"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 62-3]
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists, although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United States. In this section we indicate the differences between these main trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear, while social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we must not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common, namely a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and capitalist domination and exploitation.
In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas, the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant state of change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected in a movement that values freedom so highly.
To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the
sort of society we would like to live in.
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now
(and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions,
such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support
strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent
strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out
of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists,
not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action
to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being
in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they seek
to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by means
of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual banks
and co-operatives). In this way a general "social liquidation" would
be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by
expropriation.
Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms
by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism.
Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles
as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist).
Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the
state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by
its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit
the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists
and revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within
capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However,
as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is
not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity).
In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is
Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a
free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist
viewpoints on property).
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them. Thus "your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people." "Actual use," continues Berkman, "will be
considered
the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The organisation
of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines,
not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession,
co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will
take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
[What is Anarchism?, p. 217]
This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work
and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of
that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
"in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of
industry is untenable." Given this, it is impossible to "estimate
the share of each in the riches which all contribute to amass"
and, moreover, the "common possession of the instruments of labour
must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the
fruits of common labour." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread,
p. 45 and p. 46] By this social anarchists simply mean that the
social product which is produced by all would be available to all
and each individual who has contributed productively to society can
take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is a
moot point, as we discuss in section I.2.2).
Some social anarchists,
like mutualists for example, are against such a system of libertarian
(or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social
anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying
and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will see "Capitalistic
and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere" and "the wage system
abolished" whether by "equal and just exchange" (like Proudhon) or
by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, The General Idea of
the Revolution, p. 281]
In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies that
this system of use-rights should include the product of the workers labour. Instead of
social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a more market based
system in which workers would possess their own means of production and
exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers. They
argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. Rather, by
means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the market to create
and protect their economic and social power (market discipline for the
working class, state aid for the ruling class in other words). These state
created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs and patents) and state
enforcement of capitalist property rights are the source of economic
inequality and exploitation. With the abolition of government, real
free competition would result and ensure the end of capitalism and
capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker's essay State Socialism
and Anarchism for an excellent summary of this argument).
The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land)
are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire.
However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an
"occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say land, is not
in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others
for use. They think this system, called mutualism, will result in
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation
and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a regime of
"occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a workplace
needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the group who use
it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in fact, used by more
than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and use" is violated. Equally,
if an owner employs others to use the workplace then the boss can
appropriate the product of the workers' labour, so violating the maxim
that labour should receive its full product. Thus the principles of
individualist anarchism point to anti-capitalist conclusions (see
section G.3).
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still
more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also
argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the
proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are
based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics
of communism and of property" in What is Property?). Thus the
Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the
individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well
as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced
with that of "society."
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that
Stirner's and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but
only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before
and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such
a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's distrust as to its
effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of
monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men
of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty
and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever
had to go through such a communism." [Act for Yourselves, p. 98]
Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's
and Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed
against it as they could not be familiar with it.
Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects
of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish all individual
"property," communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of
individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin
arguing against forms of communism that "desire to manage the
community after the model of a family . . . [to live] all in
the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet the
same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary,
to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."
[Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9] The aim
of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."
[The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought,
p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and
so individuality -- both in consumption and in production, as
social anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.
Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition
to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather
use community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society"
control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social
anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual
expression:
In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's The Conquest of
Bread, p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's
Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social
anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles
or the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions
are rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see
section I.6.2 for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists
an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their
common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
anarchists agree with Bakunin:
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods
with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments
that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individuals not to join a commune
while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to
pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic
associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual
wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others,
social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism
in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to
be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As
Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious
as those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
affected.
Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist
anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into
capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are
forced into unemployment they may have
to sell their labour to the "successful" in order to survive. This would
create authoritarian social relationships and the domination of the few
over the many via "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts
(and others like them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of
the State." [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 297]
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and
free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all
schools of abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance
of authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty."
This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker
argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and
"the assumption of authority over a given area and all within
it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete
oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."
[Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also
has authority over a given area (the property in question) and
all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the
actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the
same social relationships as that created by the state, as it
comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given
area and those who use it).
Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance
of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation
of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in
nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [The Anarchist
Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the
worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places
the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection.
Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.
Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects
of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to
break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this
school of so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of
the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition
of anarchism is no government." [Anarchism: Arguments For and
Against, p. 8] It is partly for this reason social anarchists
support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual
liberty.
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round"
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of Tucker's economic
ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require
more than one worker. This naturally complements their support
for "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish
landlords. Only when the people who use a resource own it can
individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority (i.e.
statism/capitalism). This solution, as we argue in section G, is
the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to accept. For example,
we find Joseph Labadie writing to his son urging him to get away
from wage earning and "the dominion of others." [quoted by Carlotta
Abderson, All American Anarchist, p. 222] As Wm. Gary Kline correctly
points out, the US Individualist anarchists "expected a society of
largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth
between any of them." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] It is
this vision of a self-employed society that ensures that their ideas
are truly anarchist.
Moreover, while the individualists attack "usury," they usually
ignore the problem of capital accumulation, which results in
natural barriers of entry into markets and so recreates usury
in new forms (see section C.4 "Why does the market become dominated
by big business?"). Hence a "free market" in banks, as advocated by
Tucker and other Individualist Anarchists, could result in a few big
banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in supporting
capitalist rather than co-operative investment (as they would ensure
higher returns than co-operatives). The only real solution to this
problem would be to ensure community ownership and management of
banks, as originally desired by Proudhon.
It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist
economy which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism
in favour of communalising, and so decentralising, production by
freely associated and co-operative labour. (For more discussion on
the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, see section G - "Is
individualist anarchism capitalistic?")
The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist
form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune)
instead of being independent co-operatives. This would ensure that they
provided investment funds to co-operatives rather than to capitalistic
enterprises. Another difference is that some social anarchist mutualists
support the creation of what Proudhon termed an "agro-industrial federation"
to complement the federation of libertarian communities (called communes
by Proudhon). This is a "confederation . . . intended to provide
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and large scale developments
such as roads, railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal arrangements
is to protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist
and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." This is
because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right." Thus
the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the anarchist
nature of society from the destabilising effects of market exchanges (which
can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so power). Such a
system would be a practical example of solidarity, as "industries are
sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the
others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate, not
to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to guarantee mutually
the conditions of common prosperity . . . Making such an agreement
will not detract from their liberty; it will simply give their liberty
more security and force." [The Principle of Federation, p. 70, p. 67
and p. 72]
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products
freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social
anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of
producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of
individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the "future social organisation
must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or
federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and
universal" and "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
may become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and
industrial associations." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206
and p. 174] Only by extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual
workplaces can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see section
I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial confederations
would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are
the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal
contract become the collective property of the whole . . . federation.
