelessness and nonpossession."

1491

[Max Baginski, "Without Government," Anarchy! An Anthology of

1492

Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, p. 11] Thus anarchism promises "both requisites

1493

of happiness -- liberty and wealth." In anarchy, "mankind

1494

will live in freedom and in comfort." [Benjamin Tucker, Why

1495

I am an Anarchist, p. 135 and p. 136]

1496

1497

Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of

1498

society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and

1499

solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist

1500

organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be

1501

accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and

1502

developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of

1503

thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that

1504

affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and

1505

protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of

1506

people enslaved by hierarchy.

1507

1508

Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from

1509

capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves,

1510

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

1511

command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated

1512

to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the

1513

submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion."

1514

[For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy, Thesis 95]

1515

1516

<a name="seca211"><h2>A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?</h2>

1517

1518

For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions

1519

within free associations is the political counterpart of free

1520

agreement (this is also known as "self-management"). The reason

1521

is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.'

1522

non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think

1523

that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an

1524

end of oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93]

1525

Thus the relationships we create within an organisation is as

1526

important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary

1527

nature (see <a href="secA2.html#seca214">section A.2.14</a>

1528

for more discussion).

1529

1530

It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully

1531

human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans" the

1532

individual has three options: "he [or she] must submit to the will of

1533

others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or

1534

live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest

1535

good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity."

1536

[Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 85]

1537

1538

Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means

1539

by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings,

1540

respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct

1541

democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and

1542

self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities

1543

to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their

1544

intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes

1545

in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what

1546

is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?

1547

1548

As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist "does not wish to abolish

1549

government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish

1550

to abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those

1551

who oppose it." [Roads to Freedom, p. 85] Anarchists see

1552

self-management as the means to achieve this. Once an individual

1553

joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes

1554

a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association

1555

is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large

1556

workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific

1557

office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the contents

1558

of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the

1559

association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage

1560

their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical

1561

organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals

1562

participate in making their own collective decisions, their own

1563

commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation is not owed to a

1564

separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but

1565

to one's fellow "citizens."

1566

1567

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing

1568

their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also

1569

superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or

1570

repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political

1571

"authority", but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships

1572

between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an

1573

elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see

1574

section B.1 - <a href="secB1.html">"Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?"</a> - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:

1575

1576

"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No

1577

more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen,

1578

each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [The General

1579

Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6]

1580

</blockquote>

1581

Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates

1582

in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision

1583

can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps

1584

prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities

1585

(and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the

1586

association's elected administration. This is because, to quote

1587

a Spanish anarchist activist, "a collectivity as such cannot write

1588

a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which

1589

only an individual can perform." Thus the need "to organise the

1590

administration." Supposing an association is "organised without

1591

any directive council or any hierarchical offices" which "meets

1592

in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles

1593

all matters needful for its progress" it still "nominates a

1594

commission with strictly administrative functions." However,

1595

the assembly "prescribes a definite line of conduct for this

1596

commission or gives it an imperative mandate" and so "would

1597

be perfectly anarchist." As it "follows that delegating

1598

these tasks to qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how

1599

to proceed, . . . does not mean an abdication of that collectivity's

1600

own liberty." [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A

1601

Short History of Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted,

1602

follows Proudhon's ideas that within the workers' associations

1603

"all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the

1604

approval of the members." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222]

1605

1606

Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e.

1607

direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely

1608

joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply

1609

to the federations of associations an anarchist society would

1610

need to function. "All the commissions or delegations nominated

1611

in an anarchist society," correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols,

1612

"must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the

1613

permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them."

1614

Combined with the "imperative mandate" and "purely administrative

1615

functions," this "make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to

1616

arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority."

1617

[quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188-9] Again, Pujols follows

1618

Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the "implementation

1619

of the binding mandate" to ensure the people do not "adjure

1620

their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]

1621

1622

By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists

1623

ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own

1624

decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude

1625

others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential

1626

to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent

1627

human existence.

1628

1629

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are

1630

governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,

1631

The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of

1632

direct democracy as we have

1633

described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule.

1634

If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she

1635

is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to

1636

recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise

1637

its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose

1638

obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive

1639

imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed

1640

obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association.

1641

Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the

1642

context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means

1643

by which liberty can be nurtured ("Individual autonomy limited by the

1644

obligation to hold given promises." [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max

1645

Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]).

1646

Needless to say, a minority, if it remains

1647

in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of

1648

the error of its ways.

1649

1650

And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does

1651

not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case

1652

for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but

1653

that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the

1654

good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that

1655

anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband,

1656

whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the

1657

expense of those subject to their decisions.

1658

1659

Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is

1660

why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights.

1661

This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases

1662

itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions

1663

and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:

1664

1665

"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will

1666

have to take political action, including politically disobedient action

1667

if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the

1668

political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one

1669

possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing

1670

democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the

1671

right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of

1672

self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical

1673

recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent,

1674

or where necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political

1675

Obligation, p. 162]

1676

</blockquote>

1677

1678

Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how

1679

different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between

1680

associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves.

1681

Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations

1682

joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation

1683

are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with

1684

the same rights of "voice and exit" for members and the same rights for

1685

minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations,

1686

a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising

1687

individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.

1688

1689

The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9

1690

(<a href=secA2.html#seca29> What sort of society do anarchists want?</a>)

1691

and discussed in greater detail in section I (<a href=secIcon.html>What

1692

would an anarchist society look like?</a>).

1693

1694

This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta

1695

speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of

1696

the majority to govern human society in general." As can

1697

be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the

1698

minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's

1699

words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they

1700

have even heard what these might be." [The Anarchist Revolution,

1701

p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct

1702

democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule"

1703

nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what.

1704

In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it

1705

fits Malatesta's argument that:

1706

1707

"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it

1708

is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of

1709

the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing

1710

something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should

1711

feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such adaptation

1712

on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal,

1713

voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to

1714

prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy.

1715

It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op.

1716

Cit.,

1717

p. 100]

1718

</blockquote>

1719

As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as

1720

having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule

1721

is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making

1722

tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and

1723

acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the

1724

majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the

1725

minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:

1726

1727

"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced

1728

that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice

1729

his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should

1730

support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [Errico Malatesta: His

1731

Life and Ideas, p. 132]

1732

</blockquote>

1733

1734

Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct

1735

democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary

1736

associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less

1737

than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the

1738

means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the

1739

unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice

1740

of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly

1741

represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced

1742

by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights,

1743

or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the

1744

association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results

1745

from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for

1746

all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f,

1747

p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]

1748

1749

Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash.

1750

In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most

1751

decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required

1752

for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and

1753

minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights

1754

in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created

1755

through practical experience by the people directly involved.

1756

1757

Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does

1758

not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For

1759

example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making

1760

(see the <a href="secA2.html#seca212">next section</a> on consensus and

1761

why most anarchists do not think

1762

that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most

1763

anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the

1764

best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with

1765

anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.

1766

1767

<a name="seca212"><h2>A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?</h2>

1768

1769

The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations

1770

generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based

1771

upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put

1772

into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling

1773

the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles.

1774

1775

Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree,

1776

has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing his

1777

experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications:

1778

1779

"In order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority

1780

dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline

1781

to vote on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially

1782

amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in

1783

American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of the

1784

dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the

1785

decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing

1786

expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance

1787

with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings--so

1788

that a 'decision' could be made. . . . 'consensus' was ultimately achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as

1789

participants in the process.

1790

1791

"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of

1792

all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that

1793

still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority

1794

decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . . .by dull monologues -- and the

1795

uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making,

1796

the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have

1797

been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned

1798

and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours

1799

no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one'

1800

of the 'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", Democracy and Nature, no. 8, p. 8]

1801

</blockquote>

1802

Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of

1803

decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with

1804

one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own experience

1805

has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions by

1806

consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common

1807

intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least

1808

controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizeable assembly

1809

of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree

1810

with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue" [Op. Cit., p.7]

1811

1812

Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists

1813

disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association.

1814

While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually

1815

impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its

1816

other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association

1817

by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent

1818

in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are

1819

fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted

1820

by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique,

1821

they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to

1822

express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of

1823

individuals.

1824

1825

In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the

1826

"creative role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends

1827

to fade away in the grey uniformity required by consensus."

1828

[Op. Cit., p. 8]

1829

1830

We must stress that anarchists are not in favour of a mechanical

1831

decision making process in which the majority just vote the minority away

1832

and ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see

1833

it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen

1834

to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which

1835

all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation

1836

within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common

1837

interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and

1838

minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise

1839

or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important

1840

issues.

