These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands for in practice and what ideals drive it:
As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty, desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality does not exist in a vacuum but is a social phenomenon. Outside of society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in order to develop, expand, and grow.
Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society, while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society (as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts. A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a collective process, a process in which both community and the individual participate" [Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crisis, p. 79]. Consequently, any political theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.
In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent, anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles: liberty, equality and solidarity, which are interdependent.
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it, anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of association" [The End of Anarchism?, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2 - Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?).
If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to interact. (See also section A.2.5 - Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," "dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them. Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed, which weakens society as a whole. (See also section A.2.6 - Why is solidarity important to anarchists?)
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:
"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers, and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist" [Life and Ideas, p. 23].For anarchists, real wealth is other people and the planet on which we live.
Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society. Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a materialist theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction and individuals' mental activity (see Mikhail Bakunin's God and the State for the classic discussion of materialism verses idealism).
This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings, not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding of things." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, page 42]
Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to be right. In other words, liberty.
As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or
"without (hierarchical) authority."
Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are
particularly knowledgeable, skillful, or wise, though they believe that
such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their
recommendations (see section B.1 for more
on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words,
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."
[The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the
dominated to
the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and
self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination
makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of
inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.
In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively)
is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and
individuality.
Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique
individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual
can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime,
if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for
others." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in Anarchy, p. 27]
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as
Bakunin reminds us:
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow. . . . " [The Paris
Commune and the Idea of the State]. Because human beings are thinking
creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think
for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For
anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:
For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man [sic] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom
will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only
in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie
men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life."
[Ibid., p. 59]
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their
lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This
is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions
they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect
than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved.
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development
of one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich
the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed.
Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the
ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet
with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from
others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This
is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in
political life as well." [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 64]
In short, liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it.
Thus Murray Bookchin writes:
But freedom requires the right kind of social environment in which to
grow and develop. Such an environment must be decentralised and based
on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation
means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the
essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals
involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly
their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities
and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the
individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities
to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their
development is blunted.
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism.
Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority, the very
of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands of
those who do it. This means "that the serious, final, complete liberation
of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation
of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labour, including
land, by the whole body of the workers." [Michael
Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]
Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer." [Notes on Anarchism]
Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which
individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern
themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it implies
that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which
violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince"
individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm
supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support,
they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e.
hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to
"government" means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical,
bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government
through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long
as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power
to "representatives." For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence
any form of organisation based on the delegation of power is a threat to
the liberty and dignity of the people subjected to that power.
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which
human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism,
however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and
hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals
will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their
liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person" [Bakunin,
Op. Cit.] (see
section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and
authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).
Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty
cannot exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett, in
Objections to Anarchism, points out:
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to
take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a
walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I
should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I
cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I
must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement,
and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree
with my friend to go for a walk."
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of
us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective
work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders" [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 86].
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be the
only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of
organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific
kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and
exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human
societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on
co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access
to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour
according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings
based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised
dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and
resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of
one class by another [see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom].
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate
going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that
human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive,
and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this
claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or
learned, and as such, can be unlearned [see Ashley Montagu,
The Nature of Human Aggression]. We are not fatalists or genetic
determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change
the way they do things, including the way they organise society.
And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for
those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion
through its control of the state (see section
B.2.3), it is able to suppress
the majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a
smaller scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people
within authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a
denial of their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the
result that it is, indeed, "sick all over."
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement
is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of
mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful"
[Op. Cit., p. 53]. In the "political" sphere, this means direct
democracy and confederation, which are the expression and environment of liberty.
Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and
equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and
debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray
Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent."
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9
and A.2.10.
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or
to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since
authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention
human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others.
As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for
everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which
does not mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 53].
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority
is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the
state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil
Disobedience" (1847)
As mentioned in above, anarchists are dedicated to
social equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty
can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about
"equality," and much
of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before
discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what
we do not mean by it.
Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only
non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought
about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences
not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why?
Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share" [Noam
Chomsky Red and Black Revolution, No. 2].
That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that
everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day
intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert
attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people
into discussions of biology.
Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have
no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives
in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the
reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that
they standardise so much of life [see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation
of Society on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and
conformity].
"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which
would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others!
"Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise
that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests.
To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs
medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount
of medical care. The same is true of other human needs.
For anarchists, these "concepts" of "equality" are meaningless. Equality,
in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or
uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:
Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals." By this he means that
hierarchical social relationships are abolished in favour of ones that
encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one
vote." Therefore, social equality in the workplace, for example, means
that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on how the
workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong believers in the
maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."
This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that
everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different
people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they
will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is
also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert
-- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a
committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the
topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some
people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed
in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical staff voting on
how doctors should perform an operation!
