anarchism (an'erkizm) n. [ANRCH(Y)+-ISM] 1. the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups 2. resistance, sometimes by terrorism, to organized government
syndicalism (-iz'm) n. [Fr. syndicalisme < syndical, of a syndic or labor union (chambre syndicale) < syndic: see SYNDIC] a theory and movement of trade unionism in which all means of production and distribution would be brought under the control of federations of labor unions by the use of direct action, such as general strikes-
I was drawn to anarchism in particular because I am basically convinced that anarchism is as far as you can take an explicit, conscious idea of revolution without selling out and becoming part of the system again. I certainly don't represent the anarchist community, and in some ways I can't even really call myself an anarchist. To me, anarchism as a body of theory has a lot of problems, and the contemporary anarchist movement in particular is in all kinds of trouble, but when it comes right down to it, despite all it's faults, it continues to be just about the best thing I have ever heard of.
Anarchism is truly revolutionary because it is the only alternative system anybody ever came up with that really opposes power, in all it's forms. Major revolutions in the past have always occurred when a relatively agitated population sought redress of the most severe abuses of either political or economic power, and they inevitably became either a malevolent color negative of the overthrown oppressor, like in Russia or the First Republic; or a hypocritical compromise which is manipulated into becoming a mere farcical reform (inevitably quickly undermined...) like in Mexico in 1910.
Beyond merely opposing both basic types of oppression (i.e. political and economic), anarchism on the other hand has learned a sneaky, ancient trick of avoiding each of the horns of that old dilemma, neither falling into the 'ends justify the means' trap that turns almost all well meaning reformers into Nazis if they get on top of things, nor waffling into pathetic assimilation.
So as far as I can tell anarchism has within it the ability to continue to be revolutionary, it has a real solid component in it's inherent nature which shields against either wishy washy corruption and compromise or groupthink fascism. Almost as important, anarchism as a broad body of theory does not just oppose the system, it really has a pro-active component to it which most revolutionary movements quite frankly do not have- some kind of realistic, viable (however marginally plausible) alternative to the current system.
While Marx and his followers for example understood some faint, probably outdated rules of the nature of Capitalism; and racial, gender, or culturally oriented movements have great insights into the evil nature of our society, only anarchism offers a multitude of demonstrably valid critiques of the system, and predicts, locates, and identifies patterns of human behavior and social structure which not only identify the faults of toady's way, but seem to point out a whole lot of other, better ways to do things.
They say man is a giant imprisoned in a pigmies hut...I think most 'revolutions' have sent us off to desperately fight for possession of some silly little keys to a door that is probably barred from the outside, and anarchism is telling us to stand up, break through the roof, and walk on down that hill to the next place on the agenda. -Dave the Wage Slave
Courtesy of the Down 'Home' All-City Bomb Squad #23rd Ward All-Stars: "You best comply with my U.Z.I." & the honorable Rev Dr. 'General Strike' MBA Ph.D. FAI CNT ABC IWW This document is a publication of the Fire Ant Collective (and all the people we ripped off ideas from) and nobody else did it.
This version
"It should be noted that while the State is the sort of institution which
performs small tasks badly, it performs large tasks badly also..."
...Robert Anton Wilson
You can write to the Fire @nt Collective for a copy of the entire 'Egality'
document, which includes a brief history of anarchist theory and of the
Historical anarchist movement, from it's earliest theoretical beginnings in
Greece and China thousands of years ago, to modern anarchy around the world
in 1995.
libertarian: (lib'er ter 'e en) n. [LIBERTY (Y) ] 1. a person who believes
in the doctrine of the freedom of the will 2. a person who advocates full
civil liberties -adj of or upholdiing either of these principles -Webster New
World Dictionary
Didn't see anything about some stupid Businessman's party founded in the
1970's did you?
An introduction to the History of anarchism and anarchist theory Page 1
Anarchism is both a simple idea and a very subtle political and
sociological philosophy. It has existed for Hundreds, possibly thousands
of years, not merely as a historical curiosity or an arcane theory for
lunatic fringe intellectuals, but as a powerful, influential, and
occasionally dynamic force in human society.
Anarchism, in its many incarnations and permutations, has long existed
both outside our 'civilization' among some of the older cultures of the
world, as well as within it, as an important component of resistance to
both political and economic repression over the years.
Anarchism basically boils down to the idea that people can live and
prosper without a paternal, authoritarian, centralized government telling
them what to do. It means, quite simply, self government, self
management. Organization from the ground up instead of from the top down,
real, not 'representative' democracy, the sort of thing that is often
rather condescendingly referred to as 'grass-roots' in the mainstream
press.
The basic philosophy central to most anarchist movements is simply that
you don't have to screw each other over to survive, that cooperation and
mutual aid is in everyone's self interest, and that a lifestyle which
incorporates these philosophies is both practical and desirable.
Many Americans scribe to the popular Darwinist mentality that it is a
dog-eat-dog world, only the strong survive and all that crap. They
believe that people are inherently greedy and they admire capitalism
because it seems to take advantage of the wicked side of human nature to
compel people to produce and work.
The anarchists however insist that human beings prospered in nature not
because we were stronger than other animals, nor even because we learned
to create and use weapons; that rather humanity survived and succeeded
because we were capable of co-operation and communication to a degree that
no other animal could match. In other words, individually, a man with a
spear or a flint knife certainly wasn't any more deadly than say, a bear
or a crocodile, but an organized group of human beings, cooperating, are
more powerful than anything else in the Jungle...This isn't difficult to
understand.
The common objection to anarchy isn't that it's not a nice idea, but that
it's not practical because it doesn't incorporate, or 'capitalize' upon
the uglier realities of human nature. People think societies HAVE to be
organized like a school classroom or an army platoon, or a prison, in
order to be stable. People think its silly to say that societies can be
organized like a block-party, or a volunteer fire brigade, or an Indian
tribe, or a Swiss Canton, or the internet.
But anarchists point out that there are numerous examples, both
historical and recent, which indicate quite the opposite: that freedom
from authority not only agrees with human nature, increased autonomy and
liberty in fact stimulate it to much greater efficiency and productivity
than any form of slavery, including the wage slavery of capitalism.