1841

1842

<a name="seca213"><h2>A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?</h2>

1843

1844

The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that

1845

liberal scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being

1846

"collectivists" while Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general

1847

for being "individualists."

1848

1849

This is hardly surprising, as anarchists

1850

reject both ideologies as nonsense. Whether they like it or not,

1851

non-anarchist individualists and collectivists are two sides of the same

1852

capitalist coin. This can best shown be by considering modern capitalism,

1853

in which "individualist" and "collectivist" tendencies continually

1854

interact, often with the political and economic structure swinging from

1855

one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism and individualism are both

1856

one-sided aspects of human existence, and like all manifestations of

1857

imbalance, deeply flawed.

1858

1859

For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for

1860

the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of

1861

individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the

1862

group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human

1863

interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think,

1864

only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian

1865

"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the

1866

"cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected,

1867

since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies

1868

their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough

1869

individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the

1870

leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this

1871

phenomenon.

1872

1873

Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of

1874

society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This

1875

means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group.

1876

In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the

1877

individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much stress

1878

on groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian

1879

organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express

1880

themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social

1881

relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom.

1882

So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the

1883

individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:

1884

1885

"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative

1886

and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . .

1887

[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to

1888

individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society

1889

or the collectivity - and the State or government which claims

1890

to represent it - if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of

1891

individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all

1892

thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being

1893

individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or

1894

become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither

1895

the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the

1896

resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who

1897

make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the

1898

relationship between society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question

1899

of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving

1900

all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of

1901

replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a

1902

key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the

1903

oppression of everyone else . . . " [Anarchy, pp. 38-38]

1904

</blockquote>

1905

These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with

1906

anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . .

1907

is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his

1908

individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic

1909

laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling]

1910

classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and

1911

systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit . . . That corrupt

1912

and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality

1913

. . [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery,

1914

the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline.

1915

'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the

1916

masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve

1917

a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.'" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 112]

1918

1919

While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by

1920

themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of

1921

individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships

1922

by their very nature, they help shape individuals. In other words,

1923

groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact

1924

on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to

1925

the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists

1926

fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian

1927

manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups".

1928

Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"

1929

ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions

1930

in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a

1931

need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These

1932

contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on

1933

individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. abstract individualism.

1934

1935

In contrast, anarchists stress social "individualism" (another, perhaps

1936

better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality").

1937

Anarchism "insists that the centre of gravity in society is the

1938

individual -- that

1939

he [sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully. . . . If he

1940

is to develop freely and fully, he must be relieved from the interference

1941

and oppression of others. . . . [T]his has nothing in common with. . .

1942

'rugged individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby,

1943

not rugged. At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the

1944

state and wails for protection. . . .Their 'rugged individualism' is

1945

simply one of the many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled

1946

business and political extortion." [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit.,

1947

pp. 442-3]

1948

1949

Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its

1950

ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by

1951

others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists

1952

and grows. "The freedom we want," Malatesta argued, "for ourselves

1953

and for others, is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom

1954

which in practice is inevitably translated into the oppression of the

1955

weak; but it is a real freedom, possible freedom, which is the

1956

conscious community of interests, voluntary solidarity." [Anarchy,

1957

p. 43]

1958

1959

A society based on abstract individualism results in an inequality

1960

of power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for

1961

an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the

1962

contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and,

1963

most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state developed.

1964

In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free" when they are

1965

isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally in the

1966

"state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a

1967

"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy

1968

with no basis in reality (human beings have always been social

1969

animals), this "theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive

1970

powers over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist

1971

system, which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the

1972

capitalist economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within

1973

capitalism, individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the

1974

owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See

1975

sections <a href =secA2.html#seca214>A.2.14</a> and

1976

<a href = secB4.html>B.4</a> for further details).

1977

1978

Thus anarchists reject capitalist "individualism" as being,

1979

to quote Kropotkin, "a narrow and selfish individualism" which,

1980

moreover, is "a foolish egoism which belittles the individual"

1981

and is "not individualism at all. It will not lead to what was

1982

established as a goal; that is the complete broad and most

1983

perfectly attainable development of individuality." The hierarchy

1984

of capitalism results in "the impoverishment of individuality" rather than its

1985

development. To this anarchists contrast "the individuality

1986

which attains the greatest individual development possible

1987

through the highest communist sociability in what concerns

1988

both its primordial needs and its relationships with others

1989

in general." [Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution,

1990

p. 295, p. 296 and p. 297] For anarchists, our freedom is enriched

1991

by those around us when we work with them as equals and not as

1992

master and servant.

1993

1994

In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both

1995

individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each

1996

implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of

1997

individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of

1998

collectivism.

1999

2000

Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately

2001

impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the

2002

individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit

2003

suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom you live),

2004

ultimately impoverishes the individual, since individuals do not exist

2005

apart from society but can only exist within it. In addition, individualism

2006

ends up denying the "select few" the insights and abilities of the

2007

individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is a source of

2008

self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction),

2009

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

2010

Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 293]

2011

2012

True liberty and community exist elsewhere.

2013

2014

<a name="seca214"><h2>A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?</h2>

2015

2016

Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise

2017

liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in

2018

free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop,

2019

grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under

2020

capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.

2021

2022

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and

2023

promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement

2024

and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can

2025

evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under

2026

capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For,

2027

while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in

2028

<a href =secB4.html>section B.4,</a> this is

2029

not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty.

2030

This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising

2031

to obey in return for payment. And as Carole Pateman points out, "to promise

2032

to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals'

2033

freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of

2034

independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to

2035

state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise

2036

is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own

2037

actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate." [The Problem of

2038

Political Obligation, p. 19] This results in those obeying no longer

2039

making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e.

2040

that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be

2041

allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is

2042

violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the

2043

many obey (see also <a href="secA2.html#seca28">section A.2.8</a>). Thus any voluntarism which generates

2044

relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and

2045

violates its own justification.

2046

2047

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their

2048

freedom to a boss in order to live.

2049

In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can

2050

choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the

2051

right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For

2052

if, as Rousseau put it, sovereignty,

2053

"for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented"

2054

neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract.

2055

Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England regards itself

2056

as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the

2057

election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected,

2058

slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [The Social Contract

2059

and Discourses, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To

2060

paraphrase Rousseau:

2061

2062

<blockquote>Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; but she is grossly

2063

mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As

2064

soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker.</blockquote>

2065

2066

To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:

2067

2068

"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions

2069

in land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves

2070

there, and that he should only allow them to do so on condition that

2071

they accept his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I

2072

can still conceive . . . Would not this tyrannical act contain a

2073

double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on

2074

the liberty of the inhabitants?" [Op. Cit., p. 316]

2075

</blockquote>

2076

Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be made by property a slave

2077

or a despot by turns." [What is Property?, p. 371] Little wonder

2078

we discover Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another individual on

2079

any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would

2080

"alienate his [or her] freedom" and so would be a "a relationship of

2081

voluntary servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a

2082

contract in a free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be "devoid of

2083

any sense of personal dignity." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,

2084

pp. 68-9] Only self-managed associations can create relationships of

2085

equality rather than of subordination between its members.

2086

2087

Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary

2088

associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a

2089

sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only

2090

self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather

2091

than of subordination between its members.

2092

2093

It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and

2094

urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with

2095

equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism."

2096

[Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 277] For similar

2097

reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed

2098

marriage as it turned women into "a bonded slave, who takes her

2099

master's name, her master's bread, her master's commands, and serves

2100

her master's passions . . . who can control no property, not even her

2101

own body, without his consent." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Sex Slavery",

2102

The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 94] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries

2103

has been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals,

2104

it still is based on the patriarchal principles anarchists like

2105

Goldman and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see

2106

<a href="secA3.html#seca35">section A.3.5</a> for more on feminism and anarchism).

2107

2108

Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition

2109

to defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores

2110

(or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are

2111

made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them

2112

("For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to

2113

remain free." [Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be

2114

based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course

2115

assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise

2116

their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is

2117

not enough to create a society that maximises liberty. This is why

2118

anarchists think that voluntary association must be complemented by

2119

self-management (direct democracy) within these associations. For

2120

anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply self-management. Or,

2121

to use Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the primordial fact of

2122

humanity, so association is its complementary term." [System of

2123

Economical Contradictions, p. 430]

2124

2125

To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private

2126

property (and so statism), those with property have more power,

2127

which they can use to perpetuate their authority. "Wealth is power,

2128

poverty is weakness," in the words of Albert Parsons. This means

2129

that under capitalism the much praised "freedom to choose" is

2130

extremely limited. It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom

2131

to pick a master (under slavery, quipped Parsons, the master

2132

"selected . . . his own slaves. Under the wage slavery system

2133

the wage slave selects his master."). Under capitalism, Parsons

2134

stressed, "those disinherited of their natural rights must hire

2135

out and serve and obey the oppressing class or starve. There

2136

is no other alternative. Some things are priceless, chief among

2137

which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale

2138

or hire." [Anarchism, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse

2139

servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty

2140

of others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave,

2141

and so is actually a denial of liberty.

