|
|
what does anarchism stand for?
A.2 What does anarchism stand for? These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives
an idea of what anarchism stands for in practice and what ideals drive it: The
man Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys: Power, like a desolating
pestilence, Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience, Bane of all genius,
virtue, freedom, truth, Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame, A
mechanised automaton. As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high
priority on liberty, desiring it both for themselves and others. They also
consider individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality does
not exist in a vacuum but is a social phenomenon. Outside of society,
individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in order to develop,
expand, and grow. Moreover, between individual and social development there is a
reciprocal effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular
society, while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that
society (as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and
thoughts. A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas
would be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a
collective process, a process in which both community and the individual
participate." [Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crisis, p. 79] Consequently, any
political theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is
false. In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent,
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles:
liberty, equality and solidarity, which are interdependent. Liberty is essential
for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be
dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself,
which is the only way to grow and develop one's individuality. Domination also
stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and
mediocrity. Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will
necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To
quote Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it,
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of association"
[The End of Anarchism?, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2 - Why do anarchists
emphasise liberty?). If liberty is essential for the fullest development of
individuality, then equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There
can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with
gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only a
few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while the rest
are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best
the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under capitalism. Moreover, even
the elite under such conditions are not really free, because they must live in a
stunted society made ugly and barren by the tyranny and alienation of the
majority. And since individuality develops to the fullest only with the widest
contact with other free individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the
possibilities for their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with
whom to interact. (See also section A.2.5 - Why are anarchists in favour of
equality?) Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But without
liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on
the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know
from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for
themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" is promoted at the expense of community
feeling, with those on the bottom resenting those above them and those on the
top fearing those below them. Under such conditions, there can be no
society-wide solidarity, but only a partial form of solidarity within classes
whose interests are opposed, which weakens society as a whole. (See also section
A.2.6 - Why is solidarity important to anarchists?) It should be noted that
solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or self-negation. As Errico Malatesta
makes clear: "we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the
anarchist finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for
the achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers,
and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is
adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the labour
of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [Life and Ideas, p. 23] For
anarchists, real wealth is other people and the planet on which we live. Also,
honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are idealists, thinking
that people or ideas develop outside of society. Individuality and ideas grow
and develop within society, in response to material and intellectual
interactions and experiences, which people actively analyse and interpret.
Anarchism, therefore, is a materialist theory, recognising that ideas develop
and grow from social interaction and individuals' mental activity (see Michael
Bakunin's God and the State for the classic discussion of materialism verses
idealism). This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human
beings, not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever
arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do the
arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding of
things." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, page 42] Therefore, anarchism
bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability of people to act and
transform their lives based on what they consider to be right. In other words,
liberty. A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism? As we have seen, "an-archy"
implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical) authority." Anarchists are
not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are particularly
knowledgeable, skillful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities
should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see
section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is
anti-authoritarianism. Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe
that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's
words, "believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual." [The
Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently degrading and
demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the
will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and
self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes
possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality,
poverty, and social breakdown. In other words, then, the essence of anarchism
(to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their
liberty and individuality. Co-operation between equals is the key to
anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own
intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty
for "[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it
in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its
realisation for others." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in Anarchy, p. 27]
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a
social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the
"authority" of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us: "[t]he
abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the
freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the
natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What
we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal,
official"[quoted by Malatesta, in Anarchy, p. 50] In other words, those
influences which stem from hierarchical authority. A.2.2 Why do anarchists
emphasise liberty? An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a
"fanatic lover of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which
the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase."
[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, 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: "the very fact. . . that a person
has a consciousness of self, of being different from others, creates a desire to
act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental
and dominant trait." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 393] For this reason,
anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the
individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man
[sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and
move, and give the very best of himself. Only in freedom will he realise the
true force of the social bonds which tie men together, and which are the true
foundations of a normal social life." [Ibid., p. 59] Thus, for anarchists,
freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own good in their own way. Doing
so calls forth the activity and power of individuals as they make decisions for
and about themselves and their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual
development and diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves
and make their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this can have
no other effect than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. So,
liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's individual
potential, which is also a social product and can be achieved only in and
through community. A healthy, free community will produce free individuals, who
in turn will shape the community and enrich the social relationships between the
people of whom it is composed. Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist
because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they
have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them
will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect
from others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This is
not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as
well." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 64] In short, liberty develops
only within society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes: "What
freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical period is
the product of long social traditions and . . . a collective development --
which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in that
development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free."
[Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, p. 15] But freedom requires the right
kind of social environment in which to grow and develop. Such an environment
must be decentralised and based on the direct management of work by those who do
it. For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas
self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the
individuals involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly
their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities and
thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the individuals
involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy
marginalises the many and ensures that their development is blunted. It is for
this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As the French
anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority "dresses itself in two principal
forms: the political form, that is the State; and the economic form, that is
private property." [cited by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 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 "that the serious, final,
complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of
the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of
labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers." [Michael Bakunin,
cited by Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 45] Hence, as Noam Chomsky
argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of
production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as
incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under
the control of the producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", For Reasons of State, p.
158] Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which
individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves.
The implications of this are important. First, it implies that an anarchist
society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which violence or the threat of
violence will not be used to "convince" individuals to do anything. Second, it
implies that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, and that,
because of this support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive
authority, i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition
to "government" means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical,
bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government
through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as
these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to
"representatives." For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form
of organisation based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and
dignity of the people subjected to that power. Anarchists consider freedom to be
the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower.
Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as
private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most
individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting
their liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material,
intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us" [Bakunin,
Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 261] (see section B for further discussion of the
hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism). A.2.3 Are
anarchists in favour of organisation? Yes. Without association, a truly human
life is impossible. Liberty cannot exist without society and organisation. As
George Barrett, in Objections to Anarchism, points out: "[t]o get the full
meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make
agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a
limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the
exercise of our freedom. "If we are going to invent a dogma that to make
agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it
forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot
go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that
I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot
in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must
co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is
against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not
limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for
a walk." As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us
will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and
cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico Malatesta,
Life and Ideas, p. 86] The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation
may seem strange at first, but this is because we live in a society in which
virtually all forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be
the only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of
organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of
society -- one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation.
According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only
existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states
based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus
which supported a ruling class. Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of
years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls
"organic," that is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving
mutual aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products
of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably had
status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of
institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive
sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the economic
exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of
Freedom). It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate going
"back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that human
beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, and
aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On
the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or learned, and as such,
can be unlearned (see Ashley Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression). We are
not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means
that people can change the way they do things, including the way they organise
society. And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised,
because presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for those
at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion through its
control of the state (see section B.2.3), it is able to suppress the majority
and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller scale within
all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within authoritarian and
centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of their freedom. As
Alexander Berkman puts it: "capitalist society is so badly organised that its
various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your
whole body aches and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation
or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To
do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all
over." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, p. 53] Yet this is precisely what
happens in capitalist society, with the result that it is, indeed, "sick all
over." For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement is
important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of mutual
interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful." [Op. Cit., p.
53] In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy and confederation,
which are the expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory)
democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums
within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the
free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent."
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct democracy
and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9 and A.2.10. A.2.4
Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty? No. Anarchists do not believe
that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions
invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others. For example, anarchists
do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither
do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to
liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists
recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. The exercise of authority is not
freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism
supports "freedom for everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for
others; which does not mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly
not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 53] In a capitalist society,
resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority is the mark of a free person
-- be it private (the boss) or public (the state). As Henry David Thoreau
pointed out in his essay on "Civil Disobedience" (1847) "Disobedience is the
true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." A.2.5 Why are
anarchists in favour of equality? As mentioned in above, anarchists are
dedicated to social equality because it is the only context in which individual
liberty can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about
"equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is very strange
indeed. Before discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to
indicate what we do not mean by it. Anarchists do not believe in "equality of
endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it
could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human
differences not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why?
Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will
only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam Chomsky,
"Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future", Red and Black Revolution, No. 2]
That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that
everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day
intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert
attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into
discussions of biology. Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of
outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same
goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the
reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they
standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation of Society
on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and conformity). In the
words of Alexander Berkman: "The spirit of authority, law, written and
unwritten, tradition and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or
woman] a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . . All of
us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its
chains, and that only partly." [The ABC of Anarchism, p., 26] Anarchists,
therefore, have little to desire to make this "common grove" even deeper.
Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social relationship and institution
that creates it in the first place. "Equality of outcome" can only be introduced
and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have
more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by
anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs,
abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny.
Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do
not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human
needs. As Alexander Berkman put it: "equality does not mean an equal amount but
equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in
liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality
implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink,
or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from
it: the very reverse in fact." He goes on to argue that "[i]ndividual needs and
tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that
constitutes true equality. . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out
your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations."
[The ABC of Anarchism, p. 25] For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as
"equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a
hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are
related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face
are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under
capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in
the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real
equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road
sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the
barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they
are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on
an open road but also upon an equal start. From this obvious fact springs the
misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies
to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will
see). Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity
or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes: "once equality has triumphed and is well
established, will various individuals' abilities and their levels of energy
cease to differ? Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some
will always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two identical
leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And it is even more truer with
regard to human beings, who are much more complex than leaves. But this
diversity is hardly an evil. On the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human
race. Thanks to this diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one
individual complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite
diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very basis of
their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality." ["All-Round
Education", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 117-8] Equality for anarchists means social
equality, or, to use Murray Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some
like Malatesta used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea).
By this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability
and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into
power. Individual differences, in other words, "would be of no consequence,
because inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity when it cannot cling to
some legal fiction or institution." [Michael Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]
If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are
abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and are based on the
principle of "one person, one vote" then natural differences would not be able
to be turned into hierarchical power. For example, without capitalist property
rights there would not be means by which a minority could monopolise the means
of life (machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of others via the
wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers
manage their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their
labour. Thus Proudhon: "Now, what can be the origin of this inequality? "As we
see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this triple
abstraction: capital, labour and talent. "It is because society has divided
itself into three categories of citizen corresponding to the three terms of the
formula. . . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half
of the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing
the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into the simpler formula of
labour!. . . in order to make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the
same extent capitalist, labourer and expert or artist." [No Gods, No Masters,
pp. 57-8] Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the
key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management as the means to achieve
it. Thus self-management is the key to social equality. Social equality in the
workplace, for example, means that everyone has an equal say in the policy
decisions on how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong
believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all." This does
not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that everyone will decide
everything. As far as expertise goes, different people have different interests,
talents, and abilities, so obviously they will want to study different things
and do different kinds of work. It is also obvious that when people are ill they
consult a doctor -- an expert -- who manages his or her own work rather than
being directed by a committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up,
but once the topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up,
some people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed
in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical staff voting on how doctors
should perform an operation! In fact, social equality and individual liberty are
inseparable. Without the collective self-management of decisions that affect a
group (equality) to complement the individual self-management of decisions that
affect the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both,
some will have power over others, making decisions for them (i.e. governing
them), and thus some will be more free than others. Social equality is required
for individuals to both govern and express themselves, for the self-management
it implies means "people working in face-to-face relations with their fellows in
order to bring the uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of
solving common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, From the
Ground Up, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression of individuality and so
is a necessary base for individual liberty. Section F.3 ( "Why do
'anarcho'-capitalists generally place little or no value on 'equality,' and what
do they mean by that term?) discusses anarchist ideas on equality further. A.2.6
Why is solidarity important to anarchists? Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key
idea of anarchism. It is the link between the individual and society, the means
by which individuals can work together to meet their common interests in an
environment that supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For
anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both
strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human
existence. Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out
that the "human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of the
strongest motivations of human behaviour." [To Be or To Have, p.107] Therefore
anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max Stirner's term) with
other people to be a natural need. These unions, or associations, must be based
on equality and individuality in order to be fully satisfying to those who join
them -- i.e. they must be organised in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary,
decentralised, and non-hierarchical. Solidarity -- co-operation between
individuals -- is necessary for life and is far from a denial of liberty. "What
wonderful results this unique force of man's individuality has achieved when
strengthened by Co-operation with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes.
"Co-operation -- as opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for
the survival and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary
Cupertino. . . can create the basis for a free individual and associational
life." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 95] Solidarity means associating together as equals
in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not
based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the
individuality of those subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs
solidarity, the recognition of common interests: "The most noble, pure and true
love of mankind is the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I
want to appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured only
when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other
people around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then can I eat my fill
with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other people, too, can
eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a question of my own
contentment, only of my own self, when I rebel against every danger which
threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ." [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The
BrickBurner magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the
legends, pp. 133-4] To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the
slogan of Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury
to all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept with
fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation with
altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at the
same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates now are
linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful
strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even
more effectively than competition does. . . There is also good evidence that
co-operation is more conductive to psychological health and to liking one
another." [No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 7] And, within a
hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only because of the
satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary to resist those in
power. By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we want.
Eventually, by organising into groups, we can start to manage our own collective
affairs together and so replace the boss once and for all. "Unions will. . .
multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property." [Max Stirner,
The Ego and Its Own, p. 258] By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the
current system with one more to our liking. There is power in "union."
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own freedom.
We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for another. By
agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so that we may enjoy
more, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest -- that is, I see that it is
to my advantage to reach agreements with others based on mutual respect and
social equality; for if I dominate someone, this means that the conditions exist
which allow domination, and so in all probability I too will be dominated in
turn. As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule us:
"Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to let anyone
do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If
millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable
force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in Luigi Galleani's The End
of Anarchism?, p. 79 - different translation in The Ego and Its Own, p. 197]
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by
which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is strength
and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity should not be
confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a leader. In order to
be effective, solidarity must be created by free people, co-operating together
as equals. The "big WE" is not solidarity, although the desire for "herdism" is
a product of our need for solidarity and union. It is a "solidarity" corrupted
by hierarchical society, in which people are conditioned to blindly obey
leaders. A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation? Liberty, by its very
nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed by another, but must
break his or her own chains through their own effort. Of course, self-effort can
also be part of collective action, and in many cases it has to be in order to
attain its ends. As Emma Goldman points out: "history tells us that every
oppressed class [or group or individual] gained true liberation from its masters
by its own efforts." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 142] Anarchists have long argued that
people can only free themselves by their own actions. The various methods
anarchists suggest to aid this process will be discussed in section J ("What Do
Anarchists Do?") and will not be discussed here. However, these methods all
involve people organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in
ways that empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things
for them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing what
anarchists call "direct action"). Direct action has an empowering and liberating
effect on those involved in it. Self-activity is the means by which the
creativity, initiative, imagination and critical thought of those subjected to
authority can be developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As
Errico Malatesta points out "[b]etween man and his social environment there is a
reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what they
are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. . . . Fortunately
existing society has not been created by the inspired will of a dominating
class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to passive and
unconscious instruments. . . . It is the result of a thousand internecine
struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . " [Life and Ideas, p.
188] Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that limit one's
freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the process of questioning
authoritarian relationships in general. This process gives us insight into how
society works, changing our ideas and creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman
again: "True emancipation begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we
might add. It is only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration,
[cutting] loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op.
Cit., p. 142] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a piece
of chain with him" [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 168] In an interview
during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist militant Durutti said, "we
have a new world in our hearts." Only self-activity and self-liberation allows
us to create such a vision in our hearts and gives us the confidence to try to
actualise it in the real world. Anarchists, however, do not think that
self-liberation must wait for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The
personal is political, and given the nature of society, how we act in the here
and now will influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even
in pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it, "not only
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." We can do so by creating
alternative social relationships and organisations, acting as free people in a
non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and now can we lay the
foundation for a free society. Moreover, this process of self-liberation goes on
all the time: "Subordinates of all kinds exercise their capacity for critical
self-reflection every day -- that is why masters are thwarted, frustrated and,
sometimes, overthrown. But unless masters are overthrown, unless subordinates
engage in political activity, no amount of critical reflection will end their
subjection and bring them freedom." [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p.
205] Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life to reject,
resist and thwart authority and bring them to their logical conclusion -- a
society of free individuals, co-operating as equals in free, self-managed
associations. Without this process of critical self-reflection, resistance and
self-liberation a free society is impossible. Thus, for anarchists, anarchism
comes from the natural resistance of subordinated people striving to act as free
individuals within a hierarchical world. This process of resistance is called by
many anarchists the "class struggle" (as it is working class people who are
generally the most subordinated group within society) or, more generally,
"social struggle." It is this everyday resistance to authority (in all its
forms) and the desire for freedom which is the key to the anarchist revolution.
It is for this reason that "anarchists emphasise over and over that the class
struggle provides the only means for the workers [and other oppressed groups] to
achieve control over their destiny." [Marie-Louise Berneri, Neither East Nor
West, p. 32] Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous
revolutionary action" is usually results from and is based upon the patient work
of many years of organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The
process of "creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use another
I.W.W. expression), by building alternative institutions and relationships, is
but one component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary commitment
and militancy. As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of
all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be
an integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate the
people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want the new way
of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of
their development and advance as they advance." [Op. Cit., p. 90] Unless a
process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is impossible. Only when
individuals free themselves, both materially (by abolishing the state and
capitalism) and intellectually (by freeing themselves of submissive attitudes
towards authority), can a free society be possible. We should not forget that
capitalist and state power, to a great extent, is power over the minds of those
subject to them (backed up, of course, with sizeable force if the mental
domination fails and people start rebelling and resisting). In effect, a
spiritual power as the ideas of the ruling class dominate society and permeate
the minds of the oppressed. As long as this holds, the working class will
acquiesce to authority, oppression and exploitation as the normal condition of
life. Minds submissive to the doctrines and positions of their masters cannot
hope to win freedom, to revolt and fight. Thus the oppressed must overcome the
mental domination of the existing system before they can throw off its yoke
(and, anarchists argue, direct action is the means of doing both -- see sections
J.2 and J.4). Capitalism and statism must be beaten spiritually and
theoretically before it is beaten materially (many anarchists call this mental
liberation "class consciousness" -- see section B.7.3). And self-liberation
through struggle against oppression is the only way this can be done. Thus
anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term) "the spirit of revolt."
Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation, solidarity and
direct action. Direct action is the means of creating anarchists, free people,
and so "Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'
organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and
its protector, -- the State." This is because "[s]uch a struggle . . . better
than any indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary
improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his [or her] eyes
to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes
up his [or her] thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption,
production and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist and the
state," that is, see the possibility of a free society. Kropotkin, like many
anarchists, pointed to the Syndicalist and Trade Union movements as a means of
developing libertarian ideas within existing society (although he, like most
anarchists, did not limit anarchist activity exclusively to them). Indeed, any
movement which "permit[s] the working men [and women] to realise their
solidarity and to feel the community of their interests . . . prepare[s] the way
for these conceptions" of communist-anarchism, i.e. the overcoming the spiritual
domination of existing society within the minds of the oppressed. [Evolution and
Environment, p. 83 and p. 85] For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish
Anarchist militant, the "history of human progress [is] seen as the history of
rebellion and disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to
authority in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through
rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, Not a Life Story, Just a Leaf from
It, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation (and self-organisation,
self-management and self-activity). Little wonder Bakunin considered "rebellion"
as one of the "three fundamental principles [which] constitute the essential
conditions of all human development, collective or individual, in history." [God
and the State, p. 12] This is simply because individuals and groups cannot be
freed by others, only by themselves. Such rebellion (self-liberation) is the
only means by which existing society becomes more libertarian and an anarchist
society a possibility. A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing
hierarchy? No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one
is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since
they embody the principle of authority. The argument for this (if anybody needs
one) is as follows: A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation
composed of a series of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige,
and (usually) remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form
have found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and
exploitation. For example, in his article "What Do Bosses Do?" (Review of
Radical Political Economics, 6, 7), a study of the modern factory, Steven
Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy is not greater
productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater control over workers,
the purpose of such control being more effective exploitation. Control in a
hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat of negative
sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, psychological, social,
etc. Such control, including the repression of dissent and rebellion, therefore
necessitates centralisation: a set of power relations in which the greatest
control is exercised by the few at the top (particularly the head of the
organisation), while those in the middle ranks have much less control and the
many at the bottom have virtually none. Since domination, coercion, and
centralisation are essential features of authoritarianism, and as those features
are embodied in hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian.
Moreover, for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose both the
state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to dismantle all
forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This applies to capitalist
firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure of the capitalist firm is
extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in nature: "a fascist system. . . [is]
absolutist - power goes from top down. . . the ideal state is top down control
with the public essentially following orders. "Let's take a look at a
corporation. . . [I]f you look at what they are, power goes strictly top down,
from the board of directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the
people on the shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There's no flow of power
or planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and make suggestions, but the
same is true of a slave society. The structure of power is linear, from the top
down." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 237] David Deleon indicates these
similarities between the company and the state well when he writes: "Most
factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the bottom are privates, the
supervisors are sergeants, and on up through the hierarchy. The organisation can
dictate everything from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large
portion of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require us to
see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it can forbid us free time
to engage in political activity; it can suppress freedom of speech, press and
assembly -- it can use ID cards and armed security police, along with
closed-circuit TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with 'disciplinary
layoffs' (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced, by circumstances,
to accept much of this, or join the millions of unemployed. . . In almost every
job, we have only the 'right' to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and
we are expected to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft."
["For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social self-management",
Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4] Thus the
consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its forms, including the
capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support archy -- which an anarchist, by
definition, cannot do. In other words, for anarchists, "[p]romises to obey,
contracts of (wage) slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a
subordinate status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and restrain
individual autonomy." [Robert Graham, "The Anarchist Contract, Reinventing
Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 77] Some argue that as long as an
association is voluntary, whether it has an hierarchical structure is
irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. This is for two reasons. Firstly, under
capitalism workers are driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so
liberty) to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the
economic conditions workers face by creating "massive disparities in wealth . .
. [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does
not reflect its real value." [Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70] Therefore: "To
portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, as free and equal to
each other is to ignore the serious inequality of bargaining power which exists
between the worker and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship
of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of
freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social justice."
[Ibid.] It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action and
organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working people and allows
them to assert their autonomy (see section J). Secondly, if we take the key
element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we would have to
argue that the current statist system must be considered as "anarchy" - no one
forces an individual to live in a specific state. We are free to leave and go
somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature of an association, you can
end up supporting organisations based upon the denial of freedom (including
capitalist companies, the armed forces, states even) all because they are
"voluntary." As Bob Black argues, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while
ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the
large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its
worst." [Libertarian as Conservative] Anarchy is more than being free to pick a
master. Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise
you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic. For more on
this see section A.2.14 ( Why is voluntarism not enough?). Anarchists argue that
organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they can be based upon
co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs directly. In this way
we can do without without hierarchical structures (i.e. the delegation of power
in the hands of a few). Only when an association is self-managed by its members
can it be considered truly anarchistic. We are sorry to belabour this point, but
some capitalist apologists, apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist"
name because of its association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can
be both a capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called
"anarcho" capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism is a
contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see Section F) A.2.9 What sort of
society do anarchists want? Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on
free association. We consider this form of society the best one for maximising
the values we have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, can
individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power into the
hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty and dignity.
Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away from people and
putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour organisations which
minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in the hands of those who are
affected by any decisions reached. Free association is the cornerstone of an
anarchist society. Individuals must be free to join together as they see fit,
for this is the basis of freedom and human dignity. However, any such free
agreement must be based on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a
sham (as in capitalism), as only equality provides the necessary social context
for freedom to grow and development. Therefore anarchists support directly
democratic collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of
direct democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section
A.2.11 - Why do most anarchists support direct democracy?). We should point out
here that an anarchist society does not imply some sort of idyllic state of
harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from it! As Luigi Galleani points out,
"[d]isagreements and friction will always exist. In fact they are an essential
condition of unlimited progress. But once the bloody area of sheer animal
competition - the struggle for food - has been eliminated, problems of
disagreement could be solved without the slightest threat to the social order
and individual liberty." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 28] Therefore, an anarchist
society will be based upon co-operative conflict as "[c]onflict, per se, is not
harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should not be hidden] . . . What makes
disagreement destructive is not the fact of conflict itself but the addition of
competition." [Alfie Kohn, No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 156]
Indeed, "a rigid demand for agreement means that people will effectively be
prevented from contributing their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is for
this reason that most anarchists reject consensus decision making in large
groups (see section A.2.12). So, in an anarchist society associations would be
run by mass assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate
and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being
handled by elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated,
recallable and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful
eyes of the assembly which elected them. If the delegates act against their
mandate or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by
the assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be
instantly recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation
remains in the hands of the union of individuals who created it. This
self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power of recall
are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The key difference between a
statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist community is who wields power.
In a parliamentary system, for example, people give power to a group of
representatives to make decisions for them for a fixed period of time. Whether
they carry out their promises is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till
the next election. Power lies at the top and those at the base are expected to
obey. Similarly, in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected
minority of bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey.
In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual or
group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist community. Instead
decisions are made using direct democratic principles and, when required, the
community can elect or appoint delegates to carry out these decisions. There is
a clear distinction between policy making (which lies with everyone who is
affected) and the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy (which
is the job for delegates). These egalitarian communities, founded by free
agreement, also freely associate together in confederations. Such a free
confederation would be run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the
elemental assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner
as the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and
international conferences in which all important issues and problems affecting
the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition, the fundamental,
guiding principles and ideas of society would be debated and policy decisions
made, put into practice, reviewed, and co-ordinated. Action committees would be
formed, if required, to co-ordinate and administer the decisions of the
assemblies and their congresses, under strict control from below as discussed
above. Delegates to such bodies would have a limited tenure and, like the
delegates to the congresses, have a fixed mandate -- they are not able to make
decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the
delegates to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall
by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first place. In
this way any committees required to co-ordinate join activities would be, to
quote Malatesta's words, "always under the direct control of the population."
[Life and Ideas, p. 175] Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can
overturn any decisions reached by the conferences and withdraw from any
confederation. Any compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations
have to go back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that
ratification any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual or
committee. In addition, they can call confederal conferences to discuss new
developments and to inform action committees about changing wishes and to
instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas. In other words,
any delegates required within an anarchist organisation or society are not
representatives (as they are in a democratic government). Kropotkin makes the
difference clear: "The question of true delegation versus representation can be
better understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men [and women], who
meet each day in their work and share common concerns . . . who have discussed
every aspect of the question that concerns them and have reached a decision.
They then choose someone and send him [or her] to reach an agreement with other
delegates of the same kind. . . The delegate is not authorised to do more than
explain to other delegates the considerations that have led his [or her]
colleagues to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he [or she]
will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition which his
mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens when true delegation
comes into being." [Words of a Rebel, p. 132] Unlike in a representative system,
power is not delegated into the hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply
a mouthpiece for the association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in
the first place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated and
subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of the assemblies
they came from rather than their own. In this way government is replaced by
anarchy, a network of free associations and communities co-operating as equals
based on a system of mandated delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free
federation from the bottom up. This network of anarchist communities would work
on three levels. There would be "independent Communes for the territorial
organisation, and of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations]
for the organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different
functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the satisfaction of
all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for
mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so
on." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 79] All would be based on
self-management, free association, free federation and self-organisation from
the bottom up. By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all
aspects of life, because the people at the base of the organisation are in
control, not their delegates. Only this form of organisation can replace
government (the initiative and empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the
initiative and empowerment of all). This form of organisation would exist in all
activities which required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It
would be, as Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures
which they could understand and control." For individual initiatives, the
individual involved would manage them. As can be seen, anarchists wish to create
a society based upon structures that ensure that no individual or group is able
to wield power over others. Free agreement, confederation and the power of
recall, fixed mandates and limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is
removed from the hands of governments and placed in the hands of those directly
affected by the decisions. For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society
would look like see section I. A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and
achieve? The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions of
people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now. However, many
consider these forms of organisation as impractical and doomed to failure. To
those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations would
produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the statist,
centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces indifference instead
of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity, uniformity instead of
unity, and privileged elites instead of equality. More importantly, such
organisations destroy individual initiative and crush independent action and
critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy, see section B.1- "Why are anarchists
against authority and hierarchy?" - and related sections). That libertarian
organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes) liberty was demonstrated
in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner Brockway, Secretary of the British
Independent Labour Party, when visiting Barcelona during the 1936 revolution,
noted that "the great solidarity that existed among the Anarchists was due to
each individual relying on his [sic] own strength and not depending upon
leadership. . . . The organisations must, to be successful, be combined with
free-thinking people; not a mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf
Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 58] As sufficiently indicated already,
hierarchical, centralised structures restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the
centralist system is all very well as regards size, simplicity and construction:
it lacks but one thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a
system, he cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at
all." [quoted in Paths in Utopia, Martin Buber, p. 33] The effects of hierarchy
can be seen all around us. It does not work. Hierarchy and authority exist
everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in the street. As Bob Black puts it, "If
you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get
habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic,
servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the
balance of your life." [The Libertarian as Conservative] This means that the end
of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation in everyday life. It will
involve the creation of individual-centred organisations within which all can
exercise, and so develop, their abilities to the fullest. By involving
themselves and participating in the decisions that affect them, their workplace,
their community and society, they can ensure the full development of their
individual capacities. Only self-determination and free agreement on every level
of society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity
of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation allows the
vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed and used, enriching
society by the very process of enriching and developing the individual. Only by
involving everyone in the process of thinking, planning, co-ordinating and
implementing the decisions that affect them can freedom blossom and
individuality be fully developed and protected. Anarchy will release the
creativity and talent of the mass of people enslaved by hierarchy. Anarchy will
even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from capitalism and its
authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter
Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical
relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price
paid for the 'glory of command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his
duties. He is relegated to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative
potential of the submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion."
[For Ourselves, The Right to Be Greedy] A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour
of direct democracy? For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy
decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free
agreement. The reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a
'free, 'non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that
mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of
oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93] It is obvious that
individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so,
"[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the individual has three options] he
[or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to
his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the
interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from
this necessity." [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 85] Anarchists
obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by which
individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting the
uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can
individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government,
so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of
increasing an individual's freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social
faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be subject to the
will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind anarchist direct
democracy? Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes
a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is
organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces
and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or
neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the content of his or
her political obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people
must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their own activity.
This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above the
group or society, such as the state or company, but to one's fellow "citizens."
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their
association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to
them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed.
Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political authority, but as
this authority is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather
than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is
non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 - "Why are anarchists
against authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon: "In place
of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No more laws voted by a
majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union,
makes its own laws." [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6] Such a
society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the workers'
associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the
approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist or statist
hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding
principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. Of
course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by
others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of
Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have
described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone
finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted
with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To
deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to
infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely
accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal
of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free
association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy
within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only
means by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it
remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority
of the error of its ways. And we must point out here that anarchist support for
direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right.
Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is
always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own
advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts,
namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a
husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the
expense of those subject to their decisions. Anarchists recognise that
majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association
place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of
self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to
protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision
making. Thus Carole Pateman: "If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then
the] minority will have to take political action, including politically
disobedient action action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and
independence, and the political association itself. . . Political disobedience
is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a
self-managing democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves
the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where
necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162] Moving
beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different
associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations
follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of
individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations.