Anarchists believe that it is the natural state of human beings to live in
a truly democratic society, in a free federation of local communities or
productive syndicates that understand and interact with the individual in
a sane manner.
They do not believe in the Pyramidal centralized state in which power is
concentrated in the hands of the distant (and necessarily unsympathetic,
incompetent, and in fact almost invariably hostile) few- and individuals
are artificially segregated, and isolated, and culturally and socially
asphyxiated.
Anarchists believe that the State works poorly because it is an
inherently inefficient structure, not just because of the innate
wickedness of the people who live in it and under it. They believe that
people are made the way they are because the "system" is the way it is, as
much as the other way around.
Anarchism does NOT advocate the violent overthrow of the government (like
communism, fascism, Nazism and so many other 'isms' do). Instead of
overthrowing the government, anarchists believe in undermining it, in
creating grass-roots organizations from the ground up which can join
together in free solidarity, and cast off the oppressors chains.
Anarchists do not believe in killing Pharaoh and capturing his throne,
taking up his scepter in the name of 'the people'. They say people should
simply teach each other to stop following his orders and listen instead to
our neighbors much wiser council, to the voices of our mother, nature, and
to the suppressed thoughts of our sisters and brothers, which have been
silent far, far too long. They say that a thousand Vaticans,
Legislatures, Kremlin's, White Houses, Boardrooms, Ziggurats, and Mad
Avenues can't do any harm to any of us if we learn this heretical concept:
the Emperor has no clothes, that all we need to do is unite in our
defiance and their power will be broken like a maelific curse.
History shows us that some ancient and modern indigenous peoples such as
certain of the "Indian" Nations who preceded us on this continent and some
of our African, Asian and European ancestors in the old country- were able
to form prosperous egalitarian societies, without all-powerful kings or
emperors or high priests... complex, dynamic societies based on mutual
cooperation and consensus rather than competition or subjugation, with no
leaders, and yet prosperous and highly productive...
Attempts have also been made to achieve this state of human existance in
modern times, and despite every effort of the many opponents of revolution
in general and anarchism in particular, there has been enough time and
space to demonstrate that the idea is viable. The Black Flag has left a
mark on history, which, despite the strident efforts to obscure the issue,
has begun to take seed in the minds of the world, and as the millions of
faux ideas flow through the fickle consciousness of the masses and fade
away to be replaced by other flimsy lies, the fundamental truth of the
anarchist message insures that the idea will grow each time it is
discovered...
The anarchist sees the so-called 'Democracies' of today much as the
socialist does: most anarchists view capitalism as another form of
dictatorship--an economic dictatorship where the rich hold all the cards
and the poor are dominated, manipulated, and subjugated, albeit in a more
subtle manner than in an overt autocracy or a so-called "Communist" state,
but nevertheless just as completely.
Additionally, to the anarchist, no real democracy is taking place simply
because the sullen, intentionally misinformed masses are allowed to
periodically indicate their approval or disapproval of their distant
leaders with no real effect on anything at all. The anarchist insists
that real democracy has meaning only when it exists at the local level,
and can only exist when people are directly involved in the management of
their own lives.
If people are offered a parody of freedom, much as a Donkey is falsely
tempted by a diet of Carrots instead of the rancid hay it's really going
to get in order to make it work harder, they are only wasting their lives
in pursuit of a mirage... anarchists believe that the ends never justify
the means, the lesser of two evils is evil, and no government is good
government. Anarchism means government by the people, directly, period.
The anarchists say that democracy, real democracy not the Political
Machine majority rule procedural gimmick sound-byte farce we have in the
U.S., is the only road to a sane society.
Anarchism sees the individual as a member of a community, a community in
which individuals can freely choose to participate with one another... in
which the communities themselves can associate into larger groups, or
remain separate, in a dynamic system which can and will change and
readjust itself according to the wishes if it's members.
The anarchist understands that true freedom and individual liberty are
essential to the maintenance of a stable and rational society, and the
passionate belief in individual liberties has always distinguished
anarchists over the years, but they do not entertain a childish fantasy of
infinite freedom in the tradition of fanatics like the Marquis de Sade or
the Society of the Golden Dawn, as popular myth might suggest after all:
"Your right to swing that frying-pan ends at the tip of my nose."
Some modern Conservatives like to ape libertarian theories as an excuse
for laissez-faire Capitalism and the unrestricted predations of
billionaires and enormous corporations, but the anarchists who pioneered
the doctrines of civil liberty had nothing of the sort in mind. For
example, the doctrines of individualism which are so often cited as the
basis for a lot of right wing ideologies were invented in the defence of
the civil liberties of individuals, that is to say, of individual human
beings, not enormous institutions or gilded aristocracies. <1>
To anarchists, General Electric is no more of an 'individual' than the
BATF is, they are both impersonal institutions that are neither democratic
or even natural human associations, in fact anarchists see all such
institutions as predatory toward individual humans, whether they are
designed to supress political dissension like the FBI, to infect and
corrupt our imaginations like Mad avenue, or to fleece us of our money and
natural resources like every single company on the New York Stock
Exchange.
Ultimately perhaps, the State is the more immediate threat to individual
liberty, but while life in one of Rockafellers Company mining towns might
be measurably preferable to a lethal stint in one of Stalin's Siberian
goulags, anarchists would prefer to eliminate the possibilities of either
of those hellish environments from the range of the human condition.
Power, after all, does not only exist in Governments, but also in
corporate boardrooms, printing presses, stock exchanges, and angry mobs,
to name a few. Ultimately, the anarchists aren't convinced that the real
seat of power is necesarily really in the visible part of the Government
at all...
The truth is in fact that the right-wing 'Libertarians' actually fear
liberty and depend on the State they claim to despise, for what they
actually mean by 'liberty' is nothing more than free reign for big
corporations and the rich to pillage, dominate, and loot society to their
hearts content within the context of a State, smaller perhaps than todays
model but just as brutal and corrupt, feudal. The collapse of the State
would be a disaster for any and all Capitalists, after all, without the
State in place to enforce their priveleged position in society, who will
protect them from the mob they fear so much?
