Select Git revision
secA2.html 220.40 KiB
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title>A.2 What does anarchism stand for? | Anarchist Writers</title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="content clear-block">
<h1>A.2 What does anarchism stand for?</h1>
<p>These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands for in practice and what ideals drive it:</p>
<div align="center"><b><i>The man <br>
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:<br>
Power, like a desolating pestilence,<br>
Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,<br>
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,<br>
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,<br>
A mechanised automaton.<br>
</i></b></div>
<p> As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty, desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality does not exist in a vacuum but is a <b>social</b> phenomenon. Outside of society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in order to develop, expand, and grow.</p>
<p>Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society, while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society (as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts. A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would be hollow and dead. Thus, <i>"the making of a human being. . . is a collective process, a process in which both community and the individual <b>participate</b>."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>The Modern Crisis</b>, p. 79] Consequently, any political theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.</p>
<p>In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent, anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles: <b>liberty</b>, <b>equality</b> and <b>solidarity</b>. These principles are shared by all anarchists. Thus we find, the communist-anarchist Peter Kropotkin talking about a revolution inspired by <i>"the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality and Solidarity."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 128] Individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker wrote of a similar vision, arguing that anarchism <i>"insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity."</i> [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 363] All three principles are interdependent.</p>
<p>Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote Proudhon, <i>"All associated and all free."</i> Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it, anarchism is <i>"the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of association"</i> [<b>The End of Anarchism?</b>, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2 -- <a href="secA2.html#seca22"> Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?</a>).</p>
<p>If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to interact. (See also section A.2.5 -- <a href="secA2.html#seca25">Why are anarchists in favour of equality?</a>)</p>
<p>Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them. Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed, which weakens society as a whole. (See also section A.2.6 -- <a href="secA2.html#seca26">Why is solidarity important to anarchists?</a>)</p>
<p>It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:</p>
<blockquote><p> <i>"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."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 23] </p></blockquote>
<p>For anarchists, <b>real</b> wealth is other people and the planet on which we live. Or, in the words of Emma Goldman, it <i>"consists in things of utility and beauty, in things which help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in . . . [Our] goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual . . . Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom,"</i> in other words <i>"social equality."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 67-8]</p>
<p>Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society. Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a <b>materialist</b> theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction and individuals' mental activity (see Michael Bakunin's <b>God and the</b> <b>State</b> for the classic discussion of materialism versus idealism).</p>
<p>This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings, not some deity or other transcendental principle, since <i>"[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."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 185]</p>
<p>Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to be right. In other words, liberty.</p>
<p><a name="seca21"></a></p>
<h2>A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?</h2>
<p>As we have seen, <i>"an-archy"</i> implies <i>"without rulers"</i> or <i>"without (hierarchical) authority."</i> Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see <a href="secB1.html#secB1"> section B.1</a> for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.</p>
<p>Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words, <i>"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."</i> [<b>The Politics of Individualism</b>, p. 107] Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.</p>
<p>In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.</p>
<p>Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for <i>"[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals."</i> [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 30]</p>
<p>While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:</p>
<blockquote><p> <i>"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."</i> [quoted by Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 51]
</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.</p>
<p>This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and, as a result, people's <i>"mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities are dwarfed, stunted and crushed"</i> (see <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a> for more details). Thus one of <i>"the grand truths of Anarchism"</i> is that <i>"to be really free is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as each allows all to do the same."</i> This is why anarchists fight for a better society, for a society which respects individuals and their freedom. Under capitalism, <i>"[e]verything is upon the market for sale: all is merchandise and commerce"</i> but there are <i>"certain things that are priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee to all."</i> Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt, resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, <i>"believe in peace at any price -- except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life . . . they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?"</i> [Lucy Parsons, <b>Liberty, Equality & Solidarity</b>, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p. 134]</p>
<p>So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty (and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists, would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel this attitude needs any sort of explanation.</p>