In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without
the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality)
to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the
individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both,
some will have power over others, making decisions for them (i.e.
governing them), and thus some will be more free than others.
Section F.3 ( "Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists
generally place little or no value on 'equality,' and what do
they mean by that term?) discusses anarchist ideas on equality further.
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and
happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.
Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the
"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of the strongest motivations of human behaviour" [To Be or To Have, p.107].
Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use
Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions,
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to
be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised
in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and
non-hierarchical.
Solidarity -- Cupertino between individuals -- is necessary for life and
is far from a denial of liberty. "What wonderful results this unique force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by Cupertino with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Cooperation -- as opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary Cupertino. . . can create the basis for a free individual and associational life" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 95].
Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity
(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those
subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the
recognition of common interests:
To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:
And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary
to resist those in power. By standing together, we can increase our
strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we
can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the
boss once and for all. "Unions will. . . multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property" [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 258]. By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current
system with one more to our liking. There is power in "union."
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for
another. By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so
that we may enjoy more, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --
that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others
based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone,
this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in
all probability I too will be dominated in turn.
As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule
us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in Luigi Galleani's
The End of Anarchism?, p. 79 - different translation in The Ego
and Its Own, p. 197]
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means
by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a
leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people,
co-operating together as equals. The "big WE" is not solidarity, although
the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union.
It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are
conditioned to blindly obey leaders.
Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be
freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through
their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As
Emma Goldman points out:
Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves
by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do
Anarchists Do?") and will
not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people
organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that
empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for
them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing what anarchists call "direct action").
Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved in
it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative,
imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be
developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico
Malatesta points out "[b]etween man and his social environment there is a reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. . . . Fortunately existing society has not been created by the inspired will of a dominating class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to
passive and unconscious instruments. . . . It is the result of a thousand
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . "
[Life and Ideas, p. 188]
Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that
limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the
process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs" [Op. Cit., page
142]. But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a piece of chain with him" [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 168]
In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision in our
hearts and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real
world.
Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait
for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political,
and given the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will
influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in
pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it,
"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." We can do
so by creating alternative social relationships and organisations, acting
as free people in a non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and
now can we lay the foundation for a free society.
Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous revolutionary action" is usually results from and is based upon the patient work of many
years of organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The
process of "creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use another
IWW expression), by building alternative institutions and relationships, is but one component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary
commitment and militancy.
As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate
the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want
the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond
to the state of their development and advance as they advance" [Op.
Cit., p. 90].
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if
one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,
since they embody the principle of authority. The argument for this
(if anybody needs one) is as follows:
A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series
of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually)
remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have
found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and
exploitation. For example, in his article "What Do Bosses Do?"
(Review of Radical Political Economics, 6, 7), a study of the
modern factory,
Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy
is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater
control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective
exploitation.
Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat
of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic,
psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of
dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set
of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the
few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those
in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom
have virtually none.
Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in
hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover,
for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to
dismantle all forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist.
Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has an
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. If we take
the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we
would have to argue that the current statist system must be considered as
"anarchy" - no one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We
are free to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical
nature of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based
upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed
forces, states even) all because they are "voluntary." Anarchy is more
than being free to pick a master.
Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise
you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic.
For more on this see section A.2.14 (Why is voluntarism not enough?).
Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they
can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs
directly. In this way we can do without without hierarchical structures
(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an
association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly
anarchistic.
We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism
is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see
Section F)
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we
have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially,
can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power
into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty
and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away
from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour
organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in
the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based
on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to grow
and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section A.2.11 -
Why do most anarchists support direct democracy?).
We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress.
But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for
food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved without
the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty."
[The End of Anarchism?, p. 28]
Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict
as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should
not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of
conflict itself but the addition of competition." [Alfie Kohn, No
Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid
demand for agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from
contributing their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is
for this reason that most anarchists reject consensus decision making in
large groups (see section A.2.12).
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of
all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative
conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by
elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable
and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of
the assembly which elected them. If the delegates act against their mandate
or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the
assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly
recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains
in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.
This power of recall is an essential tenet of any anarchist organisation.
The key difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an
anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system people
give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for them for a
fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises is irrelevant
as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power lies at the
top and those at the base are expected to obey. In an anarchist society this
relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected)
holds power in an anarchist community. Instead decisions are made using direct
democratic principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint
delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction between
policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and the co-ordination
and administration of any adopted policy (which is the job for delegates).
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be
run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as
the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and
international conferences in which all important issues and problems
affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition,
the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would
be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed,
and co-ordinated.
Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under
strict control from below as discussed above. . Delegates to such bodies
would have a limited tenure and have a fixed mandate - they are not able
to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for.
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go
back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification
any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular
individual or committee. In addition,
they can call confederal conferences to discuss new developments and to
inform action committees about changing wishes and to instruct them on
what to do about any developments and ideas.