2142

2143

Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are

2144

prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots.

2145

We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are

2146

prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.

2147

2148

(<a href =secA2.html#seca211> Section A.2.11 </a> discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social

2149

counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). <a href =secB4.html> Section B.4</a> discusses

2150

why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property

2151

owners and the propertyless).

2152

2153

<a name="seca215"><h2>A.2.15 What about "human nature"?</h2>

2154

2155

Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political

2156

theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,

2157

"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument

2158

against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is

2159

not the case, however.

2160

2161

First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature,

2162

it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is

2163

contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace

2164

and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so

2165

are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered

2166

"human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For

2167

example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal"

2168

for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly

2169

normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the

2170

Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become

2171

part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

2172

2173

"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals

2174

are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways

2175

of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options.

2176

Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the

2177

institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted

2178

pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The

2179

only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature

2180

manifest themselves.

2181

2182

"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of

2183

human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other

2184

human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society

2185

based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might

2186

be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of

2187

other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant.

2188

Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality

2189

revealing themselves." [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

2190

</blockquote>

2191

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what

2192

"human nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are

2193

expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is

2194

the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather,

2195

we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses

2196

itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create.

2197

A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative)

2198

ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a

2199

libertarian one. So "when we hear men [and women] saying that

2200

Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really

2201

are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that

2202

nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of

2203

rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less

2204

ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate

2205

those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity,

2206

of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for

2207

Yourselves, p. 83]

2208

2209

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism

2210

is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse

2211

not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to

2212

policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in

2213

science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The

2214

greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on

2215

the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one

2216

speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart

2217

fettered, wounded, and maimed?" Change society, create a better

2218

social environment and then we can judge what is a product of

2219

our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system.

2220

For this reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the

2221

human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the

2222

human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the

2223

shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom, expansion,

2224

opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us

2225

the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful

2226

possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

2227

2228

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each

2229

individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by

2230

"society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues,

2231

"I don't think its possible to give a

2232

rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that

2233

assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical

2234

product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral

2235

justification for the commitment to some kind of social change,

2236

except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how

2237

modifications in the structure of society will be better able to

2238

conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our

2239

essential nature." [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to

2240

enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not

2241

"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to

2242

think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are

2243

sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to

2244

prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and

2245

oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "the power to think

2246

and the desire to rebel" as "precious faculties." [God and

2247

the State, p. 9]).

2248

2249

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an

2250

anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically

2251

makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social

2252

relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep

2253

unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the

2254

centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying

2255

some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the

2256

human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no

2257

hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive"

2258

is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human

2259

nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may

2260

not be.

2261

2262

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human

2263

nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest

2264

claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is

2265

a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the

2266

leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the

2267

ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming still worse than

2268

they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are

2269

spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are

2270

spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a

2271

very important one. We admit the imperfections of human

2272

nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make

2273

it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make

2274

no such exception, they say that we are dreamers." [Peter

2275

Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human nature is

2276

so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping

2277

this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

2278

2279

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations

2280

bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the

2281

oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian

2282

relationships so produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege

2283

and of every kind of privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the

2284

mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits

2285

no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity."

2286

[God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become

2287

corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile

2288

in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there

2289

will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there

2290

is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As

2291

such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists

2292

justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it

2293

produces.

2294

2295

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this

2296

day. For example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim

2297

(with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product

2298

of our "nature," which is determined by our genes. These claims

2299

are simply a new variation of the "human nature" argument and

2300

have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be.

2301

Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this

2302

"new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those

2303

in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective"

2304

and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and

2305

power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes:

2306

Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin

2307

and Leon J. Kamin).

2308

2309

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As

2310

scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential

2311

behaviour is circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what

2312

sociobiology means "by genetic control, then we can scarcely

2313

disagree." However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a

2314

form of "biological determinism" that sociobiology argues for.

2315

Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits

2316

says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness

2317

are biological since they represent one subset of a possible

2318

range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and kindness."

2319

And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create

2320

social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may

2321

be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists

2322

themselves, who "acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while

2323

"often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary

2324

and unimportant aberrations." This is surprising, for if you

2325

believe that "repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our

2326

genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is

2327

embarrassing." [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

2328

2329

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology

2330

proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society

2331

onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly

2332

consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and "natural").

2333

Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred

2334

back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the

2335

principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.)

2336

are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification

2337

for the status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent

2338

people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

2339

2340

This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain,

2341

and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies

2342

are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of

2343

human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology,

2344

a "weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become

2345

an 'alpha' male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.'

2346

By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human

2347

rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the

2348

course of history." This "expresses a power of hierarchical

2349

institutions over persons that is completely reversed in

2350

so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence of institutions

2351

is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about 'alpha

2352

males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology",

2353

Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes

2354

human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real

2355

sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.

2356

2357

The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature"

2358

(or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every

2359

ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support

2360

doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite

2361

power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously,

2362

such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as

2363

it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and

2364

it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

2365

2366

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One

2367

thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it

2368

is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the

2369

moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist.

2370

The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming

2371

that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to

2372

human nature, even though all past systems did not.

2373

2374

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that

2375

people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the

2376

same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to

2377

capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may

2378

be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live

2379

in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists

2380

working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on

2381

cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in

2382

capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle

2383

within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant

2384

political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive

2385

individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

2386

2387

Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in

2388

response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of

2389

Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the

2390

mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time,

2391

Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual

2392

aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual

2393

struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see

2394

Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book

2395

Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he

2396

stressed, a "factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor

2397

which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival.

2398

Thus co-operation is just as "natural" as competition so proving

2399

that "human nature" was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation

2400

between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage

2401

individuals.

2402

2403

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature"

2404

for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being "human nature"

2405

is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This

2406

means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits

2407

to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such,

2408

anarchists "do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change

2409

as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently

2410

under different circumstances." Secondly, change "seems to be one of

2411

the fundamental laws of existence" so "who can say that man [sic!] has

2412

reached the limits of his possibilities." [George Barrett, Objections

2413

to Anarchism, pp. 360-1 and p. 360]

2414

2415

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of

2416

which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally

2417

good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway

2418

(ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127-149]

2419

and David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature".

2420

[Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]

2421

2422

<a name="seca216"><h2>A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?</h2>

2423

2424

No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a

2425

human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human

2426

beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect"

2427

for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and

2428

Meltzer:

2429

2430

"[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism]

2431

is an 'idealisation' of the workers and [so] the mere recital of their

2432

present faults is a refutation of the class struggle . . . it seems

2433

morally unreasonable that a free society . . . could exist without

2434

moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of [existing]

2435

society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people's shortcomings

2436

and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One

2437

may view without concern the fact . . . that the workers might achieve

2438

control of their places of work long before they had acquired the

2439

social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the prejudices of the

2440

present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it

2441

matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices

2442

wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is

2443

favourable to them . . . What we say is . . . that once life can

2444

continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority

2445

cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the

2446

prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure

2447

for them other than the free process of education." [The Floodgates

2448

of Anarchy, pp. 36-7]

2449

</blockquote>

2450

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who

2451

are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs,

2452

thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by

2453

reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties,

2454

or community and workplace assemblies (see

2455

<a href="secI5.html#seci58">section I.5.8</a> for a discussion

2456

of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as disputes).

2457

2458

Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see <a href="secA2.html#seca215">section A.2.15</a>), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people --

2459

people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of

2460

authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects

2461

of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such

2462

claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power

2463

in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people

2464

are not perfect.

2465

2466

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" (perfect)

2467

man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit

2468

it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority,

2469

particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are

2470

not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every

2471

example of a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss

2472

anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be

2473

falling into "anarchy" whenever there is a disruption in "law and order"

2474

and looting takes place.

2475

2476

Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection

2477

shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming

2478

an anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims

2479

is raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real

2480

anarchism. However, their "objection" discredits their own claim to

2481

be anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists!). Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who

2482

still saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon

2483

become authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because

2484

even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system

2485

would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government

2486

rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a

2487

fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the

2488

superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So

2489

long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to

2490

cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for

2491

they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves."

2492

[George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, p. 355]

2493

2494

Hence Alexander Berkman:

2495

2496

"Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as

2497

the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them

2498

are safe. Government remains strong because people think political

2499

authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue

2500

as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just.