In this way, the federation of groups will be able to . . . regulate
the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society."
[James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 376]
These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management
of production within co-operatives but see confederations of these
associations as being the focal point for expressing mutual aid, not
a market. Workplace autonomy and self-management would be the basis
of any federation, for "the workers in the various factories have not
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"
[Guillaume, Op. Cit., p. 364] In addition to this industry-wide federation, there
would also be cross-industry and community confederations to look after
tasks which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any
particular industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this
has similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution.
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider
the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key.
As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things
in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour
groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e.
distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself."
[Anarchism, p. 295] Thus, while communism
and collectivism both organise production in common via producers'
associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed.
Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is
more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the
labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that,
over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes
stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society
would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each
according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They
just disagree on how quickly this will come about (see
section I.2.2).
For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established than collectivism" after a revolution.
[Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism are essential
as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system
of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction
of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 230] The
quicker the move to communism, the less chances of new inequalities
developing. Needless to say, these positions are not that different
and, in practice, the necessities of a social revolution and the level
of political awareness of those introducing anarchism will determine which
system will be applied in each area.
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists,
like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on
anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralised, federated unions that
use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong
enough to overthrow it. In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered
as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the
importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating
unions which prefigure the future free society.
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
associations of free producers." They think that these associations would
serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very seriously
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create "not only
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary
period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is,
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers
themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches
of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products
in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."
[Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 55]
Again, like all social
anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists see the collective struggle and
organisation implied in unions as the school for anarchism. As Eugene
Varlin (an anarchist active in the First International who was murdered
at the end of the Paris Commune) put it, unions have "the enormous advantage of making people
accustomed to group life and thus preparing them for a more extended
social organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with
one another and to understand one another, but also to organise
themselves, to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective."
Moreover, as well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression
in the here and now, the unions also "form the natural elements of the
social edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed
into producers associations; it is they who can make the social ingredients
and the organisation of production work." [quoted by Julian P. W. Archer,
The First International in France, 1864-1872, p. 196]
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that
building libertarian unions is important and that work within the
labour movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge
the importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle,
and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more important than
creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them (of course,
anarcho-syndicalists support such autonomous struggle and organisation,
so the differences are not great). Communist-anarchists also
do not place as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles
within it to be equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy
and domination outside the workplace (most anarcho-syndicalists would
agree with this, however, and often it is just a question of emphasis).
A few communist-anarchists reject the labour movement as hopelessly
reformist in nature and so refuse to work within it, but these are
a small minority.
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations.
They think it is essential that anarchists work together as
anarchists to clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists
often deny the importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing
that revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion
of anarchism and unionism a source of potential confusion that would
result in the two movements failing to do their respective work correctly.
For more details on anarcho-syndicalism see section J.3.8 (and section
J.3.9 on why many anarchists reject aspects of it). It should be stressed that non-syndicalist anarchists
do not reject the need for collective struggle and organisation by
workers (see section H.2.8 on that particular Marxist myth).
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist.
For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.
For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the
works of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat different,
as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than the work of a
"famous" name (although this does not stop academics calling George Sorel
the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote about a syndicalist movement
that already existed. The idea that working class people can develop their
own ideas, by themselves, is usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker
is often considered a leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the works
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand
anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social
anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's excellent
anthology No Gods No Masters cannot be bettered.
With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be based
on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and brain
work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and agriculture
(see his classic work Fields, Factories, and Workshops). This idea of an
economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title of E.F. Schumacher's
Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before it was taken up by what
was to become the green movement. In addition, in Mutual Aid Kropotkin
documented how co-operation within species and between them and their
environment is usually of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's
work, combined with that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of
whom, like Kropotkin, were world-renowned geographers), and many others
laid the foundations for the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within classical
anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the similarities between ecological
thought and anarchism has come to the fore (essentially from the publication
of Murray Bookchin's classic essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought"
in 1965). Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and
work of Murray Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at
the heart of anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects
of the green movement.
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called eco-anarchism)
it would be worthwhile to explain exactly what anarchism and ecology
have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the ecologist and the
anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and "to both the ecologist
and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is achieved by growing differentiation.
An expanding whole is created by the diversification and enrichment of its
parts." Moreover, "[j]ust as the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an
eco-system and promote free interplay between species, so the anarchist
seeks to expand the range of social experiments and remove all fetters to
its development." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 72 and p. 78]
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation, diversity
and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and concerns. Hierarchy,
centralisation, the state and concentrations of wealth reduce diversity and
the free development of individuals and their communities by their very
nature, and so weakens the social eco-system as well as the actual
eco-systems human societies are part of. As Bookchin argues, "the
reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is that] we must conserve and
promote variety" but within modern capitalist society "[a]ll
that is spontaneous, creative and individuated is circumscribed by the
standardised, the regulated and the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 76
and p. 65] So, in many ways, anarchism can be considered the application
of ecological ideas to society, as anarchism aims to empower individuals
and communities, decentralise political, social and economic power so
ensuring that individuals and social life develops freely and so becomes
increasingly diverse in nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris
argues that "the only political tradition that complements and, as
it were, integrally connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic
way -- is that of anarchism." [Ecology and Anarchism, p. 132]
So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of
modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main
focal points, Social Ecology and "primitivist".
In addition, some anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology, although not many. Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray
Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the 1950's
and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with revolutionary
social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity Anarchism,
Toward
an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a host of others.
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen
as a product of domination within society, but this domination only reaches
crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"Only insofar," Bookchin stresses, "as the ecology consciously cultivates
an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility, structure, and
strategy for social change can it retain its very identity as the voice
for a new balance between humanity and nature and its goal for a truly
ecological society." Social ecologists contrast this to what Bookchin
labels "environmentalism" for while social ecology "seeks to eliminate
the concept of the domination of nature by humanity by eliminating
domination of human by human, environmentalism reflects an 'instrumentalist'
or technical sensibility in which nature is viewed merely as a passive
habit, an agglomeration of external objects and forces, that must be
made more 'serviceable' for human use, irrespective of what these uses
may be. Environmentalism . . . does not bring into question the underlying
notions of the present society, notably that man must dominate nature.
On the contrary, it seeks to facilitate that domination by developing
techniques for diminishing the hazards caused by domination."
[Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological Society, p. 77]
Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
one which "involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
-- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
beings." Such an ecotopia "establish entirely new eco-communities that
are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."
Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that "[s]uch an eco-community . . .
would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by
fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
rotation or diversification of vocational tasks." This society would
be based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a "new kind of
technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . . .
Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities of
nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature
differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
wastes that could be recycled." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 68-9]
However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society "is
more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium that
exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple technical
or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's function
degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads them to
purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological problems.
Social ecology is, first of all, a sensibility that includes not only
a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive outlook . . .
guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without structuring differences
into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts for such an ethics . . .