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished, because the people
at the base of the organisation are in control, not their delegates.
Only this form of organisation can replace government (the initiative and
empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of
all). This form of organisation would exist in all activities which
required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as
Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures which
they could understand and control." For individual initiatives, the
individual involved would manage them.
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures
that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.
Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and
limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of
governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the
decisions. For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would
look like see section I.
The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions
of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now.
However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and
doomed to failure.
To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations
would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the
statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces
indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity,
uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality.
More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and
crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy,
see section B.1- "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" - and related sections).
That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner
Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting
Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great solidarity that existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic]
own strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations
must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a
mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 58]
As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he
cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all"
[quoted in Paths in Utopia, Martin Buber, p. 33].
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "If you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will
become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and
you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." [The Libertarian as Conservative].
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a massive transformation
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating
in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual
capacities.
Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of
society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and
solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist
organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be
accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and
developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of
thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that
affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and
protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of
people enslaved by hierarchy.
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourself, p.
83]. This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of
command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated
to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the
submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion" [The Right to Be Greedy, For Ourselves].
For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free
associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. The reason
is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free,
'non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that
mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of
oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93]
It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully
human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the
individual has three options] he [or she] must submit to the will of
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest
good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity."
[Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 85]
Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means
by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings,
respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct
democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and
self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities
to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their
intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes
in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what
is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?
Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes
a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association
is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large
workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific
office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the content
of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the
association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage
their own activity. This means that political obligation is not owed to a
separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but
to one's fellow "citizens."
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing
their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also
superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or
repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political
authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships
between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an
elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see
section B.1 - "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:
Such a society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the
workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject
to the approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist
or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the
guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free
society.
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,
The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of
direct democracy as we have
described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule.
If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she
is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to
recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise
its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose
obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive
imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed
obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association.
Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the
context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means
by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains
in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of
the error of its ways.
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the
good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that
anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband,
whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the
expense of those subject to their decisions.
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is
why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights.
This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases
itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions
and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between
associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves.
Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations
joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation
are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with
the same rights of "voice and exit" for members and the same rights for
minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations,
a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising
individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9
( What sort of society do anarchists want?)
and discussed in greater detail in section I (What
would an anarchist society look like?).
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta
speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of
the majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit.,
p. 100] As can
be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the
minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's
words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they
have even heard what these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct
democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule"
nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what.
In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it
fits Malatesta's argument that:
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule
is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making
tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and
acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the
majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the
minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less
than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the
means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the
unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice
of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly
represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced
by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights,
or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the
association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results
from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for
all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f,
p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]
Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash.
In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most
decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required
for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and
minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights
in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created
through practical experience by the people directly involved.
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For
example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making
(see the next section on consensus and
why most anarchists do not think
that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most
anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the
best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with
anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.
The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based
upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put
into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling
the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles.
Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree,
has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing his
experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications, because
"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of
all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that
still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority
decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . . .by dull monologues -- and the
uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making,
the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have
been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned
and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours
no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one'
of the 'consensus' group" ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", Democracy and Nature, no. 8, p.8].
Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with
one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own experience
has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions by
consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common
intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly
of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree
with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue" [Op. Cit., p.7]
Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association.
While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually
impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its
other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association
by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent
in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are
fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted
by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique,
they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to
express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of
individuals.
In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the
"creative role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends
to fade away in the gray uniformity required by consensus."
[Op. Cit., p. 8]
We must stress that anarchists are not in favour of a mechanical
decision making process in which the majority just vote the minority away
and ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see
it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen
to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which
all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation
within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common
interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and
minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise
or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important
issues.
The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that
liberal scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being
"collectivists" while Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general
for being "individualists."
This is hardly surprising, as anarchists
reject both ideologies as nonsense. Whether they like it or not,
non-anarchist individualists and collectivists are two sides of the same
capitalist coin. This can best shown be by considering modern capitalism,
in which "individualist" and "collectivist" tendencies continually
interact, often with the political and economic structure swinging from
one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism and individualism are both
one-sided aspects of human existence, and like all manifestations of
imbalance, deeply flawed.
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for
the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of
individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the
group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human
interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think,
only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the
"cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected,
since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies
their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough
individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the
leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this
phenomenon.
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of
society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This
means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group.
In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the
individuals involved in them. This is way we place so much stress on
groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express
themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social
relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom.
So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the
individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . . is
only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his
individuality. . . . [It] has inevitably resulted in the crassest class
distinctions. . . [and] has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters,
while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of
self-seeking 'supermen'" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 89].