If there were REAL individual liberty in this world, who could claim to
"own" a whole forest, or a mountain, or a river, or an appartment building
or even a factory, just because of some "deed" they hold and may have
inherited or acquired through some dubious means? Will free men and women
literally starve as they do now while certain individuals walk among them
sipping champaigne and nibbling Caviar? <2>
The more idealistic of the original framers of the United States
Constitution understood something about the nature of power, not just the
power of the State but the power of all of the institutions and forces
that existed in society as they knew it, (such as organized religion) and
well knew that laws in and of themselves are meaningless unless society is
willing to enforce them, that an oligarchy of any sort, whether
"Socialist" or Capitalist, will only do so at the whim of the ruling
elite. Which is why they tried to build in a balance of adverserial
forces into our system of government, to at least preserve the status-quo
of a marginal Republic rather than to simply let the super rich rule with
an iron fist, as some of our other 'Founding Fathers' intended. <3>
However, anarchists insist that only through radically increased
democracy it is possible for people to live in harmony, rather than in
some carefully balanced struggle in opposition to one another.
Constitutional safeguards, no matter how cleverly designed, can only
postpone the inevitable collapse of 'Democracy' into Empire, as we saw in
Rome 2,000 years ago and are seeing in the United States today.
Furthermore, the anarchists assert that economic and social injustice are
the last and greatest impediments to real democracy. Only by first
eliminating privelege can we acheive true harmony, a prospect which was
not feasable for Jefferson and Tom Paine, but has been accomplished to
some degree at certain other points in history. Only when politicial and
economic power is no longer concentrated in the hands of tiny minorities,
whether they be of Tycoons, Generals, Aristocrats or Bureaucratic
officals, only then will Humanity breathe free of the yoke of oppression.
By seeking out those certain rare examples of this very unusual form of
revolution, one can begin to understand the possibilities of a society in
democratic harmony, where the independent sovereignty of strong freely
associated groups joined together for mutual support at the base, can
insure exactly the kind of social stability that the ruthless competition
between minority interests at the pinnacle never can, no matter how many
safeguards are built into their interractions.
Anarchism is really two things, a cultural, philosophical, social,
political, artistic, and even theological tendency toward liberty, and
also an actual historical revolutionary movement... both components of
anarchism are very important. Still, some confusion remains about the
difference between them, which should be cleared up.
While some of the more dynamic, vital elements of the Right-wing
"Libertarian" groups may call themselves anarchists, for example, the only
real anarchist movements- the only ones who ever actually accomplished
anything concrete so far, were the anti-authoritarian or libertarian wing
of the various labor and revolutionary groups: the libertarian socialists
and the syndicalists; the workers and farmers and the few rare
intellectuals who were influenced by men and women such as Pierre Joseph
Prudhoun, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldmann, Prince Pyotor Kropotkin, Errico
Malatesta, Flores Magon, Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Tolstoy, Joe Hill, Emiliano
Zapata, and so many others...
The real anarchist movement arose out of the radical fringes of the 19th
Century Labor movement, from the grass- roots of socialism. Anarchism was
in fact the interpretation of 'socialism' by rank and file
revolutionaries, just as it's bitter rival Marxism, which appeared at the
same time and indeed as part of the same Labor conferences, was the model
of socialism invented by the intellectual elite.
As such, the history and philosophy of anarchism was rejected by the
intellectuals and the academic world, and even as Marx was being virtually
canonised as a saint among the leftist elite, knowlege of anarchism has
had to sneak through back alleys and subcultural refuges, and has finally
come down to us through the underground, through the radical rebels,
iconoclasts, and anarchist activists themselves<4>.
Unlike any other significant philosophy you can think of, anarchism
exists in human knowledge only due to the force of it's own energies, no
great Nations have been pushing it, no prestigious Universities sing it's
praises, no expensive Public Relations campaign has been launched, and yet
though believed to be long-dead, it keeps popping up among angry workers
and farmers like some kind of demented politicial jack in the box...
Anarchists reject the insidious lies of both the East and West. In each
case, vulgar parodies of the truth are presented as justifications for
oppressive parasitic structures which enslave and corrupt their
constituent members. Believe it or not, most anarchists are practical (if
often weird) folks: they don't support one idea over another because of
some philosophical fashion, or out of blind faith in intangible theories,
they stand by their ethical standards and their political ideals because
they understand it is in their own self- interest to do so, and especially
because they begin to see it work in their own life as they apply these
ideas to reality.
Anarchism offers us both a surprisingly rational and uniquely consistent
critique of the current system, and a little known but very compelling
alternative to it. Anarchy claims to be the only valid solution to the
eternal dilemma of social reform, it says that if we have had enough of
swinging hopelessly from the left or right wing versions of the same
corrupt scam, from one version of the same vicious lie to another, then it
is high time we shook off the shackles of the ancient Babylonian con, and
began to take responsibility for our own lives...so what do you think?
Anarchists may hate and fear the FBI, the IRS, the NSA and the World Bank
every bit as much as the most rabid survivalist in the Michigan Militia, but
they also worry about the chilling threat to individual liberty posed by a
bunch of sinister Private institutions running the gamut from Chase Manhattan
Bank, Madison Avenue, and Standard Oil, to the Deveers Diamond syndicate, the
KKK, the Vatican, the Cripps, the Church of Scientology, and the Cosa Nostra.
<2> How carefully they will have to be convinced that Mr Forbes, say, should
own dozens of mansions, islands, factories, office buildings, and jet
airplanes, while Jane Q. Sixpack can't have nothing but the rented space in
some grimy trailer! You would have to do some fast-talking indeed to explain
to an angry crowd why your inheritance entitles you to luxuries that would
stagger the imagination of a Roman Emperor while a lifetime of hard-work
won't even rate most people the minimum requirements of comfort and security
needed to survive!
<3> But today, modern Conservatives are critical of key founders such as
Thomas Jefferson, not because he owned slaves or because he bypassed the
Constitution during the Louisiana purchase, but because he wrote too much
Democracy into the system. The Conservatives actively and quite blatantly
express their fear of what they call the Lex Majoris Partis, the majority,
'the mob', because they understand very clearly the realities of the Human
Condition, even if the people themselves don't, the sweet dreams of the Rich
are often marred by lurid visions of class war.