2501

The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive

2502

present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government

2503

and capitalism." [What is Anarchism?, p. xii]

2504

</blockquote>

2505

In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and

2506

survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who

2507

have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that

2508

command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are

2509

necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs

2510

"perfect" people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the

2511

obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people

2512

will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and

2513

self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists,

2514

"history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled,

2515

the oppressors and the oppressed." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for

2516

Yourselves,

2517

p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in the struggle

2518

against oppression and exploitation, we not only change the world, we

2519

change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom

2520

which creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their

2521

own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living as equals

2522

in a free society, so making anarchy possible.

2523

2524

As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is

2525

not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means that

2526

the necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do not

2527

exist. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the heart

2528

of society, not the product of external shocks. Nor, we should note,

2529

do anarchists think that such a society will appear "overnight." Rather,

2530

we see the creation of an anarchist system as a process, not an event.

2531

The ins-and-outs of how it would function will evolve over time in the

2532

light of experience and objective circumstances, not appear in a perfect

2533

form immediately (see <a href="secH2.html#sech25">section H.2.5</a>

2534

for a discussion of Marxist claims otherwise).

2535

2536

Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary

2537

anarchism to work because the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine

2538

mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling

2539

onwards towards liberty." As such, "[i]f, then, by some external means

2540

an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and

2541

thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild

2542

the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas

2543

of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of

2544

tyranny --- the government -- then indeed the revolution will be

2545

permanently accomplished." [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 355]

2546

2547

This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until

2548

everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for

2549

example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors

2550

of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced

2551

with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite

2552

has always used repression to defend its position in society.

2553

The use of fascism in Spain (see <a href="secA5.html#seca56">section

2554

A.5.6</a>) and Italy (see

2555

<a href="secA5.html#seca55">section A.5.5</a>) show

2556

the depths the capitalist class can sink to.

2557

Anarchism will be created in the face of opposition by the ruling

2558

minorities and, consequently, will need to defend itself against

2559

attempts to recreate authority (see <a href="secH2.html#sech21">

2560

section H.2.1</a> for a refutation

2561

of Marxist claims anarchists reject the need to defend an anarchist

2562

society against counter-revolution).

2563

2564

Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on

2565

convincing those subject to oppression and exploitation that

2566

they have the power to resist both and, ultimately, can end

2567

both by destroying the social institutions that cause them.

2568

As Malatesta argued, "we need the support of the masses to

2569

build a force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific

2570

task of radical change in the social organism by the direct

2571

action of the masses, we must get closer to them, accept them

2572

as they are, and from within their ranks seek to 'push' them

2573

forward as much as possible." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and

2574

Ideas, pp. 155-6] This would create the conditions that make

2575

possible a rapid evolution towards anarchism as what was

2576

initially accepted by a minority "but increasingly finding

2577

popular expression, will make its way among the mass of the

2578

people" and "the minority will become the People, the great

2579

mass, and that mass rising up against property and the State,

2580

will march forward towards anarchist communism." [Kropotkin,

2581

Words of a Rebel, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists

2582

attach to spreading our ideas and arguing the case for

2583

anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists from those

2584

questioning the injustices of capitalism and the state.

2585

2586

This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society

2587

and the resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it.

2588

Anarchist ideas develop spontaneously through struggle. As we

2589

discuss in <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>,

2590

anarchistic organisations are often

2591

created as part of the resistance against oppression and exploitation

2592

which marks every hierarchical system and can., potentially, be

2593

the framework of a few society. As such, the creation of libertarian

2594

institutions is, therefore, always a possibility in any situation.

2595

A peoples' experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions,

2596

namely the awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy

2597

and powerful few and to disempower the many. That while it is needed

2598

to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is not needed to

2599

organise society nor can it do so in a just and fair way for all.

2600

This is possible. However, without a conscious anarchist presence

2601

any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused and finally

2602

destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power

2603

over the masses (the Russian Revolution is the most famous example

2604

of this process). It is for that reason anarchists organise to

2605

influence the struggle and spread our ideas (see <a href="secJ3.html">

2606

section J.3</a> for

2607

details). For it is the case that only when anarchist ideas

2608

"acquire a predominating influence" and are "accepted by a

2609

sufficiently large section of the population" will we "have

2610

achieved anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy." For

2611

anarchy "cannot be imposed against the wishes of the people."

2612

[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 159 and p. 163]

2613

2614

So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent

2615

on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being

2616

anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner.

2617

This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a

2618

fully formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground

2619

for the gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social

2620

behaviour that remain after the struggle to change society has

2621

revolutionised those doing it.

2622

2623

<a name="seca217"><h2>A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?</h2>

2624

2625

We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we

2626

know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people

2627

are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All

2628

aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain

2629

people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, fascists, Fabians or Objectivists, it

2630

is assumed that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that

2631

these people should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by

2632

fine, flowing rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes

2633

with which the ideologues attempt to dull people's critical thought by

2634

telling them want they want to hear.

2635

2636

It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural"

2637

elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an

2638

"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great

2639

mass of "second-handers" (it is always amusing to hear people who

2640

simply parrot the ideas of Ayn Rand dismissing other people so!)

2641

or who will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown

2642

"ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody reading an elitist text will

2643

consider him or herself to be part of the "select few." It's "natural" in

2644

an elitist society to consider elites to be natural and yourself a

2645

potential member of one!

2646

2647

Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which

2648

has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes

2649

since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This ideology

2650

merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content.

2651

2652

During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being

2653

adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely

2654

revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that

2655

human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need

2656

"direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary

2657

mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people

2658

are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a

2659

carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.

2660

2661

In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or

2662

cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can

2663

say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial

2664

look at history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers of

2665

those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if this

2666

intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this

2667

is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy

2668

and the conformity produced by authority. (See also <a href =secB1.html>

2669

section B.1</a> for more on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black points

2670

outs:

2671

2672

"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid,

2673

monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid, and

2674

monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping

2675

cretinisation all around us than even such significant moronising

2676

mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all

2677

their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by the family in the

2678

beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated to hierarchy and

2679

psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that

2680

their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias.

2681

Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they

2682

start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into

2683

politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from

2684

people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in

2685

everything. They're used to it." [The Abolition of Work and other essays, pp. 21-2]

2686

</blockquote>

2687

When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it

2688

being given to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for

2689

Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. Only

2690

self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and distorting

2691

effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few examples

2692

of such self-liberation prove that most people, once considered incapable

2693

of freedom by others, are more than up for the task.

2694

2695

Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their

2696

authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves from the

2697

debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in the words

2698

of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on our knees."

2699

2700

As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the

2701

loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do

2702

so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged.

2703

This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over his

2704

economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping

2705

her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides."

2706

[Vision on Fire, p. 256] The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful

2707

experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution.

2708

2709

Then, of course, the notion that people are too stupid for anarchism to

2710

work also backfires on those who argue it. Take, for example, those who

2711

use this argument to advocate democratic government rather than anarchy.

2712

Democracy, as Luigi Galleani noted, means "acknowledging the right and

2713

the competence of the people to select their rulers." However, "whoever

2714

has the political competence to choose his [or her] own rulers is, by

2715

implication, also competent to do without them, especially when the

2716

causes of economic enmity are uprooted." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 37]

2717

Thus the argument for democracy against anarchism undermines itself,

2718

for "if you consider these worthy electors

2719

as unable to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that

2720

they know how to choose for themselves the shepherds who must guide them?

2721

And how will they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of

2722

producing the election of a genius from the votes of a mass of fools?"

2723

[Malatesta, Anarchy, pp. 53-4]

2724

2725

As for those who consider dictatorship as the solution to human stupidity,

2726

the question arises why are these dictators immune to this apparently

2727

universal human trait? And, as Malatesta noted, "who are the best? And

2728

who will recognise these qualities in them?" [Op. Cit., p. 53] If they

2729

impose themselves on the "stupid" masses, why assume they will not exploit

2730

and oppress the many for their own benefit? Or, for that matter, that they

2731

are any more intelligent than the masses? The history of dictatorial and

2732

monarchical government suggests a clear answer to those questions. A similar

2733

argument applies for other non-democratic systems, such as those based

2734

on limited suffrage. For example, the Lockean (i.e. classical liberal

2735

or right-wing libertarian) ideal of a state based on the rule of property

2736

owners is doomed to be little more than a regime which oppresses the

2737

majority to maintain the power and privilege of the wealthy few. Equally,

2738

the idea of near universal stupidity bar an elite of capitalists (the

2739

"objectivist" vision) implies a system somewhat less ideal than the

2740

perfect system presented in the literature. This is because most people

2741

would tolerate oppressive bosses who treat them as means to an end

2742

rather than an end in themselves. For how can you expect people to

2743

recognise and pursue their own self-interest if you consider them

2744

fundamentally as the "uncivilised hordes"? You cannot have it both ways

2745

and the "unknown ideal" of pure capitalism would be as grubby, oppressive

2746

and alienating as "actually existing" capitalism.