The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal
and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of "voice and
exit" for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society
becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of
communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation
and self-management. The workings of such a confederation are outlined in
section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in
greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?). This
system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks
for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of the
majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As can be seen,
the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the minority can
leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's words, do not have
to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what
these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary
association does not create "majority rule" nor assume that the minority must
submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct
democracy argue that it fits Malatesta's argument that: "Certainly anarchists
recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the
minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious
need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of
all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But
such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal,
voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the
running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be
imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As the
minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having
extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as
a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority
dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no
minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are
not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued: "one cannot expect,
or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the
majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and
passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers
wrong." [Life and Ideas, p. 132] Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner
acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or
nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the
members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the
means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the unanimous
decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice of the law")
could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly represent[s] the
whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its
corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual,
except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce"
(his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be
impossible in practice" for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by
Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132] Thus direct democracy and
individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct
democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps
with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination
of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect
minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can
only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved.
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean
that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many
small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on
consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative
to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy
within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation
which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and
equality. A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy? The few
anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations generally
support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based upon everyone on a
group agreeing to a decision before it can be put into action. Thus, it is
argued, consensus stops the majority ruling the minority and is more consistent
with anarchist principles. Consensus, although the "best" option in decision
making, as all agree, has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in
describing his experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications,
because "[i]n order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority
dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline to vote
on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially amount to a
one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in American consensus
processes, all too often involved intimidation of the dissenters, to the point
that they completely withdrew from the decision-making process, rather than make
an honourable and continuing expression of their dissent by voting, even as a
minority, in accordance with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be
political beings--so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . '[C]onsensus' was
ultimately achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as
participants in the process. "On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced
that most vital aspect of all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent, the
passionate dialogue that still persists even after a minority accedes
temporarily to a majority decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . . .by dull
monologues -- and the uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In
majority decision-making, the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a
decision on which they have been defeated -- they are free to openly and
persistently articulate reasoned and potentially persuasive disagreements.
Consensus, for its part, honours no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the
metaphysical 'one' of the 'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic
Dimension of Anarchism", Democracy and Nature, no. 8, p. 8] Bookchin does not
"deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of decision-making in small
groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with one another." But he notes
that, in practical terms, his own experience has shown him that "when larger
groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at
the lowest common intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly of
people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree with it or
else withdraw from voting on that issue" [Op. Cit., p.7] Therefore, due to its
potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists disagree that consensus is the
political aspect of free association. While it is advantageous to try to reach
consensus, it is usually impractical to do so -- especially in large groups --
regardless of its other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or
association by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and
dissent in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are
fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted by
public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique, they will
have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to express, as society
evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of individuals. In other words,
anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the "creative role of dissent"
which, they fear, "tends to fade away in the gray uniformity required by
consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8] We must stress that anarchists are not in favour of
a mechanical decision making process in which the majority just vote the
minority away and ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct
democracy see it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority
listen to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which all
can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation within
directly democratic associations as the means of creating common interests, as a
process which will encourage diversity, individual and minority expression and
reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise or oppress minorities by
ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important issues. A.2.13 Are anarchists
individualists or collectivists? The short answer is: neither. This can be seen
from the fact that liberal scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being
"collectivists" while Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general for
being "individualists." This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both
ideologies as nonsense. Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist
individualists and collectivists are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This
can best shown be by considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and
"collectivist" tendencies continually interact, often with the political and
economic structure swinging from one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism
and individualism are both one-sided aspects of human existence, and like all
manifestations of imbalance, deeply flawed. For anarchists, the idea that
individuals should sacrifice themselves for the "group" or "greater good" is
nonsensical. Groups are made up of individuals, and if people think only of
what's best for the group, the group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the
dynamics of human interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups"
cannot think, only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the "cult
of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected, since such
collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies their individuality,
and ends up with the need for someone with enough individuality to make
decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the leader principle. Stalinism and
Nazism are excellent examples of this phenomenon. Therefore, anarchists
recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only
individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose "collectivism"
and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to
aid and develop the individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much
stress on groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express themselves,
manage their own interests directly and to create social relationships which
encourage individuality and individual freedom. So while society and the groups
they join shapes the individual, the individual is the true basis of society.
Hence Malatesta: "Much has been said about the respective roles of individual
initiative and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . .
[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to
individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society or
the collectivity - and the State or government which claims to represent it - if
it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the
organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have
their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts
when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore,
is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the
resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up
society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the relationship between
society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question of preventing some
individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights
and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative to the few [which
Malatesta defines as a key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably
results in the oppression of everyone else . . . " [Anarchy, pp. 36-37] These
considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with anarchists. As
Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . . is only a masked attempt
to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. . . . [It] has
inevitably resulted in the crassest class distinctions. . . [and] has meant all
the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a
slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.'" [Red Emma Speaks, p.
89] While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves.
Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life. Indeed, as
groups generate social relationships by their very nature, they help shape
individuals. In other words, groups structured in an authoritarian way will have
a negative impact on the freedom and individuality of those within them.
However, due to the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist
individualists fail to see any difference between groups structured in a
libertarian manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both
"groups". Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions in
existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a need for the
state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These contradictions stem from
capitalist individualism's dependence on individual contracts in an unequal
society, i.e. abstract individualism. In contrast, anarchists stress social
"individualism" (another, perhaps better, term for this concept could be
"communal individuality"). Anarchism "insists that the centre of gravity in
society is the individual -- that he [sic] must think for himself, act freely,
and live fully. . . . If he is to develop freely and fully, he must be relieved
from the interference and oppression of others. . . . [T]his has nothing in
common with. . . 'rugged individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really
flabby, not rugged. At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the
state and wails for protection. . . .Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one
of the many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and
political extortion." [Emma Goldman, Ibid., p. 397] Anarchism rejects the
abstract individualism of capitalism, with its ideas of "absolute" freedom of
the individual which is constrained by others. This theory ignores the social
context in which freedom exists and grows. A society based on "individual
contracts" usually results in an inequality of power between the contracting
individuals and so entails the need for an authority based on laws above them
and organised coercion to enforce the contracts between them. This consequence
is evident from capitalism and, most notably, in the "social contract" theory of
how the state developed. In this theory it is assumed that individuals are
"free" when they are isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally
in the "state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a
"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy with
no basis in reality (human beings have always been social animals), this
"theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive powers
over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist system,
which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the capitalist
economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within capitalism,
individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the owner rules the
worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See sections A.2.14 and B.4 for
further details). In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a
denial of both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition,
each implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of
individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of collectivism.
Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the individuals who
comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit suppression of community (i.e.
the people with whom you live), ultimately impoverishes the individual, since
individuals do not exist apart from society but can only exist within it. In
addition, individualism ends up denying the "select few" the insights and
abilities of the individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is a source
of self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction), namely
"the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the
conditions of oppression of the mass by the 'beautiful aristocracies'. His [or
her] development would remain uni-lateral." [Peter Kropotkin, Revolutionary
Pamphlets, p. 293] True liberty and community exist elsewhere. A.2.14 Why is
voluntarism not enough? Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary
in order maximise liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking
that only in free association, created by free agreement, can individuals
develop, grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under
capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty. Voluntarism
implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies
that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation.
In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and
relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these
implications of voluntarism. For, while technically "voluntary" (though as we
show in section B.4, this is not really the case), capitalist contracts result
in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour
involves promising to obey in return for payment. And as Carole Pateman points
out, "to promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree,
individuals' freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities
[of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to
state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to
exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal,
but subordinate." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 19] This results in
those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for
voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and
must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is
violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey
(see also section A.2.8). Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of
subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own
justification. This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell
their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are
only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom,
however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is
still servitude. To paraphrase Rousseau: Under capitalism the worker regards
herself as free; but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when she signs
her contract with her boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and
she is nothing but an order taker. Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be
made by property a slave or a despot by turns." [What is Property?, p. 371]
Little wonder we discover Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another
individual on any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would
"alienate his [or her] freedom" and so would be a "a relationship of voluntary
servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a contract in a free
society (i.e. anarchist society) would "devoid of any sense of personal
dignity." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 68-9] Only self-managed
associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination
between its members. Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy
in voluntary associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is
not a sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Any
social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be based upon
force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course assumes a definition of
liberty according to which individuals exercise their capacities and decide
their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is not enough to create a society that
maximises liberty. This is why anarchists think that voluntary association must
be complemented by self-management (direct democracy) within these associations.