<4> Which is why you are reading this here, instead of in the Utne Reader or
Mother Jones
Anarchism as an explicitly conscious political philosophy has also been
around for a long time--my encyclopedia, for example, traces it all the
way back to a philosophical movement called the Stoics in Ancient Greece
around 400 B.C. and claims it was invented by their leader, Zeno of
Citium, another source linked anarchism to a bronze age Chinese
philosopher, though I haven't been able to verify this yet.
Other sources cite different origins, such as the writings of some early
19th century German philosophers such as Kant, and Hegel- who also
influenced the early development of Karl Marx's theories of Communism; and
the works of other philosophers and writers such as the Frenchman Jean
Jacques Rousseau, the American Henri David Thoreau, and the 16th century
Englishman Thomas Moore <1>...many other folks link it to religions such
as Zen Buddhism or even early Christianity.
Even the writings of some of the so called 'founding fathers' of this
country, such as Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington,
and James Madison, have been described as anarchistic by some people...
Anarchism as we know it today, however, can be a little more easily
traced to it's roots. Modern anarchism arose in Europe in the late 19th
century as part of the same radical labor movement that saw the
reinvention (or perhaps, popularization) of 'communism' and socialism. In
fact the First International Workers Congress, in which Marxism was more
or less invented and Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto was first introduced
to the world, was broken up due to disagreements between Marx and Engel's
State Socialists- who came to be called Communists, and the libertarian
socialists or Bakuninists, the faction whose most famous spokesman was a
guy called Michael Bakunin, which ended up being called anarchists <2>
Like the Communists, the bakuninists believed in a 'revolution' which
would bring about a fair and egalitarian society which wasn't as miserable
as the one they were living under back then. Unlike the Communists they
had a strong belief in and respect for individual liberty and felt that
centralized authority was inherently corrupt.
The Communists thought the way to save the world was to kill all of the
rich people and take over in the name of the poor folks. The anarchists
figured that if you kill the king and sit in his throne, before long your
ass will begin to grow roots and you will be acting just like a king
yourself... Bakunin, for example, expressed his fear that a "Red
Bureaucracy" could very well prove to be "the most vile and terrible lie
that our century has created."
The Communists may be right about what they believe is the fatal flaw of
anarchism, since so far every major anarchist revolution has indeed been
eventually crushed by the forces of bloody reaction, but it is ironic
perhaps that in almost every one of these cases those forces were either
actively aided in their effort to crush the revolution by the Communists,
as in Spain in 1936, else they consisted solely of the Communists
themselves, as in the Ukraine or Kronstadt in 1921, or in Hungary in 1956.
This legacy of bitter rivalry and eventually open warfare between the
'Communists' and the seemingly related anarchists can be traced back to
the origins of modern Communism, and to the philosophy of it's creators..
Karl Marx, together with his confederate Frederiech Engels, invented what
came to be called the Communist movement in the mid 19th century. Marx is
famous and widely respected to this day even by some of his most rabid
political opponents however, not because of his Communist Manifesto or his
organizing efforts in the labor movement, but rather due to his extremely
insightful and in fact frankly brilliant criticism of Capitalism and the
whole status-quo of 19th Century European society. Marx clearly
articulated the realities of the system, from the obviously predatory and
parasitic nature of capitalism, to the collusive role of the church in the
oppression of the poor <3>.
The Established apologists of the intellectual world were horrified by
Marx's cold, concise analysis of the system outlined in his most famous
and important work, Das Kapital. He presented the world with an almost
irrefutable description of the inherent evils of the system, but the
problem with Marx and his movement was that he didn't offer a
comprehensive alternative to capitalism, other than the rather vague
intention of overthrowing the current system and eventually returning to a
communal or egalitarian society.
The important emphasis here is on an eventual return to communism,
because the Marxists became increasingly, I think fatally infatuated with
the idea of a transitional 'Peoples State', wherein the vanguard
(leadership) of the Marxist party would seize control of the reigns of
power and establish a 'temporary' people controlled government. The idea
was that only from this position could the transition from Imperialism to
Communism be successfully engineered.
The radical labor movement of the 19th Century arose seemingly as a
result of two combined pressures. From below, spontaneous organic worker
and peasant traditions of revolt emerged in reaction to the staggering
social upheavals and calamities resulting from the excesses of Capitalism
and the Industrial Revolution, and their general militancy and sporadic
insurrections pushed society toward revolution. From above, the
attraction of an increasingly fecund and lively body of revolutionary
theory which was growing fashionable among certain factions in the
intellectual world stimulated idealists and disaffected members of society
with moving rhetoric and convincing criticisms of the status quo. Though
mutually complimentary in many ways, there was always some tension between
the goals and ideals of these two forces...
'Socialist' theory varied widely in focus and strategical thrust, but had
developed a great deal of sophistication since it's rebirth in the
enlightenment <4>, among the Encyclopedists like Diderot, 17th century
Cynics and social critics like Rousseau, and imaginative Utopians like
Thomas Moore and later idealists such as the great English anarchist
William Godwin.
In the 19th Century most revolutionary intellectuals followed the
Authoritarian tradition of the Jacobins, and many eagerly planned out both
a strictly disciplined model for revolution and every detail of the
'Utopia' that was to follow, in great stern clockwork schemes that have
become synonymous with 'socialism'. In every country such masterminds
began to appear, ready to seize control of spontaneous revolts and anxious
to guide angry workers into their own vision of a new society.
In the later 19th Century, revolutionary ideology grew in sophistication
and potency, in some cases by absorbing the ideas of great Metaphysical
Philosophers such as Kant and especially Hegel. A new crop of much more
subtle and effective revolutionists appeared, revitalized by a more
profound understanding of the human condition. Most, like Marx and Engels
still followed the Authoritarian model, but a few others began to speak of
a vastly different approach to revolution and the re-invention of society.
Proudhon, inventor of the concept of Mutuelism, the fearsome German
individualist 'Max Stirner', wild Bakunin, father of Syndicalism, and the
heretical Prince Kropotkin all spoke in various shades of a libertarian or
self managing society. Their ideas were not for the most part popular
among the cadre of Communist intellectuals but did seem to gain favor
among many elements of the organized working class, to the dismay of the
more traditional Communists, who greatly feared the loss of control over
the young international labor movement.