2747

2748

As such, anarchists are firmly convinced that arguments against anarchy

2749

based on the lack of ability of the mass of people are inherently

2750

self-contradictory (when not blatantly self-servicing). If people

2751

are too stupid for anarchism then they are too stupid for any system you

2752

care to mention. Ultimately, anarchists argue that such a perspective

2753

simply reflects the servile mentality produced by a hierarchical society

2754

rather than a genuine analysis of humanity and our history as a species.

2755

To quote Rousseau:

2756

2757

"when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve

2758

only their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves to reason

2759

about freedom." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and

2760

Alternative Futures, p. 780]

2761

</blockquote>

2762

2763

<a name="seca218"><h2>A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?</h2>

2764

2765

No. This is for three reasons.

2766

2767

Terrorism means either targeting or not

2768

worrying about killing innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be

2769

created by the mass of people. One does not convince people of one's ideas

2770

by blowing them up. Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One

2771

cannot blow up a social relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the

2772

actions of an elite few destroying rulers on behalf of the majority.

2773

Simply put, a "structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a

2774

few kilos of explosives." [Kropotkin, quoted by Martin A. Millar,

2775

Kropotkin, p. 174] For so long as people feel the need for rulers, hierarchy will exist (see

2776

<a href="secA2.html#seca216">section A.2.16</a> for more on this). As we have stressed earlier, freedom

2777

cannot be given, only taken. Lastly, anarchism aims for freedom. Hence

2778

Bakunin's comment that "when one is carrying out a revolution for the

2779

liberation of humanity, one should respect the life and liberty of

2780

men [and women]." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and

2781

Karl Marx, p. 125] For anarchists, means determine the ends and

2782

terrorism by its very nature violates life and liberty of individuals

2783

and so cannot be used to create an anarchist society. The history of, say, the Russian Revolution,

2784

confirmed Kropotkin's insight that "[v]ery sad would be the future

2785

revolution if it could only triumph by terror." [quoted by Millar,

2786

Op. Cit., p. 175]

2787

2788

Moreover anarchists are not against individuals but the institutions

2789

and social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power

2790

over others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist

2791

revolution is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin

2792

pointed out, "we wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status

2793

and its perquisites" and anarchism "does not mean the death of

2794

the individuals who make up the bourgeoisie, but the death of the

2795

bourgeoisie as a political and social entity economically distinct

2796

from the working class." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 71 and p. 70] In

2797

other words, "You can't blow up a social relationship" (to quote

2798

the title of an anarchist pamphlet which presents the anarchist

2799

case against terrorism).

2800

2801

How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly

2802

this is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists

2803

who are not anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German

2804

Baader-Meinhoff gang were often called "anarchists" despite their

2805

self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism. Smears, unfortunately, work.

2806

Similarly, as Emma Goldman pointed out, "it is a known fact known

2807

to almost everyone familiar with the Anarchist movement that a

2808

great number of [violent] acts, for which Anarchists had to

2809

suffer, either originated with the capitalist press or were

2810

instigated, if not directly perpetrated, by the police."

2811

[Red Emma Speaks, p. 262]

2812

2813

An example of this process at work can be seen from the current

2814

anti-globalisation movement. In Seattle, for example, the media

2815

reported "violence" by protestors (particularly anarchist ones)

2816

yet this amounted to a few broken windows. The much greater

2817

actual violence of the police against protestors (which,

2818

incidentally, started before the breaking of a single window)

2819

was not considered worthy of comment. Subsequent media coverage

2820

of anti-globalisation demonstrations followed this pattern, firmly

2821

connecting anarchism with violence in spite of that the protesters

2822

have been the ones to suffer the greatest violence at the hands of

2823

the state. As anarchist activist Starhawk notes, "if breaking

2824

windows and fighting back when the cops attack is 'violence,' then

2825

give me a new word, a word a thousand times stronger, to use when

2826

the cops are beating non-resisting people into comas." [Staying

2827

on the Streets, p. 130]

2828

2829

Similarly, at the Genoa protests in 2001 the mainstream media presented

2830

the protestors as violent even though it was the state who killed one

2831

of them and hospitalised many thousands more. The presence of police

2832

agent provocateurs in creating the violence was unmentioned by the

2833

media. As Starhawk noted afterwards, in Genoa "we encountered a

2834

carefully orchestrated political campaign of state terrorism. The

2835

campaign included disinformation, the use of infiltrators and

2836

provocateurs, collusion with avowed Fascist groups . . . , the

2837

deliberate targeting of non-violent groups for tear gas and beating,

2838

endemic police brutality, the torture of prisoners, the political

2839

persecution of organisers . . . They did all those openly, in a way

2840

that indicates they had no fear of repercussions and expected political

2841

protection from the highest sources." [Op. Cit., pp. 128-9] This

2842

was, unsurprisingly, not reported by the media.

2843

2844

Subsequent protests have seen the media indulge in yet more

2845

anti-anarchist hype, inventing stories to present anarchists are

2846

hate-filled individuals planning mass violence. For example, in

2847

Ireland in 2004 the media reported that anarchists were planning to use

2848

poison gas during EU related celebrations in Dublin. Of course,

2849

evidence of such a plan was not forthcoming and no such action

2850

happened. Neither did the riot the media said anarchists were

2851

organising. A similar process of misinformation accompanied the

2852

anti-capitalist May Day demonstrations in London and the protests

2853

against the Republican National Congress in New York. In spite of

2854

being constantly proved wrong after the event, the media always

2855

prints the scare stories of anarchist violence (even inventing

2856

events at, say Seattle, to justify their articles and to demonise

2857

anarchism further). Thus the myth that anarchism equals violence

2858

is perpetrated. Needless to say, the same papers that hyped the

2859

(non-existent) threat of anarchist violence remained silent on the

2860

actual violence of, and repression by, the police against demonstrators

2861

which occurred at these events. Neither did they run apologies after

2862

their (evidence-less) stories of doom were exposed as the nonsense

2863

they were by subsequent events.

2864

2865

This does not mean that Anarchists have not committed acts of

2866

violence. They have (as have members of other political and

2867

religious movements). The main reason for the association of

2868

terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda by the

2869

deed" period in the anarchist movement.

2870

2871

This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked by a small

2872

number of anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class

2873

(royalty, politicians and so forth). At its worse, this period saw

2874

theatres and shops frequented by members of the bourgeoisie targeted.

2875

These acts were termed "propaganda by the deed." Anarchist support for

2876

the tactic was galvanised by the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in

2877

1881 by Russian Populists (this event prompted Johann Most's famous

2878

editorial in Freiheit, entitled "At Last!", celebrating regicide

2879

and the assassination of tyrants). However, there were deeper reasons

2880

for anarchist support of this tactic: firstly, in revenge for acts

2881

of repression directed towards working class people; and secondly,

2882

as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their

2883

oppressors could be defeated.

2884

2885

Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by

2886

the deed began in France after the 20 000-plus deaths due to the

2887

French state's brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which

2888

many anarchists were killed. It is interesting to note that while

2889

the anarchist violence in revenge for the Commune is relatively well

2890

known, the state's mass murder of the Communards is relatively unknown.

2891

Similarly, it may be known that the Italian Anarchist Gaetano Bresci

2892

assassinated King Umberto of Italy in 1900 or that Alexander Berkman

2893

tried to kill Carnegie Steel Corporation manager Henry Clay Frick in

2894

1892. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon

2895

and killed protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also

2896

murdered locked-out workers at Homestead.

2897

2898

Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is hardly

2899

surprising. "The State's behaviour is violence," points out

2900

Max Stirner, "and it calls its violence 'law'; that of the

2901

individual, 'crime.'" [The Ego and Its Own, p. 197] Little

2902

wonder, then, that anarchist violence is condemned but the

2903

repression (and often worse violence) that provoked it ignored

2904

and forgotten. Anarchists point to the hypocrisy of the accusation

2905

that anarchists are "violent" given that such claims come from

2906

either supporters of government or the actual governments themselves,

2907

governments "which came into being through violence, which maintain

2908

themselves in power through violence, and which use violence

2909

constantly to keep down rebellion and to bully other nations."