For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply self-management. Or, to use
Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so
association is its complementary term." [System of Economical Contradictions, p.
430] Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of social
relationships above others and that a true libertarian must allow people the
freedom to select their own social relationships. To answer the second objection
first, in a society based on private property (and so statism), those with
property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate their authority. And
why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the
liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is
actually a denial of liberty. Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead
guilty. We are prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of
robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are
prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality. Section A.2.11
discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social counterpart to
voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses why capitalism cannot
be based on equal bargaining power between property owners and the propertyless.
A.2.15 What about "human nature"? Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature,"
have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and
reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in
an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is
not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by
human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is
contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and
violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products
of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with
changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of
"human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years, and war only become part of
"human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment plays an important
part in defining what "human nature" is. This does not mean that human beings
are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate)
waiting to be formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). We
do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think
and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are sociable
creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. These
two features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The
innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy
illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise
without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society
reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state
is denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the
great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic
communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people
"savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is
against "human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest
that it may not be. As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human
nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For
"while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the
rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men
-- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming much worse than they are.
. . , there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the
imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They
make it, although sometimes unconsciously" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves,
p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and
hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian. Today,
however, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little real
evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is determined by
our genes. These claims have been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering
the dearth of evidence, their support for this "new" doctrine must be purely the
result of its utility to those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to
have an "objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise that power. Like the
social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the
dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that
scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and
"natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred
back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the principles of
capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are
then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly, there are
many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously. This
sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class has always
claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature," and hence
supported doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite
power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such
doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious
our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and it has been
scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood! The arrogance of
this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One thousand years from
now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what
anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around,
and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain
the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the
"One True System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past
systems did not. Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of
capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions
from the same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be
framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It
comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist
Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species,
quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory
based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory
reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society
(notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course. Kropotkin's
Mutual Aid was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British
Social Darwinism projected onto nature and human life. A.2.16 Does anarchism
require "perfect" people to work? No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect"
society. It will be a human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears
associated with human beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to
be "perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Obviously, though,
we think that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both
their own and others individuality and needs, thus reducing individual conflict.
Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use
of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies. Like the
"anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of
anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- people who are not corrupted by
power when placed in positions of authority, people who are strangely unaffected
by the distorting effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However,
anarchists make no such claims about human perfection. We recognise that vesting
power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are
not perfect and need to be accountable to others. It should be noted that the
idea that anarchism requires a "new" man or woman is often raised by the
right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real anarchism and justify the
retention of hierarchical authority, specifically in capitalist relations of
production. However, a moment's reflection will show that their "objection"
discredits their own claim to be anarchists for they explicitly assume an
anarchist society without anarchists! Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of
people who still needed authority and statism would soon become authoritarian
and statist (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because even if the government
were overthrown tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because "the
strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great
tyrant may be a fool and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but
in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So
long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the
head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed
to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barret, Objections to
Anarchism] In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed
themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-obedience
relations are necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea of a "new"
anarchist person is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the obvious
conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people will fail. But
this argument ignores the need for self-activity and self-liberation in order to
create a free society. Anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are
necessary, because the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine mission to free
humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.
"If, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak,
supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would
reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop
their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of
tyranny --- the government -- then indeed the revolution will be permanently
accomplished." [Ibid.] A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society
to work? We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but
we know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people
are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All aspects
of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain people who make
this claim. Be it Leninists, Fabians or Objectivists, it is assumed that only a
select few are creative and intelligent and that these people should govern
others. Usually, this elitism is masked by fine, flowing rhetoric about
"freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes with which the ideologues attempt to
dull people's critical thought by telling them want they want to hear. It is, of
course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural" elites always class
themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an "objectivist", for example,
who considers themselves part of the great mass of "second-handers" or who will
be a toilet cleaner in the unknown "ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody
reading an elitist text will consider him or herself to be part of the "select
few." It's "natural" in an elitist society to consider elites to be natural and
yourself a potential member of one! Examination of history shows that there is a
basic elitist ideology which has been the essential rationalisation of all
states and ruling classes since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze
Age. This ideology merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner
content. During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity,
being adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that human
beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need "direction from
above," with priests as the conveniently necessary mediators between ordinary
humans and "God." The idea that average people are basically stupid and thus
incapable of governing themselves is a carry over from this doctrine, a relic of
the Dark Ages. In reply to all those who claim that most people are
"second-handers" or cannot develop anything more than "trade union
consciousness," all we can say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand
even a superficial look at history, particularly the labour movement. The
creative powers of those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if
this intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this is
the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy and the
conformity produced by authority. (See also section B.1 for more on the effects
of hierarchy). As Bob Black points outs: "You are what you do. If you do boring,
stupid, monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid, and
monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinisation all
around us than even such significant moronising mechanisms as television and
education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school
and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end,
are habituated to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for
autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few
rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into
the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and
into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from
people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in everything.
They're used to it." [The Abolition of Work] When elitists try to conceive of
liberation, they can only think of it being given to the oppressed by kind (for
Leninists) or stupid (for Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then,
that it fails. Only self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and
distorting effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few
examples of such self-liberation prove that most people, once considered
incapable of freedom, are more than up for the task. Those who proclaim their
"superiority" often do so out of fear that their authority and power will be
destroyed once people free themselves from the debilitating hands of authority
and come to realise that, in the words of Max Stirner, "the great are great only
because we are on our knees." As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality,
"[t]he extraordinary achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced
forever the loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this
fetish do so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority
challenged. This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over
his economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping her
cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides." [Vision on Fire,
p. 256] The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful
experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution, To quote
Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European
voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only
their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves to reason about
freedom." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, "Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future",
Red and Black Revolution, No. 2] A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism? No, and
this is for three reasons. Terrorism means either targeting or not worrying
about killing innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be created by
ordinary people. One does not convince people of one's ideas by blowing them up.
Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One cannot blow up a social
relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the actions of an elite few
destroying rulers on behalf of the majority. For so long as people feel the need
for rulers, hierarchy will exist (see section A.2.16 for more on this). As we
have stressed earlier, freedom cannot be given, only taken. Lastly, anarchism
aims for freedom. Hence Bakunin's comment that "when one is carrying out a
revolution for the liberation of humanity, one should respect the life and
liberty of men [and women]." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl
Marx, p. 125] For anarchists, means determine the ends and terrorism by its very
nature violates life and liberty of individuals and so cannot be used to create
an anarchist society. Moreover anarchists are not against individuals but the
institutions and social relationships that cause certain individuals to have
power over others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist
revolution is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin pointed out,
"we wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status and its perquisites" and
anarchism "does not mean the death of the individuals who make up the
bourgeoisie, but the death of the bourgeoisie as a political and social entity
economically distinct from the working class." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 71 and p.
70] In other words, "You can't blow up a social relationship" (to quote the
title of an anarchist pamphlet which presents the anarchist case against
terrorism). How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly
this is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are
not anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Bader-Meinhoff gang were
often called "anarchists" despite their self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism.