[are] participation and differentiation." [The Modern Crisis,
pp. 24-5]
Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of ecological
problems. This is one of the key areas in which they disagree with
"Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more critical of
all aspects of modern life, with some going so far as calling for
"the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms of technology
and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in
section A.3.9.
We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing
with its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social
Ecologists see this as a means of
creating popular self-managing assemblies and creating a counter
power to the state, few anarchists agree. Rather they see it as inherently
reformist as well as being hopelessly naive about the possibilities of
using elections to bring about social change
(see section J.5.14 for
a fuller discussion of this). Instead they propose direct action as the
means to forward anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering
as a dead-end which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting
the people involved (see section J.2 -- What is Direct Action?).
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature,
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think
that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which
many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has
been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the
anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see Which Way for
the Ecology Movement?, for example). David Watson has also argued
against Deep Ecology (see his How Deep is Deep Ecology? written
under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue that
it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and that
only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
Thus, as Morris stresses, "by focusing entirely on the category of 'humanity' the Deep
Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social origins of
ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are essentially
social problems." To submerge ecological critique and analysis into a
simplistic protest against the human race ignores the real causes and
dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore, ensures an end to
this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is hardly "people"
who are to blame when the vast majority have no real say in the
decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries and
eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that places
profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on "Humanity"
(and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men and women,
whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and
oppressed) the system we live under is effectively ignored, and so
are the institutional causes of ecological problems. This can be
"both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications, and
substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study of
real social issues and concerns." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 135]
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their spokes-persons
ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the anti-human ideas
associated with their movement. Deep ecology, particularly the organisation
Earth First! (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a
close working relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it
shares many ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects
its few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book Defending the Earth).
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism,
the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed
all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being
against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are
important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the
violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has
always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine
and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising
armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist
army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White
armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists
during the Spanish Revolution -- see sections
A.5.4 and A.5.6,
respectively).
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists
support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists.
However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support
the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists,
on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that
physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to
resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist,
Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence).
As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable
only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" and
that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently,
his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally
justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use
the words of Bakunin, since social oppression "stems far less from individuals
than from the organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim
to "ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the aim of
an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes "not as individuals,
but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought
of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, as
they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum during any
social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with the Dutch pacifist
anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that "the violence and warfare
which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the
liberation of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited
classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where
violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." [The
Conquest of Violence, p. 75]
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one
of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism." For de Ligt,
and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any attempt
to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, on the one
hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other means. Nations
often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in
economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, "violence
is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling class would
be completely unable to maintain its privileged position with regard to the
exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and foremost to hold
down the workers. . . when they become discontented." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit.,
p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so,
for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the
consistent anarchist must be a pacifist.
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an unavoidable
and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as well as the only means
by which the privileged classes will renounce their power and wealth. Those
in authority rarely give up their power and so must be forced. Hence
the need for "transitional" violence "to put an end to the far greater, and
permanent, violence which keeps the majority of mankind in servitude."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To concentrate on the issue of violence versus
non-violence is to ignore the real issue, namely how do we change society
for the better. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists
who are pacifists confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same
as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work
itself." To the contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely
rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [What is
Anarchism?, p. 183] And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions
start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and
only degenerate into violence when those in power try to maintain
their position (a classic example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the
occupation of factories by their workers was followed by fascist
terror -- see section A.5.5).
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the
military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as statist/capitalist
wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff,
supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war
as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and
anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world
war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting
a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their
striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both
arrested and deported from America for organising a "No-Conscription League"
in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the
armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist
influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression
due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful
elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like
Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement
as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists.
Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War,
the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest
against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the slogan "No war but the class war" which
nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil
consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of
different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their
rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists
urge working people to fight for their own interests, not those
of their masters:
We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything
he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War
as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course,
as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and all capitalist classes" do
"misdeeds . . . against the workers and rebels of their own countries."
[Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with Berkman, Goldman and a host of other
anarchists, put their name to International Anarchist Manifesto against
the First World War. It expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist
movement (at the time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is
worth quoting from:
"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace,
is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the
State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political
parties . . . This confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and
continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the whole of
the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a war
of liberation.
"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have
been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.
"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that
there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is
waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against
the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt against
their masters.
"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly
aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the
spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . .
"We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the
revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social
justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war
and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won,
by the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."
["International Anarchist Manifesto on the War," Anarchy! An
Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 386-8]
Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist
principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he
argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason
wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists
agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be
counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to
repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social
change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil
disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All
agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence.
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence
except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.
The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have
always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been
anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman), the Communard Louise Michel,
and the American anarchists Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays "The Traffic in
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage
and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). Freedom, the world's
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886.
Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played important
roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The "Mujeres Libres"
("Free Women") movement in Spain during the Spanish revolution is a classic
example of women anarchists organising themselves to defend their basic
freedoms and create a society based on women's freedom and equality (see
Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg for more details on this
important organisation). In addition, all the male major anarchist
thinkers (bar Proudhon) were firm supporters of women's equality. For
example, Bakunin opposed patriarchy and how the law "subjects [women]
to the absolute domination of the man." He argued that "[e]qual rights
must belong to men and women" so that women can "become independent
and be free to forge their own way of life." He looked forward to the
end of "the authoritarian juridical family" and "the full sexual
freedom of women." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 396 and p. 397]
Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of
patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria
Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it,
women "will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the
legislator who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces
you to an object is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is
a man; that the capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid
work and the speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body,
are men." Little has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists
and, to quote the anarchist paper La Questione Sociale, it is
still usually the case that women "are slaves both in social
and private life. If you are a proletarian, you have two tyrants:
the man and the boss. If bourgeois, the only sovereignty left to
you is that of frivolity and coquetry." [quoted by Jose Moya,
Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement, pp. 197-8 and
p. 200]
Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy
is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. To quote
Louise Michel:
Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's
equality. Both share much common history and a concern about
individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,
either." ["The Tyranny of Tyranny," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist
Reader, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have
noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical society,
which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and
ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn
French argues (in Beyond Power) that the first major social
stratification of the human race occurred when men began dominating
women, with women becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social
class.
The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both
ideas and action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes
that her "discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian
and patriarchal basis] owes something to" libertarian ideas,
that is the "anarchist wing of the socialist movement." [The
Sexual Contract, p. 14] Moreover, she noted in the 1980s how
the "major locus of criticism of authoritarian, hierarchical,
undemocratic forms of organisation for the last twenty years has
been the women's movement . . . After Marx defeated Bakunin in
the First International, the prevailing form of organisation in
the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in the left
sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The women's
movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged idea
[of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments
in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social
organisation." [The Disorder of Women, p. 201]
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical feminist
perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic theory
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is
to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable
of questioning or even of thinking clearly." ["Anarchism: The Feminist
Connection," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 26]
Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists
in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it."