2910

[Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader, p. 652]

2911

2912

We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of

2913

anarchist violence by non-anarchists by considering their response

2914

to state violence. For example, many capitalist papers and individuals

2915

in the 1920s and 1930s celebrated Fascism as well as Mussolini and

2916

Hitler. Anarchists, in contrast, fought Fascism to the death and

2917

tried to assassinate both Mussolini and Hitler. Obviously supporting

2918

murderous dictatorships is not "violence" and "terrorism" but

2919

resisting such regimes is! Similarly, non-anarchists can support

2920

repressive and authoritarian states, war

2921

and the suppression of strikes and unrest by violence ("restoring

2922

law and order") and not be considered "violent." Anarchists, in

2923

contrast, are condemned as "violent" and "terrorist" because a

2924

few of them tried to revenge such acts of oppression and

2925

state/capitalist violence! Similarly, it seems the height of hypocrisy for someone

2926

to denounce the anarchist "violence" which produces a few broken

2927

windows in, say, Seattle while supporting the actual violence of

2928

the police in imposing the state's rule or, even worse, supporting

2929

the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. If anyone should be considered

2930

violent it is the supporter of state and its actions yet people do

2931

not see the obvious and "deplore the type of violence that the

2932

state deplores, and applaud the violence that the state practises."

2933

[Christie and Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 132]

2934

2935

It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support

2936

this tactic. Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed"

2937

(sometimes called "attentats"), as Murray Bookchin points out,

2938

only a "few . . . were members of Anarchist groups. The majority

2939

. . . were soloists." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 102] Needless

2940

to say, the state and media painted all anarchists with the same

2941

brush. They still do, usually inaccurately (such as blaming

2942

Bakunin for such acts even though he had been dead years before

2943

the tactic was even discussed in anarchist circles or by labelling

2944

non-anarchist groups anarchists!).

2945

2946

All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was

2947

a failure, as the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see.

2948

Kropotkin can be considered typical. He "never liked the slogan

2949

propaganda by deed, and did not use it to describe his own

2950

ideas of revolutionary action." However, in 1879 while still

2951

"urg[ing] the importance of collective action" he started

2952

"expressing considerable sympathy and interest in attentats"

2953

(these "collective forms of action" were seen as acting "at

2954

the trade union and communal level"). In 1880 he "became less

2955

preoccupied with collective action and this enthusiasm for

2956

acts of revolt by individuals and small groups increased."

2957

This did not last and Kropotkin soon attached "progressively

2958

less importance to isolated acts of revolt" particularly once

2959

"he saw greater opportunities for developing collective action

2960

in the new militant trade unionism." [Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin

2961

and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 92, p. 115, p. 129,

2962

pp. 129-30, p. 205] By the late 1880s and early

2963

1890s he came to disapprove of such acts of violence. This was

2964

partly due to simple revulsion at the worse of the acts (such as

2965

the Barcelona Theatre bombing in response to the state murder

2966

of anarchists involved in the Jerez uprising of 1892 and Emile

2967

Henry's bombing of a cafe in response to state repression) and

2968

partly due to the awareness that it was hindering the anarchist

2969

cause.

2970

2971

Kropotkin recognised that the "spate of terrorist acts" of the

2972

1880s had caused "the authorities into taking repressive action

2973

against the movement" and were "not in his view consistent

2974

with the anarchist ideal and did little or nothing to promote

2975

popular revolt." In addition, he was "anxious about the

2976

isolation of the movement from the masses" which "had increased

2977

rather than diminished as a result of the preoccupation with"

2978

propaganda by deed. He "saw the best possibility for popular

2979

revolution in the . . . development of the new militancy in the

2980

labour movement. From now on he focussed his attention increasingly

2981

on the importance of revolutionary minorities working among the

2982

masses to develop the spirit of revolt." However, even during

2983

the early 1880s when his support for individual acts of revolt

2984

(if not for propaganda by the deed) was highest, he saw the

2985

need for collective class struggle and, therefore, "Kropotkin

2986

always insisted on the importance of the labour movement in the

2987

struggles leading up to the revolution." [Op. Cit.,

2988

pp. 205-6, p. 208 and p. 280]

2989

2990

Kropotkin was not alone. More and more anarchists came to see

2991

"propaganda by the deed" as giving the state an excuse to clamp

2992

down on both the anarchist and labour movements. Moreover, it

2993

gave the media (and opponents of anarchism) a chance to associate

2994

anarchism with mindless violence, thus alienating much of the

2995

population from the movement. This false association is renewed

2996

at every opportunity, regardless of the facts (for example, even

2997

though Individualist Anarchists rejected "propaganda by the deed"

2998

totally, they were also smeared by the press as "violent" and

2999

"terrorists").

3000

3001

In addition, as Kropotkin pointed out, the assumption behind propaganda

3002

by the deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a chance to rebel, was

3003

false. In fact, people are products of the system in which

3004

they live; hence they accepted most of the myths used to

3005

keep that system going. With the failure of propaganda by

3006

deed, anarchists turned back to what most of the movement

3007

had been doing anyway: encouraging the class struggle and

3008

the process of self-liberation. This turn back to the roots

3009

of anarchism can be seen from the rise in anarcho-syndicalist

3010

unions after 1890 (see <a href="secA2.html#seca53">section A.5.3</a>).

3011

This position flows naturally from anarchist

3012

theory, unlike the idea of individual acts of violence:

3013

3014

"to bring about a revolution, and specially the Anarchist revolution[, it]

3015

is necessary that the people be conscious of their rights and their

3016

strength; it is necessary that they be ready to fight and ready to take

3017

the conduct of their affairs into their own hands. It must be the constant

3018

preoccupation of the revolutionists, the point towards which all their

3019

activity must aim, to bring about this state of mind among the masses . . .

3020

Who expects the emancipation of mankind to come, not from the persistent

3021

and harmonious co-operation of all men [and women] of progress, but from

3022

the accidental or providential happening of some acts of heroism, is

3023

not better advised that one who expected it from the intervention of an

3024

ingenious legislator or of a victorious general . . . our ideas oblige

3025

us to put all our hopes in the masses, because we do not believe in the

3026

possibility of imposing good by force and we do not want to be commanded

3027

. . . Today, that which . . . was the logical outcome of our ideas, the

3028

condition which our conception of the revolution and reorganisation of

3029

society imposes on us . . . [is] to live among the people and to win

3030

them over to our ideas by actively taking part in their struggles and

3031

sufferings." [Errico Malatesta, "The Duties of the Present Hour",

3032

pp. 181-3, Anarchism, Robert Graham (ed.), pp. 180-1]

3033

</blockquote>

3034

Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by

3035

deed, few would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination

3036

under all circumstances. Bombing a village during a war because there

3037

might be an enemy in it is terrorism, whereas assassinating a murdering

3038

dictator or head of a repressive state is defence at best and revenge

3039

at worst. As anarchists have long pointed out, if by terrorism it is

3040

meant "killing innocent people" then the state is the greatest terrorist

3041

of them all (as well as having the biggest bombs and other weapons of

3042

destruction available on the planet). If the people committing "acts

3043

of terror" are really anarchists, they would do everything possible

3044

to avoid harming innocent people and never use the statist line that

3045

"collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable. This is why the

3046

vast majority of "propaganda by the deed" acts were directed towards

3047

individuals of the ruling class, such as Presidents and Royalty, and

3048

were the result of previous acts of state and capitalist violence.

3049

3050

So "terrorist" acts have been committed by anarchists. This is a fact.

3051

However, it has nothing to do with anarchism as a socio-political

3052

theory. As Emma Goldman argued, it was "not Anarchism, as such, but

3053

the brutal slaughter of the eleven steel workers [that] was the urge

3054

for Alexander Berkman's act." [Op. Cit., p. 268] Equally, members of

3055

other political and religious groups have also committed such acts.

3056

As the Freedom Group of London argued:

3057

3058

"There is a truism that the man [or woman] in the street seems

3059

always to forget, when he is abusing the Anarchists, or whatever

3060

party happens to be his bete noire for the moment, as the

3061

cause of some outrage just perpetrated. This indisputable

3062

fact is that homicidal outrages have, from time immemorial,

3063

been the reply of goaded and desperate classes, and goaded

3064

and desperate individuals, to wrongs from their fellowmen [and

3065

women], which they felt to be intolerable. Such acts are

3066

the violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or

3067

repressive . . . their cause lies not in any special

3068

conviction, but in the depths of . . . human nature

3069

itself. The whole course of history, political and social,

3070

is strewn with evidence of this." [quoted by Emma Goldman,

3071

Op. Cit., p. 259]

3072

</blockquote>

3073

Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and

3074

religious groups and parties. For example, Christians, Marxists,

3075

Hindus, Nationalists, Republicans, Moslems, Sikhs, Fascists,

3076

Jews and Patriots have all committed acts of terrorism. Few of these

3077

movements or ideas have been labelled as "terrorist by nature" or

3078

continually associated with violence -- which shows anarchism's

3079

threat to the status quo. There is nothing more likely to discredit

3080

and marginalise an idea than for malicious and/or ill-informed

3081

persons to portray those who believe and practice it as

3082

"mad bombers" with no opinions or ideals at all, just an

3083

insane urge to destroy.

3084

3085

Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism

3086

as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of

3087

anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that in our case

3088

it is necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time and time again.

3089

3090

So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been

3091

anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been

3092

terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised that

3093

social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of existence.