In fact when Bakunin first made his appearance in the early congresses of
the great International Working Men's Association, he arrived in the
middle of a struggle between the intellectuals and technicians on the one
hand, who advocated strict discipline and centralized control of the
entire labor movement, much of which was already under their power, and
the remaining independent workers organizations on the other.
Most of these were organized under decentralized, libertarian principles
and resisted both the concentration of power within the movement and the
usurpation of their own popular authority on the local level, advocating
instead a free federation of democratic workers (and later farmers) groups
as both a model for the revolutionary movement, and eventually, for the
post-revolutionary society itself. To this end they had largely fixated
on the early mutuelist ideas of Proudhon, since these were the only
libertarian leaning philosophy extant.
It is as much for this reason, as for any great rhetorical skill on his
part <6> that Bakunin became such a famous and important spokesman for the
libertarian wing of the Labor movement: he was just the only major figure
who believed in a theory of socialism that to any degree matched the
reality of the existing organizations of the workers themselves, most of
which were libertarian and democratic by their very nature. <7>
Eventually due to the threat to control of the labor movement which was
posed by the continued existance of an 'anarchist' faction, Karl Marx had
the International Working Mens Association moved to New York City, in
America, where there basically werent any socialists of either anarchist
or marxist convictions, in order to scuttle it, and so prevent anarchism
from interfering with his own organization.
This has always been the crux of the debate between the Communists, and
indeed leftists of all stripes, and the anarchists over the years. The
uncompromising anarchists always insisted on strictly maintaining their
libertarian ideals, refusing to accept a "transitional people-controlled
State" which was supposed to get phased out later, any more than they
would participate in universal suffrage or a bourgeois parliament.
Sadly, what was once merely an issue in a fairly obscure political debate
was transformed into a tragic day to day nightmare for millions as the
seeds of disaster which existed in neo-Marxist ideology grew into the
stark reality of the Bolshevik "dictatorship of the proletariat". The
purgatory process which started with eviction of the anarchists and
mencheviks from the first international would not be completed until after
a hundred years and the murder of twenty million people in Russia alone in
a series of globally unprecedented Genocidal social disasters which took
place under totalitarian monsters like Stalin and Mao tse Tung. The
anarchists took little comfort in seeing their predictions come true.
Bakunin originally advocated a form of economic organization known as
collectivism. Collectivism differed from communism, in that resources on
the local and individual level could still be private, and only major
natural resources such as Mountains, Forests, Rivers, Lakes, Oceans, and
large scale 'means of production', such as factories, public utilities,
transportation infrastructure and the like, would become collectivized
property.
This is not necessarily the same as 'Nationalizing' such resources,
because Bakunin further advocated a form of political organization known
as Syndicalism as an alternative to centralized State control.
Anarcho-Syndicalism means the management of industry, i.e. factories and
other major workplaces, by democratic councils of the people who work in
them. Bakunin envisioned a society in which individual farmers and
artisans (even small business owners) could continue to operate
independently and 'own' their own resources if they chose to do so, (as
long as they do not employ wage labor) while other groups of small
entrepenurs or peasants could form voluntary collectives or communes, and
larger scale economic institutions would be managed by councils of
workers, syndicates (or 'soviets' as they were known before the bolsheviks
discredited that word...)..
Other sectors of society such as consumers, mutual aid federations such
as credit unions and public services like transportation, entertainment,
child care and health care, as well as rural farmers and urban
neighborhoods would also be represented by local community councils of
recallable (i.e. temporary) representatives. People would assume duties
like this as a short term responsibility on a rotating basis, and perform
them to whatever degree they were actually necessary rather than making
them into a self perpetuating institution or a bureaucracy which creates
reasons for it's own existance. The entire society would consist of an
integration of free and open federations of these various entities in a
dynamic interconnected network of autonomous groups.
In some versions of syndicalism workers would continue to be paid a kind
of wage, based perhaps on the number of hours worked and the difficulty or
danger involved in the type of work they did and/or the skills and
training required to do their job, though theoretically these 'wages'
would be much closer to a common average, as surplus wealth would be
redirected to less developed sectors of the economy rather than hoarded in
staggering amounts by a tiny minority of individuals as is the custom
today.
Theoretically, these wages would represent far less importance in an
anarchist-collectivist society than they do today, because they would not
be required to pay say 'rent' for housing for example, other than in the
sense of maintaining the upkeep of ones home or neighborhood (as opposed
to supporting a whole class of landlords, bureaucrats, and speculators
through rent, interest, fees, taxes royalties, etc...) However many
anarchists oppose the concept of wages or work vouchers of any kind,
fearing that they would prevent a real egalitarian society from emerging.
In considering the model of the anarcho-collectivist society it is
important to remember that this is not just a utopian dream but has
actually been achieved in real life if for a relativley brief period (for
up to three years in Spain...). In practice, this model of society proved
astonishingly successful in several respects, beyond even the expectations
of the anarchists who brought them about, as will be discussed in the
chapters dealing with the Makhno revolution in the Ukraine and the Spanish
Revolution of 1936-1939.
It is also significant to point out that contrary to the predictions of
some 'anarcho-Capitalists' in practice these societies were much more open
and free than any other modern society, and the wishes of individuals who
chose to remain separate from the collectives and syndicates were
respected. This was not soley restricted to peasants and farmers and
ordinary workers, in fact in some cases factory owners ended up even
helping their former employees run thier old factories under
self-management, but more about this later...
Many anarchists later in the 19th century, such as Kropotkin, advocated a
more radical restructuring of society based on the communist ideal of
'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.'
Kropotkin and the other anarcho-communists advocated the collectivization
of all property not personally usable by an individual or a family (that
however, is an important distinction from what most people think is meant
by the abolition of private property...)
Anarcho- Communists also envision the total abolition of the wage system,
to be replaced by the rational exchange of goods and services. Most of
the twentieth century anarchist theorists follow this path toward a more
complete and radical re-invention of society, though some, most noticably
the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain in 1936, still largely relied on
Bakunin's more moderate collectivist model in practice. Generally, while
many anarchists agree with the ultimate goal of anarchist-communism, there
is a great deal of disagreement over how or how fast to impliment this
(i.e. imediately or gradually...)