["Anarchism/Feminism," pp. 3-7, The Raven, no. 21, p. 6]
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values,
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity,
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however,
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See
e.g. Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade; Elise Boulding, The
Underside of History). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation,
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political
forms. [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and the Development of
Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., Capitalist Patriarchy
and the Case for Socialist Feminism, pp. 56-77] Like all anarchists,
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies,
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujeres Libres put
it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a
masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain.
p. 2] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further discussion on patriarchy
and hierarchy).
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's "only
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege" and if these
institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will still
be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg,
Op. Cit., pp. 90-91 and p. 91] Thus, for anarchists, women's freedom did
not mean an equal chance to become a boss or a wage slave, a voter or
a politician, but rather to be a free and equal individual co-operating
as equals in free associations. "Feminism," stressed Peggy Kornegger,
"doesn't mean female corporate power or a women President; it means no
corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a
hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy
-- economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist
revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 27]
Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis
which is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time,
showing an awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations
which eluded the mainstream socialist movement. This flows from
our hatred of hierarchy. As Mozzoni put it, "Anarchy defends the
cause of all the oppressed, and because of this, and in a special
way, it defends your [women's] cause, oh! women, doubly oppressed
by present society in both the social and private spheres." [quoted
by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 203] This means that, to quote a Chinese
anarchist, what anarchists "mean by equality between the sexes is
not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We also want
men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no longer
to be oppressed by other women." Thus women should "completely
overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special
privileges and become equal to women, and make a world with
neither the oppression of women nor the oppression of men."
[He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese
Political Culture, p. 147]
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist
project as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Anarcha-feminism continues
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong,
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same
chance of being a boss as a man does. They simply state the obvious,
namely that they "do not believe that power in the hands of women
could possibly lead to a non-coercive society" nor do they "believe
that anything good can come out of a mass movement with a
leadership elite." The "central issues are always power and
social hierarchy" and so people "are free only when they have
power over their own lives." [Carole Ehrlich, "Socialism, Anarchism
and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 44]
For if, as Louise Michel put it, "a proletarian is a slave; the
wife of a proletarian is even more a slave" ensuring that the wife
experiences an equal level of oppression as the husband misses the
point. [Op. Cit., p. 141]
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism
as a denial of liberty. The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
separated from the struggle against hierarchy as such. As L. Susan
Brown puts it:
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of
the origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
for example, Caroline Merchant, The Death of Nature, 1980). Both women
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not
only external constraints but also internal ones.
This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we
preach. Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual
equality, women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the
Mujeres Libres organisation to combat it. They did not believe in
leaving their liberation to some day after the revolution. Their
liberation was a integral part of that revolution and had to be
started today. In this they repeated the conclusions of anarchist
women in Illinois Coal towns who grew tried of hearing their male
comrades "shout in favour" of sexual equality "in the future society"
while doing nothing about it in the here and now. They used a
particularly insulting analogy, comparing their male comrades to
priests who "make false promises to the starving masses . . . [that]
there will be rewards in paradise." The argued that mothers should
make their daughters "understand that the difference in sex does
not imply inequality in rights" and that as well as being "rebels
against the social system of today," they "should fight especially
against the oppression of men who would like to retain women as
their moral and material inferior." [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by
Caroline Waldron Merithew, Anarchist Motherhood, p. 227] They
formed the "Luisa Michel" group to fight against capitalism and
patriarchy in the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three
decades before their Spanish comrades organised themselves.
For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle
for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the
rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against capitalism
which would somehow be automatically solved after the revolution. It is
an essential part of the struggle:
A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
evil for "the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death doth
part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty of the
man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and commands."
Women are reduced "to the function of man's servant and bearer of his
children." [Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 220-1] Instead of this, anarchists proposed proposed "free love," that is couples and families based on free agreement between equals
than one partner being in authority and the other simply obeying..
Such unions would be without sanction of church or state for "two beings
who love each other do not need permission from a third to go to bed."
[Mozzoni, quoted by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 200]
Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. Neither men
nor state should say what a women does with her body. This means that a
women should control her own body and, of course, also means control
over her own reproductive organs. Thus anarcha-feminists, like anarchists
in general, are pro-choice and pro-reproductive rights (i.e. the right
of a women to control her own reproductive decisions). This is a long
standing position. Emma Goldman was persecuted and incarcerated because
of her public advocacy of birth control methods and the extremist notion
that women should decide when they become pregnant (as feminist writer
Margaret Anderson put it, "In 1916, Emma Goldman was sent to prison for
advocating that 'women need not always keep their mouth shut and their
wombs open.'").
Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it
aims at changing all aspects of society not just what happens in
the home. For, as Goldman asked, "how much independence is gained if
the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the
narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department
store, or office?" Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought
everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they
be achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is
only possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's
self-activity and self-liberation for while the "right to vote, or
equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins
neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . .
her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches."
[Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 216 and p. 224]
The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has
come from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise
Michel put it, "[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without
begging anyone, we are taking our place in the struggles; otherwise,
we could go ahead and pass motions until the world ends and gain
nothing." [Op. Cit., p. 139] If women waited for others to act
for them their social position would never have changed. This
includes getting the vote in the first place. Faced with the
militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British anarchist
Rose Witcop recognised that it was "true that this movement shows
us that women who so far have been so submissive to their masters,
the men, are beginning to wake up at last to the fact they are not
inferior to those masters." Yet she argued that women would not be
freed by votes but "by their own strength." [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham,
Hidden from History, pp. 100-1 and p. 101] The women's movement
of the 1960s and 1970s showed the truth of that analysis. In spite
of equal voting rights, women's social place had remained unchanged
since the 1920s.
Ultimately, as Anarchist Lily Gair Wilkinson stressed, the "call
for 'votes' can never be a call to freedom. For what is it to vote?
To vote is to register assent to being ruled by one legislator or
another?" [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, Op. Cit., p. 102] It does not
get to the heart of the problem, namely hierarchy and the authoritarian
social relationships it creates of which patriarchy is only a subset of.
Only by getting rid of all bosses, political, economic, social and sexual
can genuine freedom for women be achieved and "make it possible
for women to be human in the truest sense. Everything within her
that craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest
expression; all artificial barriers should be broken, and the road
towards greater freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of
submission and slavery." [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 214]
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately
attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms
to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and
exploitation. Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be
considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple
"war-is-hell" model and allows the reader to see how militarism is
connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or
methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional
patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism
implies "the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that
expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them
with a system of values based on freedom and community." This "cultural struggle" would be part of a general struggle
"to combat the material
and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic,
political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional
practice of liberation." In other words, an "expanded conception of
class analysis" and "an amplified practice of class struggle"
which includes, but is not limited to, "economic actions like strikes,
boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action
groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and
development of workers' assemblies, collectives and co-operatives"
and "political activity" like the "active interference with
implementation of repressive governmental policies," the "non-compliance
and resistance against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society"
and "participation in movements for increasing direct participation
in decision-making and local control." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 31]
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution
if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in
the majority of the population. For mass acquiescence in the current
system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their
"character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is
produced by many forms of conditioning and socialisation that have
developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five
or six thousand years.