3094

Compared to the violence of the state and capitalism, anarchist violence

3095

is a drop in the ocean. Unfortunately most people remember the acts of

3096

the few anarchists who have committed violence rather than the acts of

3097

violence and repression by the state and capital that prompted those acts.

3098

3099

<a name="seca219"><h2>A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold?</h2>

3100

3101

Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share

3102

a common belief in the need for an individual to develop within themselves

3103

their own sense of ethics. All anarchists agree with Max Stirner that

3104

an individual must free themselves from the confines of existing morality

3105

and question that morality -- "I decide whether it is the right thing for

3106

me; there is no right outside me." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 189]

3107

3108

Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject any concept

3109

of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some universal

3110

concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral relativism

3111

is almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists (moral relativism

3112

is the view that there is no right or wrong beyond what suits an individual

3113

while moral absolutism is that view that what is right and wrong is

3114

independent of what individuals think).

3115

3116

It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive

3117

"egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral relativism goes,

3118

this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged upon society by various

3119

Moralists and true-believers because it bases itself, however slimly, upon

3120

the idea of individual reason. However, as it denies the existence (or

3121

desirability) of ethics it is but the mirror image of what it is rebelling

3122

against. Neither option empowers the individual or is liberating.

3123

3124

Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to

3125

authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion about

3126

things (and will tolerate anything) or who blindly follow the commands of

3127

the ruling elite are of great value to those in power. Both are rejected by

3128

most anarchists in favour of an evolutionary approach to ethics based upon

3129

human reason to develop the ethical concepts and interpersonal empathy to

3130

generalise these concepts into ethical attitudes within society as well as

3131

within individuals. An anarchistic approach to ethics therefore shares the

3132

critical individual investigation implied in moral relativism but grounds

3133

itself into common feelings of right and wrong. As Proudhon argued:

3134

3135

"All progress begins by abolishing something; every reform rests upon

3136

denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based upon the proved

3137

insufficiency of the old idea."

3138

</blockquote>

3139

Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life itself,

3140

are in a constant process of evolution. This leads them to reject the various

3141

notions of "God's Law," "Natural Law," and so on in favour of a theory of

3142

ethical development based upon the idea that individuals are entirely

3143

empowered to question and assess the world around them -- in fact, they

3144

require it in order to be truly free. You cannot be an anarchist and blindly

3145

accept anything! Michael Bakunin, one of the founding anarchist thinkers,

3146

expressed this radical scepticism as so:

3147

3148

"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will

3149

save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."

3150

</blockquote>

3151

Any system of ethics which is not based on individual questioning can

3152

only be authoritarian. Erich Fromm explains why:

3153

3154

"Formally, authoritarian ethics denies man's capacity to know what is

3155

good or bad; the norm giver is always an authority transcending the

3156

individual. Such a system is based not on reason and knowledge but on

3157

awe of the authority and on the subject's feeling of weakness and

3158

dependence; the surrender of decision making to the authority results

3159

from the latter's magic power; its decisions can not and must not be

3160

questioned. Materially, or according to content, authoritarian ethics

3161

answers the question of what is good or bad primarily in terms of the

3162

interests of the authority, not the interests of the subject; it is

3163

exploitative, although the subject may derive considerable benefits,

3164

psychic or material, from it." [Man For Himself, p. 10]

3165

</blockquote>

3166

Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems.

3167

Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on the mythology of

3168

spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done through

3169

logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions

3170

than obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly

3171

better than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism.

3172

3173

So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, "nature has thus

3174

to be recognised as the first ethical teacher of man. The social instinct,

3175

innate in men as well as in all the social animals, - this is the origin

3176

of all ethical conceptions and all subsequent development of morality."

3177

[Ethics, p. 45]

3178

3179

Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that,

3180

essentially (according to anarchists), an individual's ethical viewpoints

3181

are derived from three basic sources:

3182

3183

3184

1) from the society an individual lives in. As Kropotkin pointed out,

3185

"Man's conceptions of morality are completely dependent upon the form that

3186

their social life assumed at a given time in a given locality . . . this

3187

[social life] is reflected in the moral conceptions of men and in the moral

3188

teachings of the given epoch." [Op. Cit., p. 315] In other words, experience

3189

of life and of living.

3190

3191

2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical norms,

3192

as indicated above. This is the core of Erich Fromm's argument that "Man

3193

must accept the responsibility for himself and the fact that only using his

3194

own powers can he give meaning to his life . . .there is no meaning to life

3195

except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers, by

3196

living productively." [Man for Himself, p. 45] In other words, individual

3197

thought and development.

3198

3199

3) The feeling of empathy - "the true origin of the moral sentiment . . .

3200

[is] simply in the feeling of sympathy." ["Anarchist Morality", Anarchism, p. 94] In other words, an individual's ability to

3201

feel and share experiences and concepts with others.

3202

</blockquote>

3203

3204

This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of

3205

ethics. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]he more powerful your imagination, the

3206

better you can picture to yourself what any being feels when it is made

3207

to suffer, and the more intense and delicate will your moral sense be. . .

3208

And the more you are accustomed by circumstances, by those surrounding you,

3209

or by the intensity of your own thought and your imagination, to act as

3210

your own thought and imagination urge, the more will the moral sentiment grow

3211

in you, the more will it became habitual." [Op. Cit., p. 95]

3212

3213

So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim "treat others as

3214

you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances." Anarchists

3215

are neither egoists nor altruists when it come to moral stands, they are

3216

simply human.

3217

3218

As Kropotkin noted, "egoism" and "altruism" both have their roots in the

3219

same motive -- "however great the difference between the two actions in

3220

their result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the quest for

3221

pleasure." [Op. Cit., p. 85]

3222

3223

For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by themselves

3224

and requires the full use of an individual's mental abilities as part of

3225

a social grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism and other forms of

3226

authority weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the number of

3227

outlets for them to exercise their reason under the dead weight of hierarchy

3228

as well as disrupting community, little wonder that life under capitalism

3229

is marked by a stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.

3230

3231

Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within

3232

society. Without equality, there can be no real ethics for "Justice

3233

implies Equality. . . only those who consider others as their

3234

equals can obey the rule: 'Do not do to others what you do not wish

3235

them to do to you.' A serf-owner and a slave merchant can evidently

3236

not recognise . . . the 'categorial imperative' [of treating people as

3237

ends in themselves and not as means] as regards serfs [or slaves] because

3238

they do not look upon them as equals." Hence the "greatest obstacle

3239

to the maintenance of a certain moral level in our present societies

3240

lies in the absence of social equality. Without real equality, the

3241

sense of justice can never be universally developed, because Justice

3242

implies the recognition of Equality." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution

3243

and Environment, p. 88 and p. 79]

3244

3245

Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it deserves..

3246

3247

In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it is

3248

little wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By disempowering

3249

individuals from developing their own ethical ideas and instead encouraging

3250

blind obedience to external authority (and so moral relativism once

3251

individuals think that they are without that authority's power), capitalist

3252

society ensures an impoverishment of individuality and ego. As Erich Fromm

3253

puts it:

3254

3255

"The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of

3256

individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as

3257

the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the

3258

meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too

3259

much concerned with their self-interest, but that they are not

3260

concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in

3261

the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love

3262

themselves." [Man for Himself, p. 139]

3263

</blockquote>

3264

Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame

3265

of reference - ethical ideas must be an expression of what gives us pleasure

3266

as a whole individual (both rational and emotional, reason and empathy).

3267

This leads all anarchists to reject the false division between egoism and

3268

altruism and recognise that what many people (for example, capitalists)

3269

call "egoism" results in individual self-negation and a reduction of

3270

individual self-interest. As Kropotkin argues:

3271

3272

"What was it that morality, evolving in animal and human societies, was

3273

striving for, if not for the opposition to the promptings of narrow

3274

egoism, and bringing up humanity in the spirit of the development of

3275

altruism? The very expressions 'egoism' and 'altruism' are incorrect,

3276

because there can be no pure altruism without an admixture of personal

3277

pleasure - and consequently, without egoism. It would therefore be more

3278

nearly correct to say that ethics aims at the development of social

3279

habits and the weakening of the narrowly personal habits. These last

3280

make the individual lose sight of society through his regard for his own

3281

person, and therefore they even fail to attain their object, i.e. the

3282

welfare of the individual, whereas the development of habits of work

3283

in common, and of mutual aid in general, leads to a series of beneficial

3284

consequences in the family as well as society." [Ethics, pp. 307-8]

3285

</blockquote>

3286

Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism

3287

(i.e. "God's Law," "Natural Law," "Man's Nature,"

3288

"A is A") and the

3289

narrow egotism which moral relativism so easily lends itself to. Instead,

3290

anarchists recognise that there exists concepts of right and wrong which

3291

exist outside of an individual's evaluation of their own acts.

3292

3293

This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between

3294

individuals do develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin,

3295

can be summarised as "[i]s it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it hurtful?