Another important school of anarchist thought focused on the individual.
This is closer to the common understanding of anarchism today: the fierce
independence of spirit, visceral refusal to bow to authority. The writing
of many individualist-anarchists later became popular with right wing
'Libertarians' to be used as an excuse for corporate license or the
predations of the rich, but this is merely a crude perversion of
individualist philosophy.
For example, Max Stirner, the great German anarchist and individualist,
represented what some consider the epitome of the individualist ideal,
(his work, The ego and it's own, has been described by some people as 'The
Billionaires Bible') and he has become very popular among laisses-faire
Capitalists and the like, but the thrust of his thinking wasn't intended
as an apology for the predations of Billionaires, as he makes quite clear
in this famous quote about 'great men' (see Egality I).
Not all of the individualist anarchists had as strong of an egoist tone
as Stirner. The early 19th Century Ameriucan thinker Henri David
Thorreau, while not part of any anarchist movement per se, is considered
by many anarchists to be an admirable representative of one wing of
anarchist individualism.
Actually, most of the individualists were quite advanced in their
understanding of economic and political realities, in some ways they were
more sophisticated than the Collectivist and Communist-anarchists, who
advocated fairly simple though still arguably viable economic and
political models for restructuring human communities on the basis of
political liberty and economic justice.
Folks like Stirner focused more on the spiritual effects of modern
society on the individual, and the philosophical ramifications of the
relation of the individual to society. Their critique is both more subtle
and more powerful, but also more slippery. They do not for the most part
refute the economic theories, but being closer to metaphysical philosophy
than simple political doctrine their ideas are more easily misunderstood,
or misrepresented.
Individualism came to influence an important movement in writing and art
in the early twentieth Century called Dada, which rejected modern
conceptions of reality and 'rational' thought in the light of the failure
of modern society to avoid the unpreciented appearance of Hell On Earth
such as was dramatically and exhaustivley demonstrated during the
spectacle of nightmarish idiocy called World War One. Dada in turn
sparked the birth of Surrealism, which eventually lead to some of the most
interesting developments in neo-anarchist theory in the later Twentieth
Century, but that must be saved for later chapters.
While most of the anarchist theorists of the 19th Century were of a
rather mischievous and sometimes rebelliously violent temperment, by the
turn of the century numerous pacifists began to appear within the
movement, particularly among the anarchist leaning Christian heresies, and
some of the more idealistic groups of anarcho- Communists. Kropotkin was
a pacifist through most of his carreer, and the great Russian writer Leo
Tolstoy was also well known for his anarcho-pacifist utopian Christian
theories.
Before there was such a thing as the Communist party, or the
International, or Labor Unions or plots to Fluoridise the water or any of
the modern trappings of the radical Left, there were plenty of uprisings
of workers and farmers, going all the way back to Roman times (when people
like Spartacus were playing out another cycle of revolutionary activity).
In the earlier years, such as during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment
particulalry, many of the peasant risings and the like that did take place
were connected to religious movements.
Despite it's almost universally reactionary nature these days, and it's
traditional villainous role in society in general, certain versions of
Christianity have actually been rather subversive. In Europe during the
rise of Mercantilism and early Capitalism, the tendancy of Christianity to
lean toward communal living, it's advocation of poverty and moral purity,
and especially it's pronouncements against usury and greed, occasionally
inspired a radical political interpretation of Jesus more wildly
anti-aristocratic remarks among certain groups of farmers and burghers
unimpressed by the rapacious villany of their new Bourgeois neighbors.
Some of these heresies grew into or inspired some very interesting and
extremely revolutionary or even anarchist movements, such as the Diggers,
the Luddites, the anabaptists, the Quakers and the Shakers, to name a few
of the more notable ones. These days there is some echo of this tradition
in left wing Catholic heresies such as the pseudo- marxist Liberation
Theology.
Many 'illegalist' anarchists became notorious in Southern France and
Spain around the turn of the 19th Century, but the tradition of anarchist
bank-robbers and bold class conscious anarcho-gangsters persisted for some
time, and some of them such as the Spaniards Durutti and Ascasi, men whose
activities as outlaws eclipsed that of any Jesse James that ever lived,
but whose ideological purpose put them well beyond the role of a mere
'bandit', later became important members of the anarchist labor syndicates
in Spain, and played key roles in the 1936 Revolution.
An examination of the life of some of these colorful characters such as
Durutti in particular reveals that many were much more complex and
valuable than might first be imagined from their reputation in the
mainstream world as 'anarcho-gangsters' (a term used almost exclusively by
critics of anarchism, which most anarchists violently object to) because
of the very un-gangster like selflessness and the seemingly uncorruptable
idealism and good sense they showed, but we believe this term is in some
sense accurate, as there clearly is a gangster side to some anarchists,
though like 'anarchy' itself this term is misleading and can be used to
describe many different things ..
Another classification most anarchists would object to besides 'Gangster'
is of an anarchist 'Bandit'. A certain important sector of anarchist
activity in the early 20th century primarily arose out of peasant (or poor
farmers) uprisings in the countryside, as opposed to trade-union or
propaganda activity in urban centers. Even in the United States we had
something kind of along these lines with the Populist movement, though in
Europe and Latin America they were much more radical.
Some of the most famous and important anarchist practitioners, such as
Nestor Makhno who was active in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution,
and Emilano Zapata who was a key player in the Mexican revolution, acted
as military and ideological 'leaders' of massive peasant movements which
essentially practiced banditry against the extremely harsh and overbearing
feudal landowners who ruthlessly dominated the countrisde in both of those
regions.
In early practice this was more of the robin-hood type thing, but the
unique situation in these areas, combined with the explicitly anarchist
ideology of the most influental members of the movements (i.e. most
importantly Makhno and Zapata themselves) led to a sophisticated
realisation of anarchist theory, in fact in both of these cases,
particularly in the Ukraine, led to anarchism actually breaking out on the
face of this Earth.