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place.
For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give
orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself --
are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable
with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and
indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of
failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals
of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and
ruling class were quickly created. These failures are generally
attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists,
and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians
only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth
of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary
people.
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated
or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing
and educational methods. We will explore this issue more fully in section
B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis
for authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 (What
methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13
(What are Modern Schools?)
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist
movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new world in the
shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist
culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider
consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist
activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian
alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist movement is one
that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both
activities feeding into and supporting the other.
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas.
As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an anarchist
sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from
about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in its Zen
form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit., p. 53
and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk, combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist
influences. However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of
Christian Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers
that "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be
none like that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there
"is no authority except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion
with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a
true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is
up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that
(to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) The Kingdom of
God is within you.
Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the
world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all
been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private
property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which
could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although
one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon
communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually
appeared within radical Christian movements (indeed, the Bible
would have been used to express radical libertarian aspirations
of the oppressed, which, in later times, would have taken the form
of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus clergyman's John Ball's
egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter Marshall [Op. Cit., p. 89])
during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:
The history of Christian anarchism includes the Heresy of the
Free Spirit in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the
Anabaptists in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within
Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of
William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions
in his Practical Christian Socialism in 1854. However, Christian
anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement
with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of
the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy
is that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of
solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within ourselves,
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised in our
own behaviour." [A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 251-2]
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon,
had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land,
arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and
its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such
narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there
is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for
landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always
those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage."
[Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in
anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (possession
is "always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice
and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence."
[Ibid.]). Indeed, he argues that:
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals
and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible
for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man
whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore,
"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [The
Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy
argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral,
self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can
take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within
society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted
. . . resistance to evil; and to one of the ways of resistance -
by active force - he added another way: resistance through
disobedience, the passive force." [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his
ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural
Russian life and the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as Fields,
Factories and Workshops), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry
George.
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain
out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation
of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a
free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist).
The Catholic Worker Group in the United States was also heavily
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in
general can also be found in Liberation Theology movements in Latin
and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism
amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that
Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by state socialist
ideas rather than anarchist ones).
So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws
anarchist conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in
section A.2.20, most anarchists disagree, arguing that anarchism implies
atheism and it is no coincidence that the biblical thought has,
historically, been associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly
rulers. Thus the vast majority of anarchists have been and are atheists,
for "to worship or revere any being, natural or supernatural, will
always be a form of self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise
to social domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human
beings fall on their knees before anything that is 'higher' than
themselves, hierarchy will have made its first triumph over freedom.'"
[Brian Morris, Ecology and Anarchism, p. 137] This means that most
anarchists agree with Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary,
for human freedom and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible
says, few anarchists think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas
rather than support authoritarian ones.
Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for
advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist reconcile
this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality, or adherence
to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at all. If the Bible
is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the more extreme positions
it takes while claiming to believe in God, his authority and his laws?
For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working
on the Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have
been happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in
spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death ("Six days shall work
be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath
of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such a punishment for
breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a woman to be stoned
to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night would, rightly, be
considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate specified in the "good
book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital sex by women be considered
a capital crime by a Christian anarchist? Or, for that matter, should "a
stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father,
or the voice of his mother" also suffer the fate of having "all the men of
his city . . . stone him with stones, that he die"? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Or what of the Bible's treatment of women: "Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands." (Colossians 3:18) They are also ordered to "keep
silence in the churches." (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly
stated: "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians
11:3)
Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as
non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the
Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for
themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty
a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy
to ignore Jesus' admonition that "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the
Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for
that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to "Give to every
man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them
not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they hold "all
things common" as practised by the first Christian believers. (Acts 4:32)
So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as ignoring the
teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be said of them
by those they attack.
Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to reconcile
with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice far more
than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches hold de facto
political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South America, in
nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth, typically
anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has the power
to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role of the
Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.
In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as
dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to
resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with
Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as
a key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance
of non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that
few anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence,
when no other option is available).
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain
who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of
their two theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt
to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be
clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic
plan on anyone -- even in theory. Thus the economic preferences
of anarchists should be of "secondary importance" to abolishing
capitalism and the state, with free experimentation the one rule
of a free society.
Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives"
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the
New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did
see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin
had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism
was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero,
Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the
main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue
was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played
a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied
by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists
stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed
trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the
importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat
anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy
and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists
who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists
to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say
the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max
Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over time, most
anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the
economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to
stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state)
rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate.
As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the
labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working
class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to
communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after
a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as
there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our
eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in
time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote
from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible
combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and the
individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation
of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at
this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them."
[Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]
Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between
anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of
qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no
matter the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being,
which will make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just
as legal slavery and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this
happens then, "whatever the specific forms of society may turn out
to be, the basis of social organisation will be communist." As long
as we "hold to fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to
instil them in the masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or
trifles but give post-revolutionary society a direction towards
justice, equality and liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit.,
p. 173 and p. 174]
Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There Benjamin
Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not anarchists while
John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Just as people
like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist
groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself
simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without
Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different
experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order
to determine the most appropriate form." [Peter Marshall, Demanding
the Impossible, p. 393] In her own words, a whole range of economic
systems would be "advantageously tried in different localities. I
would see the instincts and habits of the people express themselves
in a free choice in every community; and I am sure that distinct
environments would call out distinct adaptations." Ultimately, only
"[l]iberty and experiment alone can determine the best forms of
society" and therefore "I no longer label myself otherwise than
'Anarchist' simply." [quoted by Paul Avrich, An American Anarchist,
pp. 153-4]
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
adjectives" (see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism, pages 195 to
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types
of anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are
flawed. However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism (communism, syndicalism, religious etc) are not mutually exclusive and
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance
is reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue
that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist
movement. Afterall, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a
use of "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly
agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being
discussed were anti-capitalist (i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta,
for example, there were "anarchists who foresee and propose other
solution, other future forms of social organisation" than communist
anarchism, but they "desire, just as we do, to destroy political
power and private property." "Let us do away," he argued, "with
all exclusivism of schools of thinking" and let us "come to an understanding
on ways and means, and go forwards." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit.,
p. 175] In other
words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along
with the state and once this was the case free experimentation
would develop. Thus the struggle against the state was
just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and exploitation
and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists
do not seek the abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not
anarchists and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the
so-called "anarchist" capitalists (see section F
on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist).