<p><a name="seca22"></a></p>
<h2>A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?</h2>
<p>An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a <i>"fanatic lover of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 196] Because human beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:</p>
<blockquote><p> <i>"The very fact. . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait."</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 439] </p></blockquote>
<p>For this reason, anarchism <i>"proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 72-3]</p>
<p>Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta put it, <i>"[f]or people to become educated to freedom and the management of their own interests, they must be left to act for themselves, to feel responsibility for their own actions in the good or bad that comes from them. They'd make mistakes, but they'd understand from the consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out new ways."</i> [<b>Fra Contadini</b>, p. 26]</p>
<p>So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed. Liberties, being socially produced, <i>"do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as well."</i> In fact, we <i>"owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, <b>Anarcho-syndicalism</b>, p. 75]</p>
<p>It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of <b><i>"Direct Action"</i></b> (see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>) for, as Emma Goldman argued, we have <i>"as much liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral."</i> It requires <i>"integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits"</i> and <i>"only persistent resistance"</i> can <i>"finally set [us] free. Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 76-7]</p>
<p>Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to resist oppression in the here and now as well as the means of creating a free society. It creates the necessary individual mentality and social conditions in which liberty flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes:</p>
<blockquote><p> <i>"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a <b>collective</b> development -- which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free."</i> [<b>Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism</b>, p. 15]
</p></blockquote>
<p>But freedom requires the right <b>kind</b> of social environment in which to grow and develop. Such an environment <b>must</b> be decentralised and based on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their development is blunted (see also <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>).</p>
<p>It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority <i>"dresses itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the State; and the economic form, that is private property."</i> [cited by Peter Marshall, <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 43] Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over the worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands of those who do it. This means <i>"that the serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers."</i> [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 50]</p>
<p>Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a <i>"consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."</i> [<i>"Notes on Anarchism"</i>, <b>For Reasons of State</b>, p. 158]</p>
<p>Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince" individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives" (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 based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of the people subjected to that power.</p>
<p>Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their liberty and making impossible the <i>"full development of all the material, intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us."</i> [Michael Bakunin, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 261] That is why anarchists seek to ensure <i>"that real justice and real liberty might come on earth"</i> for it is <i>"all false, all unnecessary, this wild waste of human life, of bone and sinew and brain and heart, this turning of people into human rags, ghosts, piteous caricatures of the creatures they had it in them to be, on the day they were born; that what is called 'economy', the massing up of things, is in reality the most frightful spending -- the sacrifice of the maker to the made -- the lose of all the finer and nobler instincts in the gain of one revolting attribute, the power to count and calculate."</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, <b>The First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910</b>, pp, 17-18]</p>
<p>(See <a href="secBcon.html">section B</a> for further discussion of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).</p>
<p><a name="seca23"></a></p>
<h2>A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?</h2>
<p>Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty <b>cannot</b> exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett pointed out: </p>
<blockquote><p> <i>"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. </i></p>
<p><i>"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk. </i></p>
<p><i>"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government."</i> [<b>Objections to Anarchism</b>, pp. 348-9] </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that <i>"far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists <i>"aren't opposed to structure"</i> and simply <i>"want to abolish <b>hierarchical</b> structure"</i> they are <i>"almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all."</i> This is not the case, for <i>"organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources"</i> are based on <i>"good social anarchist principles of organisation!"</i> [<i>"Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism"</i>, <b>Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader</b>, p. 47 and p. 46]</p>
<p>The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at first, but it is understandable. <i>"For those with experience only of authoritarian organisation,"</i> argue two British anarchists, <i>"it appears that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in organisation at all. That is not so."</i> [Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, <b>The Floodgates of Anarchy</b>, p. 122] In other words, because we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.</p>
<p>Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls <i>"organic,"</i> that is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, <b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>).</p>
<p>It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do <b>not</b> advocate going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or <b>learned</b>, and as such, can be <b>unlearned</b> (see Ashley Montagu, <b>The Nature of Human Aggression</b>). We are not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change the way they do things, including the way they organise society.</p>