This phenomenon was less the result of a specific philosophy of peasant
socialism in the sense that Maoism is kind of the peasant-socialist
version of Bolshevik Communism, than it was the organic combination of the
traditions of the common people with the revolutionary ideology of certain
influental members of these movments. Specifically, in Mexico, the
original Zapatistas, like their modern namesakes, drew heavily on their
Indian cultural roots for a very strong tradition of small scale
democratic collectivism. In the Ukraine the situation was similar,
peasants had often practiced a de-centralised un-authoritarian form of
collectivism at the village level for centuries, and they drew on this
experience, combined with modern anarchist theory, to create explicitly
anti-authoritarian societies.
Peasant socialists were criticised by other anarchists because many of
the members of these movements were not considered to be sophisticated
ideologically. For example, the Zapatistas (though not Zapata himself)
embraced a grass- roots form of Catholicism, which horrified members of
the very powerful urban anarcho-syndicalist organizations like the Casa
Obrea Mundial who were active in the big cities, nearly all of whom were
opposed to any form of organized religion on general principle.
This and other misunderstandings contributed to a ridiculous situation
where the syndicalists in desperation actually once sided with a very
short lived 'liberal' governent to defend Mexico City from Zapatas (and
Pancho Villas) peasant armies. In the light of the re-emergence of a
second very important incarnation of Zapatisas since 1994 it is clear that
the 'Peasant Socialism' wing of anarchy deserves to be taken more
seriously than it has been in the past.
The most famous of the anarchist philosophers were the partisans who
advocated one or another of these various factional directions of anarchy,
but some of the most interesting anarchist thinkers and activists combined
several facets of libertarian and socialist thought to form new and often
very important revolutionary paradigms.
Perhaps because of their greater subtelty some of these type of
anarchists have been largely overlooked or misunderstood, even though
their ideas may well hold the key to the continued development of
anarchist theory. In this category we find such remarkable individuals
who made their mark throughout the history of the modern anarchist
movement, from the less easily classified 19th Century anrchists like
especially Paul Joseph Proudhon, to American anarchist Emma Goldmann,
libertarian socialist Rosa Luxemburg, syndicalists Flores and Ricardo
Magon, the German syndicalist Rudolph Rocker, and one of my favorites, an
irrepressable Italian by the name of Errico Malatesta, who embodied the
rare combination of a man of action with a credible theorist.
Several modern anarchist thinkers also fall into this category to some
degree, but too many forge ahead in one or another of the factional
slivers, too stubborn to learn how to draw strength from the other
tendancies.
In North America, with a few notable and interesting exceptions the
locals did not understand anarchist philosophy for the most part, and the
early anarchist movements here were originally largely made up of recent
immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, Scandinavia, and Latin
America. Instead, some of the very few better educated (hence rich)
Americans who had even heard of anarchism borrowed some anarchist theories
and interwove them into a philosophy they rather brazenly label as
'anarcho-capitalism'. (Only in America!)
The self described advocates of this theory mimic anarchist criticisms of
the State, but only in the sense of Governments as distinct from
Corporations and other 'anarchist' manifestations of the 'Free Market' and
in fact they even envision all the various arms of the State being taken
over by private enterprise, (thus transforming them into acceptable and
free institutions), including 'private' police, prisons, armies, etc. By
this standard a Rockafeller owned company mining town would actually be
considered 'anarchist'.
To my knowlege anarcho-capitalism as a popular revolution or a mass
movement has never existed outside of a few think tanks and John Birch
society meetings, (except in the sense that large Corporations
increasingly pay little heed to the laws that individual human beings are
forced to obey in our current society, and thus could be considered
'anarchist') and there aren't even any noteworthy activists or writers in
this school, with the possible exception of one eccentric 19th Century
American individualist 'anarchist' clalled Lysander Spooner, and even he
didn't espouse the kind of nonsense they talk about now.
Basically the main claim to fame of this school of 'anarchy' seems to be
it's ability to discredit and act as a spoiler to real anarchism, since
unlike every other form of anarchism this variety is well funded and
supported in 'think tanks', Universities and establishment intelligentsia.
It also serves to create even more arguments in favor of unrestricted
maneuvers of Capital within the framework of our society. In fact many
anarcho-capitalists actually lean toward 'minarchist' philosophy, which
blatantly advocates the elimination of all forms of government except for
just enough police and armies to protect the property of the Rich. Quite
revolutionary!
There was never any such thing as anarcho-marines, the phrase is
completely meaningless and irrelevent to the history of anarchism, but as
such, is almost every bit as significant to the history of anararchist
theory as anarcho- capitalism, and is therefore included for balance.
Similarly, there were very few if any anarcho- Lunatics in the 19th and
early 20th century anarchist movements, or outside those movements, or
anywhere else for that matter, with one or two possible exceptions such as
Jaroslav Hasec. Jaroslav, or J to his pals, was a Czech anarchist,
prankster, drinker, writer, and hooligan, who wrote a book called The Good
Soldier Svejk which was the inspiration for Joseph Hellers famous World
War II novel, Catch-22. He also wrote briefly for a magazine about
animals, but was fired for making up articles about imaginary ones. Other
than him I don't know of any significant Anarcho-Lunatics in the early
movement. However, the Fire @nt Collective is comprised entirely of
Anarcho-Lunatics, and since we wrote this thing, we give ourselves equal
billing with real schools of thought, thus totally skewing the focus of
this presentation of anarchist theory. See how corrupting power can be?
Anarchism is obviously a little known and greatly misunderstood
philosophy which very few ordinary people really understand outside of
some places like Spain where it has managed to make a name for itself.
Since real anarchy will never be taught in a University or broadcast on
TV, (although you may see like a new show about a real rebellious
anarcho-marine cop who rides a harley, or something.) most anarchists
bemoan their isolation in counter-cultural ghettos and are frustrated by
the diffiuclty of introducing these ideas to four billion people by
arduous publishing of a few anarchist books which are only distributed by
obsucre underground punk rock record labels, since they understand the
urgency of explaining this concept to the general public.
The only people who probably know anything about it in the U.S. for
example are a small handful of secret police agents who are taught some of
the rhetoric so they can do a better job of detecting and liquidating any
real anarchists who may actually emerge in spite of excellent modern
social conditioning. This dreary situation makes real anarchists upset.