3296

Then it is bad." Which acts human

3297

beings think of as right or wrong is not, however, unchanging and the

3298

"estimate of what is useful or harmful . . . changes, but the foundation

3299

remains the same." ["Anarchist Morality", Op. Cit., p. 91

3300

and p. 92]

3301

3302

This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental basis

3303

of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical criterion

3304

for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while recognising

3305

the root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider ethics as fundamentally a

3306

human idea - the product of life, thought and evolution created by

3307

individuals and generalised by social living and community.

3308

3309

So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything

3310

that denies the most precious achievement of history: the liberty,

3311

uniqueness and dignity of the individual.

3312

3313

Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy, they

3314

can place themselves into the position of those suffering the behaviour.

3315

Acts which restrict individuality can be considered unethical for two

3316

(interrelated) reasons.

3317

3318

Firstly, the protection and development of individuality in all enriches the

3319

life of every individual and it gives pleasure to individuals because of

3320

the diversity it produces. This egoist basis of ethics reinforces the

3321

second (social) reason, namely that individuality is good for society for

3322

it enriches the community and social life, strengthening it and allowing

3323

it to grow and evolve. As Bakunin constantly argued, progress is marked by

3324

a movement from "the simple to the complex" or, in the words of Herbert

3325

Read, it "is measured by the degree of differentiation within a society.

3326

If the individual is a unit in a corporate mass, his [or her] life will be

3327

limited, dull, and mechanical. If the individual is a unit on his [or her]

3328

own, with space and potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop -

3329

develop in the only real meaning of the word - develop in consciousness of

3330

strength, vitality, and joy." ["The Philosophy of Anarchism,"

3331

Anarchy and Order, p. 37]

3332

3333

This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,

3334

diversity is strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic ethical

3335

insight. In its most basic form, it provides a guide to "help us distinguish

3336

which of our actions serve the thrust of natural evolution and which of them

3337

impede them." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 442]

3338

3339

So, the ethical concept "lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the

3340

entire animal world and in the conceptions of equity, which constitutes one

3341

of the fundamental primary judgements of human reason." Therefore anarchists embrace "the permanent presence of a double tendency

3342

- towards greater development on the one side, of sociality, and, on the

3343

other side, of a consequent increase of the intensity of life which results

3344

in an increase of happiness for the individuals, and in progress -

3345

physical, intellectual, and moral." [Kropotkin, Ethics, pp. 311-2 and pp. 19-20]

3346

3347

Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private property

3348

and so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of individuals

3349

is of prime concern and that our ability to empathise with others,

3350

to see ourselves in others (our basic equality and common individuality,

3351

in other words).

3352

3353

Thus anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a given

3354

set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective interpersonal

3355

conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic bounds and discussion

3356

between equals. Anarchism is based on a humanistic approach to ethical

3357

ideas, one that evolves along with society and individual development. Hence an ethical society is one in which "[d]ifference among people will

3358

be respected, indeed fostered, as elements that enrich the unity of

3359

experience and phenomenon . . . [the different] will be conceived of as

3360

individual parts of a whole all the richer because of its complexity."

3361

[Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p. 82]

3362

3363

<a name="seca220"><h2>A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?</h2>

3364

3365

It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea

3366

of god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organised religion.

3367

Today, in secularised western European countries, religion has lost

3368

its once dominant place in society. This often makes the militant

3369

atheism of anarchism seem strange. However, once the negative role

3370

of religion is understood the importance of libertarian atheism

3371

becomes obvious. It is because of the role of religion and its

3372

institutions that anarchists have spent some time refuting the idea

3373

of religion as well as propagandising against it.

3374

3375

So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer

3376

is that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension

3377

of anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate

3378

authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called

3379

Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and

3380

scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be

3381

sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to

3382

be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious in its

3383

debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated

3384

little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that

3385

human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity,

3386

fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms,

3387

and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God

3388

has all the rights, humanity is nothing.

3389

3390

This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it

3391

best:

3392

3393

"The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it

3394

is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in

3395

the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.

3396

3397

"Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind

3398

. . . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the

3399

God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical

3400

alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to

3401

worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but

3402

bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

3403

3404

"If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God

3405

does not exist." [God and the State, p. 25]

3406

</blockquote>

3407

For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of

3408

religion. "To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and

3409

beautiful in humanity," Bakunin argued, "is to tacitly admit that

3410

humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it -- that is,

3411

that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous,

3412

base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion --

3413

in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater

3414

glory of divinity." As such, to do justice to our humanity and the

3415

potential it has, anarchists argue that we must do without the

3416

harmful myth of god and all it entails and so on behalf of "human

3417

liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover

3418

from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth."

3419

[Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36]

3420

3421

As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty,

3422

religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an

3423

anarchist point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of

3424

inequality and oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example,

3425

has always been a force for repression whenever it holds any

3426

political or social sway (believing you have a direct line to god

3427

is a sure way of creating an authoritarian society). The Church

3428

has been a force of social repression, genocide, and the

3429

justification for every tyrant for nearly two millennia. When

3430

given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any monarch or

3431

dictator. This is unsurprising:

3432

3433

"God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being

3434

truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood,

3435

iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is

3436

the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his

3437

own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But

3438

whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests,

3439

and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy

3440

instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path

3441

of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them

3442

passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is

3443

no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice

3444

holds." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]

3445

</blockquote>

3446

Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is

3447

powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for

3448

the powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the

3449

church for when not being the source of oppression, the church has

3450

justified it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working

3451

class in bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly

3452

authorities and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight

3453

against those same authorities. Earthly rulers received their

3454

legitimisation from the heavenly lord, whether political (claiming

3455

that rulers are in power due to god's will) or economic (the rich

3456

having been rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising

3457

it to a great virtue. More recent innovations like the Protestant

3458

work ethic also contribute to the subjugation of working people.

3459

3460

That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can

3461

quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed

3462

to humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be

3463

meek and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued,

3464

Christianity (like religion in general) "contains nothing dangerous

3465

to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial

3466

and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely

3467

inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon

3468

mankind." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 234]

3469

3470

Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society.

3471

This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and

3472

analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths

3473

handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism

3474

is then "the theory of speculation" while atheism is "the science

3475

of demonstration." The "one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the

3476

Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the

3477

earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved."

3478

Atheism, then, "expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind"

3479

while theism "is static and fixed." It is "the absolutism of theism,

3480

its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralysing effect upon

3481

thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power."

3482

[Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246-7]

3483

3484

As the Bible says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." We anarchists

3485

agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well.

3486

That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive

3487

role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organised

3488

monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries,

3489

religion "is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness

3490

against light, of submission and slavery against independence and

3491

freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation

3492

of the joy and glory of life." [Op. Cit., p. 240]

3493

3494

So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time

3495

to uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty.

3496

3497

That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important

3498

ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for

3499

strong and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary

3500

from the alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide

3501

to action in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of,

3502

say, Jesus' or Buddha's life and teachings are inspiring and worth

3503

following. If this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool

3504

of the powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather,

3505

they have a dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live

3506

a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the

3507

oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them

3508

as dangerous heresies.

3509

3510

And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that

3511

has preached a radical message. In the middle ages numerous

3512

revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by

3513

the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the

3514

mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic

3515

church supported Franco's fascists, denouncing the killing of

3516

pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining

3517

silent about Franco's murder of Basque priests who had supported

3518

the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is

3519

seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while

3520

the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop

3521

of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative

3522

but after seeing the way in which the political and economic

3523

powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion.

3524

He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because

3525

of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of

3526

liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which

3527

tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking.

3528

3529

Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious

3530

people do not take part in social struggles to improve society.

3531

Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church

3532

hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of

3533

the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata's army of peasants

3534

during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part

3535

in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the

3536

ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion which explains why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice its official representatives sanctify. For anarchists, it is the willingness

3537

to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes

3538

in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to

3539

dampen down revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical

3540

priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right

3541

suggests the validity of our analysis.

3542

3543

It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to

3544

the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to

3545

people practising religious belief on their own or in groups, so long

3546

as that practice doesn't impinge on the liberties of others. For example,

3547

a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to

3548

anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief

3549

could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view

3550

is that religion is a personal matter, above all else -- if people want

3551

to believe in something, that's their business, and nobody else's as

3552

long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is

3553

discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors.

3554

3555

To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism

3556

is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss

3557

in <a href="secA3.html#seca37">section A.3.7</a>, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some

3558

form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas

3559

with a devote Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon's,

3560

influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists

3561

Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The

3562

anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalisation

3563

movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most

3564

anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma

3565

Goldman put it, "in its negation of gods is at the same time the

3566

strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to

3567

life, purpose, and beauty." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 248]

3568

3569

</body>

3570

</html>