Smears, unfortunately, work. Similarly, as Emma Goldman pointed out, "it is a
known fact known to almost everyone familiar with the Anarchist movement that a
great number of [terrorist] acts, for which Anarchists had to suffer, either
originated with the capitalist press or were instigated, if not directly
perpetrated, by the police." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 216] This does not mean that
Anarchists have not committed acts of violence. They have (as have members of
other political and religious movements). The main reason for the association of
terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda by the deed" period in
the anarchist movement. This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked
by a small number of anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class
(royalty, politicians and so forth). At its worse, this period saw theatres and
shops frequented by members of the bourgeoisie targeted. These acts were termed
"propaganda by the deed." Anarchist support for the tactic was galvanised by the
assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 by Russian Populists (this event
prompted Johann Most's famous editorial in Freiheit, entitled "At Last!",
celebrating regicide and the assassination of tyrants). However, there were
deeper reasons for anarchist support of this tactic: firstly, in revenge for
acts of repression directed towards working class people; and secondly, as a
means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their oppressors could be
defeated. Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by the
deed began in France after the 20 000-plus deaths due to the French state's
brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many anarchists were killed.
It is interesting to note that while the anarchist violence in revenge for the
Commune is relatively well known, the state's mass murder of the Communards is
relatively unknown. Similarly, it may be known that the Italian Anarchist
Gaetano Bresci assassinated King Umberto of Italy in 1900 or that Alexander
Berkman tried to kill Carnegie Steel Corporation manager Henry Clay Frick in
1892. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon and killed
protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also murdered locked-out
workers at Homestead. Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is
hardly surprising. "The State's behaviour is violence," points out Max Stirner,
"and it calls its violence 'law'; that of the individual, 'crime.'" [The Ego and
Its Own, p. 197] Little wonder, then, that anarchist violence is condemned but
the repression (and often worse violence) that provoked it ignored and
forgotten. We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of
anarchist violence by non-anarchists by considering their response to state
violence. For example, many capitalist papers and individuals in the 1920s and
1930s celebrated Fascism as well as Mussolini and Hitler. Anarchists, in
contrast, fought Fascism to the death and tried to assassinate both Mussolini
and Hitler. Obviously supporting murderous dictatorships is not "violence" and
"terrorism" but resisting such regimes is! Similarly, non-anarchists can support
repressive and authoritarian states, war and the suppression of strikes and
unrest by violence ("restoring law and order") and not be considered "violent."
Anarchists, in contrast, are condemned as "violent" and "terrorist" because a
few of them tried to revenge such acts of oppression and state/capitalist
violence! It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this
tactic. Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed" (sometimes called
"attentats"), as Murray Bookchin points out, only a "few . . . were members of
Anarchist groups. The majority . . . were soloists." [The Spanish Anarchists, p.
102] Needless to say, the state and media painted all anarchists with the same
brush. They still do, sometimes inaccurately (such as blaming Bakunin for such
acts even though he had been dead 5 years before the tactic was even discussed
in anarchist circles!). All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of
anarchism was a failure, as the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see.
Kropotkin can be considered typical. He initially approved acts of violence
directed against repressive members of the ruling class. However, by the 1890s
he came to disapprove of acts of violence unless committed in self-defence
during the defence of a revolution. This was partly due to simple revulsion at
the worse of the acts (such as the Barcelona Theatre bombing in response to the
state murder of anarchists involved in the Jerez uprising of 1892 and Emile
Henry's bombing of a cafe in response to state repression) and partly due to the
awareness that it was hindering the anarchist cause. More and more anarchists
came to see "propaganda by the deed" as giving the state an excuse to clamp down
on both the anarchist and labour movements. Moreover, it gave the media (and
opponents of anarchism) a chance to associate anarchism with mindless violence,
thus alienating much of the population from the movement. This false association
is renewed at every opportunity, regardless of the facts (for example, even
though Individualist Anarchists rejected "propaganda by the deed" totally, they
were also smeared by the press as "violent" and "terrorists"). In addition, the
assumption behind propaganda by the deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a
chance to rebel, was false. In fact, people are products of the system in which
they live; hence they accepted most of the myths used to keep that system going.
With the failure of propaganda by deed, anarchists turned back to what most of
the movement had been doing anyway: encouraging the class struggle and the
process of self-liberation. This turn back to the roots of anarchism can be seen
from the rise in anarcho-syndicalist unions after 1890 (see section A.5.3).
Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed, few
would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination under all
circumstances. Bombing a village during a war because there might be an enemy in
it is terrorism, whereas assassinating a murdering dictator or head of a
repressive state is defence at best and revenge at worst. As anarchists have
long pointed out, if by terrorism it is meant "killing innocent people" then the
state is the greatest terrorist of them all (as well as having the biggest bombs
and other weapons of destruction available on the planet). If the people
committing "acts of terror" are really anarchists, they would do everything
possible to avoid harming innocent people and never use the statist line that
"collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable. This is why the vast majority
of "propaganda by the deed" acts were directed towards individuals of the ruling
class, such a Presidents and Royalty, and were the result of previous acts of
state and capitalist violence. So "terrorist" acts have been committed by
anarchists. This is a fact. What is often forgotten is that members of other
political and religious groups have also committed such acts. As the Freedom
Group of London argued: "There is a truism that the man [or woman] in the street
seems always to forget, when he is abusing the Anarchists, or whatever party
happens to be his bete noire for the moment, as the cause of some outrage just
perpetrated. This indisputable fact us that homicidal outrages have, from time
immemorial, been the reply of goaded and desperate classes, and goaded and
desperate individuals, to wrongs from their fellowmen [and women], which they
felt to be intolerable. Such acts are the violent recoil from violence, whether
aggressive or repressive . . . their cause lies not in any special conviction,
but in the depths of . . . human nature itself. The whole course of history,
political and social, is strewn with evidence of this." [quoted by Emma Goldman,
Op. Cit., p. 213] Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and
religious groups and parties. For example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus,
Nationalists, Republicans, Moslems, Sikhs, Marxists, Fascists, Jews and Patriots
have all committed acts of terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas have been
labelled as "terrorist by nature" or continually associated with violence --
which shows anarchism's threat to the status quo. There is nothing more likely
to discredit and marginalise an idea than for malicious and/or ill-informed
persons to portray those who believe and practice it as "mad bombers" with no
opinions or ideals at all, just an insane urge to destroy. Of course, the vast
majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism as morally repugnant and
counter-productive. As have the vast majority of anarchists, at all times and
places. However, it seems that in our case it is necessary to state our
opposition to terrorism time and time again. So, to summarise - only a small
minority of terrorists have ever been anarchists, and only a small minority of
anarchists have ever been terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has
always recognised that social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out
of existence. Compared to the violence of the state and capitalism, anarchist
violence is a drop in the ocean. Unfortunately most people remember the acts of
the few anarchists who have committed violence rather than the acts of violence
and repression by the state and capital that prompted those acts. A.2.19 What
ethical views do anarchists hold? Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary
considerably, although all share a common belief in the need for an individual
to develop within themselves their own sense of ethics. All anarchists agree
with Max Stirner that an individual must free themselves from the confines of
existing morality and question that morality - "I decide whether it is the right
thing for me; there is no right outside me." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 189] Few
anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject any concept of social
ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some universal concepts although
they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral relativism is almost as bad as moral
absolutism for most anarchists (moral relativism is the view that there is no
right or wrong beyond what suits an individual while moral absolutism is that
view that what is right and wrong is independent of what individuals think). It
is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive
"egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral relativism goes,
this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged upon society by various
Moralists and true-believers because it bases itself, however slimly, upon the
idea of individual reason. However, as it denies the existence (or desirability)
of ethics it is but the mirror image of what it is rebelling against. Neither
option empowers the individual or is liberating. Consequently, both of these
attitudes hold enormous attraction to authoritarians, as a populace that is
either unable to form an opinion about things (and will tolerate anything) or
who blindly follow the commands of the ruling elite are of great value to those
in power. Both are rejected by most anarchists in favour of an evolutionary
approach to ethics based upon human reason to develop the ethical concepts and
interpersonal empathy to generalise these concepts into ethical attitudes within
society as well as within individuals. An anarchistic approach to ethics
therefore shares the critical individual investigation implied in moral
relativism but grounds itself into common feelings of right and wrong. As
Proudhon argued: "All progress begins by abolishing something; every reform
rests upon denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based upon the proved
insufficiency of the old idea." Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical
standards, like life itself, are in a constant process of evolution. This leads
them to reject the various notions of "God's Law," "Natural Law," and so on in
favour of theory of ethical development based upon the idea that individuals are
entirely empowered to question and assess the world around them - in fact, they
require it in order to be truly free. You cannot be an anarchist and blindly
accept anything! Michael Bakunin, one of the founding anarchist thinkers,
expressed this radical scepticism as so: "No theory, no ready-made system, no
book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am
a true seeker." Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to
problems. Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on the
mythology of spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done
through logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions
than obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly better
than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism. So, what are the
source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, "nature has thus to be recognised as
the first ethical teacher of man. The social instinct, innate in men as well as
in all the social animals, - this is the origin of all ethical conceptions and
all subsequent development of morality." [Ethics, p. 45] Life, in other words,
is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that, essentially (according to
anarchists), an individual's ethical viewpoints are derived from three basic
sources: 1) from the society an individual lives in. As Kropotkin pointed out,
"Man's conceptions of morality are completely dependent upon the form that their
social life assumed at a given time in a given locality. . . this [social life]
is reflected in the moral conceptions of men and in the moral teachings of the
given epoch." [Op. Cit., p. 315] In other words, experience of life and of
living. 2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical
norms, as indicated above. This is the core of Erich Fromm's argument that "Man
must accept the responsibility for himself and the fact that only using his own
powers can he give meaning to his life. . .there is no meaning to life except
the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers, by living
productively." [Man for Himself, p. 45] In other words, individual thought and
development. 3) The feeling of empathy - "the true origin of the moral
sentiment.. .[is] simply in the feeling of sympathy." ["Anarchist Morality",
Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 94] In other words, an individual's
ability to feel and share experiences and concepts with others. This last factor
is very important for the development of a sense of ethics. As Kropotkin argued,
"[t]he more powerful your imagination, the better you can picture to yourself
what any being feels when it is made to suffer, and the more intense and
delicate will your moral sense be. . . And the more you are accustomed by
circumstances, by those surrounding you, or by the intensity of your own thought
and your imagination, to act as your own thought and imagination urge, the more
will the moral sentiment grow in you, the more will it became habitual" [Op.