The highly irrational Anarcho-Lunatics however believe that in an
increasingly insane world, among masses of people who are dumbed down more
and more with each generation raised under the TV set, that outsider
status, an inability to adjust to society and in fact Lunacy itself is to
be cherished and valued, since the 'normal' people, what the Church of the
SubGenius call 'Pinks' 'mediocretins', 'cage dwellers' etc, are not people
at all but are actually horrible monsters from outer space, armies of
demented 'malicious mental dwarfs' who have by now been succesffully
conditioned to actually prefer pain, suffering, ignroance, and in fact
hell on earth, to anarchy.
Therefore we proudly embrace our status as the 'Lunatic Fringe' of our
society. There is no other worthwhile place to be! Anyway, we will
explain more about anarcho- lunacy, which is not to be confused with any
real forms of anarchist philsophy, later in this document.
Egality, Part III,
Footnotes
<1> Author of the famous novel Utopia which some say influenced development
of many libertarian-communist Christian religions such as the anabaptists and
the Quakers
<2> Originally a term of Derision invented by the Marxists
<3> Everyone has heard his famous quote: 'religion is the opium of the
masses.'
<4> All of these ideas of course had already been thoroughly hashed out in
ancient Greece and Rome...There is nothing new under the sun, or so they
say...
<5> Father of Marry Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein.
<6> Which he certainly did have
<7> Rudolph Rocker did a good job of describing the libertarian tendencies
in worker organizations, 'Disciplined ' labor Unions in Germany, Bourgeois in
England and urban Switzerland, libertarian in the Latin Countries, the
Balkans, and Scandinavia, where the largest and most vital workers
organizations
Did you know that:
Egality,
Egality I, anarchism in a nutshell
The Definition of anarchism
...many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive,
or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One
might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history
our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression
that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of
the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now
contribute to---rather than alleviate---material and cultural deficit.
...Noam Chomsky
Government
Dog eat Dog
Competition is the law of the jungle, and
Cooperation is the Law of Civilization.
...Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, 1968
Freedom
when men rule governments, men won't need
governments; until then we are screwed
...Charles Bukowski, notes of a dirty old man, 1969
Revolution
A strong people do not need a strong leader.
...Emiliano Zapata, 1910
Traditions of Autonomy
Freedom is the precondition for
acquiring the maturity for freedom.
...Kant
"Democracy"
Power and Independence
Asking a politician to give up power is like asking a
gorrilla to give up bannanas...
...a thoughtful anarchist biologist
Individuals vs Institutions
The great are great only because we are on our
knees, let us rise!
...Max Stirner
The Perils of Liberty
Organization is indispensable; for liberty arises and
has meaning only within a self-regulating community
of freely co-operating individuals.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World revisited
Constitutional Authority
Whenever the people are well informed they can be
trusted with their own government...whenever things
get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may
be relied on to set them to rights... A little
rebellion...is a medecine necessary for the sound
health of government.
-Thomas Jefferson
Economic Justice
Libertarian Socialism?
Neither East nor West!
Footnotes:
<1> Many right-wing 'Libertarians' do a great job of criticising the evils
of the State, but turn an opaque eye toward all the incredible villany
commited by the many other various entities that wield power in our society.
Anarchists don't make this simplistic distinction, that if State = evil then
'Private' (Capitalist) = good. Just because an institution doesn't have it's
own national anthem don't mean it can't make life into hell on earth for you,
me and Ralph Nader.
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition
under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and
grow; [But] not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and
regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing
more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; [nor]
the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by
the School of...bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights
of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each---an
idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to
zero.
...Michael Bakuni
18 Century Frenchmen and more Ancient Greeks
Bakuninist
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.
...Michael Bakunin, from God and the State
Das Kapital
The anarchists put the thing upside down. They
declare that the proletarian revolution must _begin_
by doing away with the political organization of the
State...But to destroy it at such a moment would be to
destroy the only organism by means of which the
victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered
power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and
carry out that economic revolution of society without
which the whole victory must end in a new defeat
and mass slaughter of the workers similar to those
after the Paris commune
...Frederiech Engels, 1883
The Chicken or the Egg?
Society will not be free until the last Bureaucrat
hangs in the guts of the last Priest.
...Michael Bakunin
The 'Transitional' State
One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree
that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves...
...Martin Buber
Collectivism vs. Communism
Virtue and intelligence belong to human beings as
individuals freely associating with other individuals
in small groups.
Aldous Huxley, from Brave New World Revisited
AnarchoSyndicalism
Freedom without socialism is privelege, injustice,
Socialism without Freedom is Slavery, Brutality.
...Michael Bakunin
Anarcho-Communism
Property is theft.
-Paul Joseph Proudhon.
Individualism
Property is freedom.
-Paul Joseph Proudhon.
Surrealism
Property is impossible.
-Paul Joseph Proudhon.
Pacifism
Government is an association of men who do
violence to the rest of us.
...Leo Tolstoy
Anarchy and Religion
If god did exist, it would be necessary to abolish
him.
-Michael Bakunin, God and the State
The Illegalists
On almost the opposite extreme from pacifists and Christians were the
so-called illegalists, wild rebels who sought out dramatic action instead
of painstaking union organizing or endless theoretical debates. The
'illegalists' were wild spirits who applied their anarchist beliefs to a
lifestyle of banditry and daring action in the tradition of John Dillinger
or Robin Hood. Some became outlaws after they were driven underground
because of the repression of more traditional trade-union or syndiclaist
or socialist or propaganda activities or due to their writing or art, some
simply by their own ideological conviction or innate character.
Peasant anarchists
Cross Fertilized
In the practice of Mutual Aid, which we can retrace
to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find
the positive and undoubted origin of ethical
conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical
progress of man, mutual support -- not mutual
struggle -- has had the leading part.
...Peter Kropotkin, from his pamphlet Mutual Aid
Anarcho-Capitalists
Anarcho-Marines
Postscript: Anarcho-Cynicalists and Anarcho-Lunatics
You can walk into work late with dignity, but you
can't chase after the bus with dignity.
'Dr Sin'