This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist communities
would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted to form such a
system then they could, just as we would expect a community which supported
state socialism or theocracy to live under that regime. Such enclaves of
hierarchy would exist simply because it is unlikely that everyone on the
planet, or even in a given geographical area, will become anarchists all
at the same time. The key thing to remember is that no such system would be
anarchist and, consequently, is not "anarchism without adjectives."
However, a (very) small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green anarchists
disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and David Watson have
expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, aims to critique every
form of power and oppression. This is often called "anarcho-primitivism,"
which according to Moore, is simply "a shorthand term for a radical current
that critiques the totality of civilisation from an anarchist perspective,
and seeks to initiate a comprehensive transformation of human life."
[Primitivist Primer]
How this current expresses itself is diverse,
with the most extreme elements seeking the end of all forms of
technology, division of labour, domestication, "Progress", industrialism,
what they call "mass society" and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e.
numbers, language, time and art). They tend to call any system which
includes these features "civilisation" and, consequently, aim for "the destruction of civilisation". How far back they wish to go is a moot
point. Some see the technological level that existed before the Industrial
Revolution as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all
forms of technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild,
to a hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist
and dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used
to create an anarchist society based on industrial production which
minimises its impact on ecosystems.
Thus we find the primitivist magazine "Green Anarchy" arguing that those,
like themselves, "who prioritise the values of personal autonomy or wild
existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale organisations
and societies on the grounds that they necessitate imperialism, slavery
and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may be designed for." They
oppose capitalism as it is "civilisation's current dominant manifestation."
However, they stress that it is "Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was
the genesis of systemic authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social
isolation. Hence, an attack upon capitalism that fails to target
civilisation can never abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels
society. To attempt to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising
it is to fail to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a
direction and form that is independent of its members' intentions." Thus,
they argue, genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for
"[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the mechanisation
of life are all required for the administration and process of mass
production to occur." For primitivists, "[o]nly small communities of
self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other beings, human or not,
without imposing their authority upon them." Such communities would share
essential features with tribal societies, "[f]or over 99% of human history,
humans lived within small and egalitarian extended family arrangements,
while drawing their subsistence directly from the land." [Against Mass
Society]
While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and had
little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists look (to
use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the "Future Primitive."
As John Moore puts it, "the future envisioned by anarcho-primitivism . . .
is without precedent. Although primitive cultures provide intimations of
the future, and that future may well incorporate elements derived from
those cultures, an anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite
different from previous forms of anarchy." [Op. Cit.]
For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed
alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure, minus
its worse excesses. Hence John Moore's comment that "classical anarchism"
wants "to take over civilisation, rework its structures to some degree,
and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in
civilisation remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely
because the aspects of civilisation they question are minimal . . .
overall life patterns wouldn't change too much." Thus "[f]rom the
perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism
appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as
revolutionary." [Op. Cit.]
In reply, "classical anarchists" point out three things. Firstly, to
claim that the "worst abuses and oppressions" account for 1% of capitalist
society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an apologist of that
system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is obvious from reading any
"classical" anarchist text that Moore's assertions are nonsense. "Classical"
anarchism aims to transform society radically from top to bottom, not tinker
with minor aspects of it. Do primitivists really think that people who went
to the effort to abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the
same things they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not
enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!
Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore's argument ensures that his vision
of a good society would never be achieved without genocide on an
unimaginable scale.
So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the traditional
anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are simply
incompatible, with the ideas of the latter dismissed as authoritarian
by the former. Unsurprisingly, the ideas of primitivism and other
anarchists are hard to reconcile. Equally unsurprisingly, other anarchists
question whether primitivism is practical in the short term or even
desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray
it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism, other anarchists
are less convinced. They consider it as a confused ideology which draws
its followers into absurd positions and, moreover, is utterly impractical.
They would agree with Ken Knabb comments that primitivism is rooted in
"fantasies [which] contain so many obvious self-contradictions that it
is hardly necessary to criticise them in any detail. They have questionable
relevance to actual past societies and virtually no relevance to present
possibilities. Even supposing that life was better in one or another
previous era, we have to begin from where we are now. Modern technology
is so interwoven with all aspects of our life that it could not be abruptly
discontinued without causing a global chaos that would wipe out billions
of people." [Op. Cit., p. 79]
The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised and
interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills required
to live in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society. Moreover, it
is extremely doubtful that six billion people could survive as hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As Brian Morris notes,
"[t]he future we are told is 'primitive.' How this is to be achieved
in a world that presently sustains almost six billion people (for evidence
suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is only able to support 1
or 2 people per sq. mile)" primitivists like Zerzan do not tell us.
["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed, no. 45, p. 38]
This means that any "primitivist" rebellion has two options. Either it
produces a near instant transformation into a primitivist system and,
as a consequence, kills billions of people by hunger as well as causing
extensive ecological destruction or it involves a lengthy transition
period during which "civilisation" and its industrial legacies are
decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to an appropriate
level and people regain the necessary skills required for their new
existence.
Sadly, option one, namely an almost overnight transformation, is what
appears to be implied by most primitivist writers. Moore, for example,
talks about "when civilisation collapses" ("through its own volition,
through our efforts, or a combination of the two"). This implies an
extremely speedy process, over which mere mortals have little say or
control. This is confirmed when he talks about the need for "positive
alternatives" to be built now as "the social disruption caused by
collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and social
vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships could
flourish." [Op. Cit.] A revolution based on "collapse," "insecurity"
and "social disruption" does not sound like a recipe for a successful
social revolution based on mass participation and social experimentation.
Then there is the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism.
Moore is typical, asserting that "[o]rganisations, for anarcho-primitivists,
are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power" and
reiterates the point by saying primitivists stand for "the abolition of
all power relations, including the State . . . and any kind of party or organisation." [Op. Cit.] Yet without organisation, no modern society
could function. There would be a total and instant collapse which would
see not only mass starvation but also ecological destruction as nuclear
power stations meltdown, industrial waste seeps into the surrounding
environment, cities and towns decay and hordes of starving people fighting
over what vegetables, fruits and animals they could find in the countryside.
Clearly an anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea
of a near overnight "collapse" of civilisation, not with a steady progress
towards a long term goal. Equally, how many "positive alternatives" could
exist without organisation?
Faced with the horrors that such a "collapse" would entail, those few
primitivists who have thought the issue through end up accepting the
need for a transition period. However, to do so exposes the contradictions
within primitivism. For if you accept that there is a need for a transition
from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism automatically excludes itself from
the anarchist tradition. The reason is simple. Moore asserts that "mass
society" involves "people working, living in artificial, technologised
environments, and [being] subject to forms of coercion and control."
[Op. Cit.] If this is true then any primitivist transition would, by
definition, not be libertarian. For it is an obvious fact that the human
population size cannot be reduced significantly by voluntary means in a
short period of time. This means that agriculture and most industries
will have to continue for some time. Similarly with large cities and
towns as an instant and general exodus from the cities would be impossible.