Cit., p. 95] So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim "treat
others as you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances."
Anarchists are neither egoists nor altruists when it come to moral stands, they
are simply human. As Kropotkin noted, "egoism" and "altruism" both have their
roots in the same motive - "however great the difference between the two actions
in their result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the quest for
pleasure." [Op. Cit., p. 85] For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be
developed by themselves and requires the full use of an individual's mental
abilities as part of a social grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism
and other forms of authority weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the
number of outlets for them to exercise their reason under the dead weight of
hierarchy as well as disrupting community, little wonder that life under
capitalism is marked by a stark disregard for others and lack of ethical
behaviour. Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within
society. Without equality, there can be no real ethics for "Justice implies
Equality. . . only those who consider others as their equals can obey the rule:
'Do not do to others what you do not wish them to do to you.' A serf-owner and a
slave merchant can evidently not recognise . . . the 'categorial imperative' [of
treating people as ends in themselves and not as means] as regards serfs [or
slaves] because they do not look upon them as equals." Hence the "greatest
obstacle to the maintenance of a certain moral level in our present societies
lies in the absence of social equality. Without real equality, the sense of
justice can never be universally developed, because Justice implies the
recognition of Equality." [_Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 88
and p. 79] Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it
deserves.. In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism it
is little wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By disempowering
individuals from developing their own ethical ideas and instead encouraging
blind obedience to external authority (and so moral relativism once individual's
think that they are without that authority's power), capitalist society ensures
an impoverishment of individuality and ego. As Erich Fromm puts it: "The failure
of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea
that mortal virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the
deterioration of the meaning of self-interest; not that they are not concerned
with their self-interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the
interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that
they do not love themselves." [Man for Himself, p. 139] Therefore, strictly
speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame of reference - ethical ideas
must be an expression of what gives us pleasure as a whole individual (both
rational and emotional, reason and empathy). This leads all anarchists to reject
the false division between egoism and altruism and recognise that what many
people (for example, capitalists) call "egoism" results in individual
self-negation and a reduction of individual self-interest. As Kropotkin argues:
"What was it that morality, evolving in animal and human societies, was striving
for, if not for the opposition to the promptings of narrow egoism, and bringing
up humanity in the spirit of the development of altruism? The very expressions
'egoism' and 'altruism' are incorrect, because there can be no pure altruism
without an admixture of personal pleasure - and consequently, without egoism. It
would therefore be more nearly correct to say that ethics aims at the
development of social habits and the weakening of the narrowly personal habits.
These last make the individual lose sight of society through his regard for his
own person, and therefore they even fail to attain their object, i.e. the
welfare of the individual, whereas the development of habits of work in common,
and of mutual aid in general, leads to a series of beneficial consequences in
the family as well as society." [Ethics, pp. 307-8] Therefore anarchism is based
upon the rejection of moral absolutism (i.e. "God's Law," "Natural Law," "Man's
Nature," "A is A") and the narrow egotism which moral relativism so easily lends
itself to. Instead, anarchists recognise that there exists concepts of right and
wrong which exist outside of an individual's evaluation of their own acts. This
is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between
individuals does develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin, be
summarised as " Is it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it hurtful? Then it
is bad." ["Anarchist Morality", Op. Cit., p. 91] What acts human beings think of
as right or wrong is not, however, unchanging and the "estimate of what is
useful or harmful . . .changes, but the foundation remains the same." [Op. Cit.,
p. 92] This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental
basis of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical
criterion for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while
recognising the root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider ethics as
fundamentally a human idea - the product of life, thought and evolution created
by individuals and generalised by social living and community. So what, for
anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything that denies the most
precious achievement of history: the liberty, uniqueness and dignity of the
individual. Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to
empathy, they can place themselves into the position of those suffering the
behaviour. Acts which restrict individuality can be considered unethical for two
(interrelated) reasons: Firstly, the protection and development of individuality
in all enriches the life of every individual and it gives pleasure to
individuals because of the diversity it produces. This egoist basis of ethics
reinforces the second (social) reason, namely that individuality is good for
society for it enriches the community and social life, strengthening it and
allowing it to grow and evolve. As Bakunin constantly argued, progress is marked
by a movement from "the simple to the complex" or, in the words of Herbert Read,
it "is measured by the degree of differentiation within a society. If the
individual is a unit in a corporate mass, his [or her] life will be limited,
dull, and mechanical. If the individual is a unit on his [or her] own, with
space and potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop - develop in the
only real meaning of the word - develop in consciousness of strength, vitality,
and joy." ["The Philosophy of Anarchism," in Anarchy and Order, p. 37] This
defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem, diversity is
strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic ethical insight. In its
most basic form, it provides a guide to "help us distinguish which of our
actions serve the thrust of natural evolution and which of them impede them."
[Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 342] So, the ethical concept "lies
in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the entire animal world and in the
conceptions of equity, which constitutes one of the fundamental primary
judgements of human reason." [Ethics, pp. 311-2] Therefore anarchists embrace
"the permanent presence of a double tendency - towards greater development on
the one side, of sociality, and, on the other side, of a consequent increase of
the intensity of life which results in an increase of happiness for the
individuals, and in progress - physical, intellectual, and moral." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 19-20] Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private
property and so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of
individuals is of prime concern and that our ability to empathize with others,
to see ourselves in others (our basic equality and common individuality, in
other words). Hence anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals
of a given set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective
interpersonal conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic bounds and
discussion between equals. Hence anarchism is based on a humanistic approach to
ethical ideas, one that evolves along with society and individual development.
Hence an ethical society is one in which "[d]ifference among people will be
respected, indeed fostered, as elements that enrich the unity of experience and
phenomenon . . . [the different] will be conceived of as individual parts of a
whole all the richer because of its complexity." [Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity
Anarchism, p. 82]
|
|
|