Then there is the legacy of industrial society which simply cannot be
left to decay on its own. To take just one obvious example, leaving
nuclear power plants to melt down would hardly be eco-friendly. Moreover,
it is doubtful that the ruling elite will just surrender its power
without resistance and, consequently, any social revolution would need
to defend itself against attempts to reintroduce hierarchy. Needless
to say, a revolution which shunned all organisation and industry as
inherently authoritarian would not be able to do this (it would have
been impossible to produce the necessary military supplies to fight
Franco's fascist forces during the Spanish Revolution if the workers
had not converted and used their workplaces to do so, to note another
obvious example).
As such, "mass society" will have to remain for some time after a
successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective,
be based on "forms of coercion and control." There is an ideology which proclaims the need for a transitional system
which will be based on coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in
time, disappear into a stateless society. It also, like primitivism,
stresses that industry and large scale organisation is impossible without
hierarchy and authority. That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to
"classical" anarchists to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating Engels
arguments against Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy" (see section H.4 for
a discussion of Engels' claims that industry excludes autonomy).
Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no practical
means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As Knabb summarises,
"[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive faith in science and
technology ends up as a desperate and even less justified faith in the
return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a failure to engage the
present system in any but an abstract, apocalyptical way." To avoid this,
it is necessary to take into account where we are now and, consequently,
we will have to "seriously consider how we will deal with all the practical
problems that will be posed in the interim." [Knabb, Op. Cit., p. 80
and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist ideology excludes this possibility by
dismissing the starting point any real revolution would begin from as
being inherently authoritarian. As any transition period towards
primitivism would involve people working and living in "mass society,"
it condemns itself as utterly impractical.
Given that a hierarchical society will misuse many technologies, it is
understandable that some people can come see "technology" as the main
problem and seek its end. However, those who talk about simply abolishing
all forms of injustice and oppression overnight without discussing how
it will be achieved may sound extremely radical, but, in reality, they
are not. In fact they are building blocks to genuine social change by
ensuring that no mass movement would ever be revolutionary enough to
satisfy their critique and, as such, there is no point even trying. As
Ken Knabb puts it:
Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving primitivism.
Moore argues that the "kind of world envisaged by anarcho-primitivism is one
unprecedented in human experience in terms of the degree and types of freedom
anticipated ... so there can't be any limits on the forms of resistance and
insurgency that might develop." [Op. Cit.] Non-primitivists reply by saying
that this implies primitivists don't know what they want nor how to get
there. Equally, they stress that there must be limits on what are
considered acceptable forms of resistance. This is because means shape
the ends created and so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian
ends. Tactics are not neutral and support for certain tactics betray
an authoritarian perspective.
This can be seen from the UK magazine "Green Anarchist," part of the
extreme end of "Primitivism" and which argued in favour of a return to
"Hunter-Gatherer" forms of human society, opposing technology as being
hierarchical by its very nature. Due to the inherent unattractiveness
of such "primitivist" ideas for most people, it could never come about
by libertarian means (i.e. by the free choice of individuals who create
it by their own acts) and so cannot be anarchist as very few people
would actually voluntarily embrace such a situation. This led to
"Green Anarchist" developing a form of eco-vanguardism in order, to
use Rousseau's expression, to "force people to be free." This reached
its logical conclusion when the magazine supported the actions
and ideas of the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and published an article
("The Irrationalists") by one of the then two editors stating that
"the Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did
not blast any more government offices . . . The Tokyo sarin cult had
the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to
the attack they gave themselves away." [Green Anarchist,
no. 51, p. 11] A defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a
subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other "Green Anarchist"
editor (at the time) justify this sick, authoritarian nonsense as simply
nonsense as simply examples of "unmediated resistance" conducted "under conditions
of extreme repression." Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that
means shape the ends? This means there are "limits" on tactics, as some
tactics are not and can never be libertarian.
However, few eco-anarchists take such an extreme position. Most "primitivist"
anarchists rather than being anti-technology and anti-civilisation as such
instead (to use David Watson's expression) believe it is a case of the
"affirmation of aboriginal lifeways" and of taking a far more critical
approach to issues such as technology, rationality and progress than that
associated with Social Ecology. These eco-anarchists reject "a dogmatic
primitivism which claims we can return in some linear way to our primordial
roots" just as much as the idea of "progress," "superseding both Enlightenment
and Counter-Enlightenment" ideas and traditions. For these eco-anarchists,
Primitivism "reflects not only a glimpse at life before the rise of the
state, but also a legitimate response to real conditions of life under
civilisation" and so we should respect and learn from "palaeolithic and
neolithic wisdom traditions" (such as those associated with Native American
tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While we "cannot, and would not want
to abandon secular modes of thinking and experiencing the world. . . we
cannot reduce the experience of life, and the fundamental, inescapable
questions why we live, and how we live, to secular terms. . . Moreover,
the boundary between the spiritual and the secular is not so clear. A
dialectical understanding that we are our history would affirm an
inspirited reason that honours not only atheistic Spanish revolutionaries
who died for el ideal, but also religious pacifist prisoners of
conscience, Lakota ghost dancers, taoist hermits and executed sufi
mystics." [David Watson, Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a future
social ecology, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240 and pp. 66-67]
Such "primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly
US-based, like Fifth Estate. For example, on the question of technology,
such eco-anarchists argue that "[w]hile market capitalism was a spark
that set the fire, and remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part
of something larger: the forced adaptation of organic human societies to
an economic-instrumental civilisation and its mass technics, which are
not only hierarchical and external but increasingly 'cellular' and internal.
It makes no sense to layer the various elements of this process in a
mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary effects." [David
Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127-8] For this reason "Primitivist" anarchists are
more critical of all aspects of technology, including calls by social
ecologists for the use of appropriate technology essential in order to
liberate humanity and the planet. As Watson argues:
Thus it is not a case of who uses technology which determines its
effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large
degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is
selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those
in power who generally select which technology is introduced within
society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of
turning technology against the powerful and technological change
and social struggle are inter-related -- see
section D.10). Thus even
the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from
the range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have
certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of
critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and rejecting
it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment and happiness.
Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach, though, and
differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than a deep
political point.
However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian Morris
notes, dismisses the "last eight thousand years or so of human history" as
little more than a source "of tyranny, hierarchical control, mechanised
routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those products of the human creative
imagination -- farming, art, philosophy, technology, science, urban living,
symbolic culture -- are viewed negatively by Zerzan -- in a monolithic sense."
While there is no reason to worship progress, there is just as little need
to dismiss all change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are
they convinced by Zerzan's "selective culling of the anthropological
literature." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 38] In addition, a position of "turning
back the clock" is deeply flawed, for while aboriginal societies are generally
very anarchistic, certain of these societies did develop into statist,
propertarian ones implying that a future anarchist society that are
predominantly inspired by and seek to reproduce key elements of prehistoric
forms of anarchy is not the answer.
Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support
for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from
primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would disagree
with the second position as they recognise that current does not equal better
and, consequently, past cultures and societies can have positive (as well as
negative) aspects to them which can shed like on what a genuinely human
society can be life. Similarly if "primitivism" simply involved
questioning technology along with authority, few would disagree. However,
this sensible position is, in the main, subsumed within the first one, the
idea that an anarchist society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer
society. That this is the case can be seen from primitivist writings. Some
primitivists stress that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model
for their desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they
seem to exclude any other options by their critique.
So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of
"anarchist speculation" (to use John Moore's term) seems incredulous.
If you demonise technology, organisation, "mass society" and "civilisation"
as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and advocate their use
in a transition period or even in a free society. As such, the critique
points to a mode of action and a vision of a free society and to suggest
otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you praise foraging bands and
shifting horticultural communities of past and present as examples of
anarchy then critics are entitled to conclude that primitivists desire
a similar system for the future. This is reinforced by the critiques of
industry, technology, "mass society" and agriculture.
Until such time as "primitivists" clearly state which of the two forms of
primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their ideas
that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic questions of how
they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass starvation without
the workers' control, international links and federal organisation they
habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms of "governance," other
anarchists do not hold much hope that it will happen soon. Ultimately,
we are faced with the fact that a revolution will start in society as
it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests a means of transforming it.
Primitivism shies away from such minor problems and, consequently, has
little to recommend it. It is for this reason that most anarchists
actually argue that such forms of "primitivism" are not anarchist at
all, as the return to a "Hunter-Gatherer" society would result in mass
starvation in almost all countries as the social infrastructure collapses
so that the "lucky" few that survive can be "wild" and free from such
tyrannies as hospitals, books and electricity.
This is not to suggest, of course, that non-primitivist anarchists think
that everyone in a free society must have the same level of technology.
Far from it. An anarchist society would be based on free experimentation.
Different individuals and groups will pick the way of life that best suits
them. Those who seek less technological ways of living will be free to do
so as will those who want to apply the benefits of (appropriate) technologies.
Similarly, all anarchists support the struggles of those in the developing
world against the onslaught of (capitalist) civilisation and the demands of
(capitalist) progress.
For more on "primitivist" anarchism see John Zerzan's Future Primitive
as well as David Watson's Beyond Bookchin and Against the Mega-Machine.
Ken Knabb's essay The Poverty of Primitivism is an excellent critique of
primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's Anarchism vs. Primitivism.
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority
and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.
"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
-- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her]
independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified
god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long
as the individual is not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]
"Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of
collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free
community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 200]
"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable
cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination
. . . But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism
in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of
others." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist
is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is
based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging
the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual
bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial
advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . .
[with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks
and expenses." Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression
for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it
everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45 and p. 45]
A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back
to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin and Elisee
Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a "secret harmony exists
between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and when imprudent
societies let themselves violate this harmony, they always end up
regretting it." Similarly, no contemporary ecologist would disagree
with his comments that the "truly civilised man [and women] understands
that his [or her] nature is bound up with the interest of all and with
that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage caused by his predecessors
and works to improve his domain." [quoted by George Woodcock,
"Introduction", Marie Fleming, The Geography of Freedom, p. 15]
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the
domination of man by man. . . But it was not until organic community
relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself
was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency
finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to
its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans
against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the natural
world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of
nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured
and merchandised wantonly . . . The plundering of the human spirit by
the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital."
[Op. Cit., p. 63]
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a crude
biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an ever-diminishing sense of
humanity and papers over a profound ignorance of social reality by
ignoring the fact it is capitalism we are talking about, not an abstraction
called 'Humanity' and 'Society.'" [The Philosophy of Social Ecology,
p. 160]
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called "anarcho-pacifism"
(the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes used, but this term is
unfortunate because it implies the rest of the movement are "violent,"
which is not the case!). The union of anarchism and pacifism is not
surprising given the fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism.
After all, violence, or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by
which individual freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out,
"[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the
long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist
values." [Demanding the Impossible, p.637] Malatesta is even
more explicit when he wrote that the "main plank of anarchism is the
removal of violence from human relations" and that anarchists "are
opposed to violence." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of
guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all;
and we must prepare to accomplish these things." [Malatesta,Op. Cit.,
p. 251]
"The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the
existence of the State, which is the form of privilege . . . Whatever
the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression
for the advantage of a privileged minority . . .
A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist
movements to remind them of their principles.
"The first thing that must change is the relationship between the
sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be
walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will
last as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its controls,
the 'weaker' half." [The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 139]
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and
public condemnation." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 211]
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination,
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserve individual
existential freedom, for both men and women." [The Politics of
Individualism, p. 144]
"We do not need any of your titles . . . We want none of them. What
we do want is knowledge and education and liberty. We know what our
rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing next to you
fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men, to
make part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women?
And then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."
[Louise Michel, Op. Cit., p. 142]
A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally
regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics"
or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature,
education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so
forth.
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and
that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in
accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
Demanding the Impossible, p. 75]
Who was then a gentleman?"
"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom
force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would
certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing
to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing
wrong." [The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 242]
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society
self-organised from below:
"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for
themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for
themselves but for others?" [The Anarchist Reader, p. 306]
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor
-- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection
by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations
of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more
do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one
owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of
famine." [Op. Cit., p. 307]
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"?
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without
adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form
of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such
as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,
. . . [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
coexistence of different anarchist schools." [Anarchist Ideology and
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898, p. 135]
A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?
As discussed in section A.3.3, most anarchists would agree with
Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that "in a liberated world
computers and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate
dangerous or boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more
interesting activities." Obviously "[c]ertain technologies -- nuclear
power is the most obvious example -- are indeed so insanely dangerous
that they will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other
industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities
will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance of their
commercial rationales. But many technologies . . ., however they may
presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. It's
simply a matter of using them more sensibly, bringing them under
popular control, introducing a few ecological improvements, and
redesigning them for human rather than capitalistic ends." [Public
Secrets, p. 79 and p. 80] Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of
appropriate technology as the means of creating a society which
lives in balance with nature.
"Those who proudly proclaim their 'total opposition' to all compromise,
all authority, all organisation, all theory, all technology, etc., usually
turn out to have no revolutionary perspective whatsoever -- no practical
conception of how the present system might be overthrown or how a
post-revolutionary society might work. Some even attempt to justify this
lack by declaring that a mere revolution could never be radical enough to
satisfy their eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing
bombast may temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect
is simply to make people blasé." [Op. Cit., pp. 31-32]
"To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to the technics
generated within capitalism, which in turn generate new forms of
capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social relations that
determine this technology is not only ahistorical and undialectical,
it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure schema."
[Op. Cit., p. 124]