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by
themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of
individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships
by their very nature, they help shape individuals. In other words,
groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact
on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to
the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists
fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian
manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups".
Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions
in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a
need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These
contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on
individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. abstract individualism.
In contrast, anarchists stress social "individualism" (another, perhaps
better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality").
Anarchism "insists that the centre of gravity in society is the
individual -- that
he [sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully. . . . If he
is to develop freely and fully, he must be relieved from the interference
and oppression of others. . . . [T]his has nothing in common with. . .
'rugged individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby,
not rugged. At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the
state and wails for protection. . . .Their 'rugged individualism' is
simply one of the many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled
business and political extortion." [Emma Goldman, Ibid., p. 397]
Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its
ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by
others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists
and grows.
A society based on "individual contracts" usually results in an inequality
of power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for
an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the
contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and,
most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state developed.
In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free" when they are
isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally in the
"state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a
"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy
with no basis in reality (human beings have always been social animals),
this "theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive
powers over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist
system, which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the
capitalist economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within
capitalism, individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the
owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See
sections A.2.14 and
B.4 for further details).
In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both
individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each
implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of
individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of
collectivism.
Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the
individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit
suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom you live),
ultimately impoverishes the individual, since individuals do not exist
apart from society but can only exist within it. In addition, individualism
ends up denying the "select few" the insights and abilities of the
individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is a source of
self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction),
namely "the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the mass by the 'beautiful aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain uni-lateral" [Peter
Kropotkin, Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 293].
True liberty and community exist elsewhere.
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in
free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop,
grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under
capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.
Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make contracts), and
promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement
and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can
evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under
capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For,
while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in
section B.4, this is
not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty.
This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising
to obey in return for payment. However, as Carole Pateman points out in
The Problem of Political Obligation, "to promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free
to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer
equal, but subordinate" [page 19].
In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can
choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the
right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. To
paraphrase Rousseau:
Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a
sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism.
Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be
based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course
assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise
their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is
not enough to create a society that maximises liberty.
Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of social
relationships above others and that a true libertarian must allow people
the freedom to select their own social relationships. To answer the second
objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism),
those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate
their authority. And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who
desire to restrict the liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the
liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty.
Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are
prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots.
We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are
prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.
Section A.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses
why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property
owners and the propertyless.
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not
the case, however.
First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is
meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory
-- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so
on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human
nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with
changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of
"human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years, and war only become
part of "human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment
plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is.
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). We do not wish to
enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to
think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are
sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to
prosper.
These two features, we think, suggest the viability of an
anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically
makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep
unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the
centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying
some innate needs within us.
In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the
human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no
hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive"
is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human
nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may
not be.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it
is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the
earth -- the rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough,
prevent those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming
much worse than they are. . . , there is [a] difference, and a very important
one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes
unconsciously" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourself, p. 83] If
human nature is so bad, then
giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice
and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
Today, however, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very
little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature,"
which is determined by our genes. These claims have been leapt upon by
the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for
this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in
power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and
"scientific" basis to rationalise that power. Like the social Darwinism
that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant
ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that
scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and
"natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are
transferred back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that
the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are
eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the
status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who
take this sleight-of-hand seriously.
This sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class
has always claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature,"
and hence supported doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to
justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin,
etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now,
of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human
nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific
priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One
thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it
is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the
moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist.
The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming
that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to
human nature, even though all past systems did not.
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the
same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may
be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live
in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists
working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on
cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle
within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant
political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive
individualism) is pure coincidence, of course. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British Social
Darwinism projected onto nature and human life.
No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a human
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human
beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be
"perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free.
Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who
are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs,
thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by
reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties,
or community and workplace assemblies.
Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- people
who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority,
people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of
hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such
claims about human perfection. We recognise that vesting power in the
hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not
perfect and need to be accountable to others.
It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" man or
woman is often raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit
real anarchism and justify the retention of hierarchical authority,
specifically in capitalist relations of production. However, a moment's
reflection will show that their "objection" discredits their own claim to
be anarchists for they explicitly assume an anarchist society without
anarchists! Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still
needed authority and statism would soon become authoritarian and statist
(i.e. non-anarchist) again.
This is because even if the government were overthrown tomorrow, the same
system would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barret, Objections to Anarchism].
In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have
freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that
command-and-obedience relations are necessary. The implicit assumption in
the idea of a "new" anarchist person is that freedom will be given, not
taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring
"perfect" people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for
self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society.
Anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary, because
the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity,
but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.
"If, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could
be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is
true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the
other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves
get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny --- the government -- then
indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished" [Ibid.].
We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we
know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people
are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All
aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain
people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, Fabians or Objectivists, it
is assumed that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that
these people should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by
fine, flowing rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes
with which the ideologues attempt to dull people's critical thought by
telling them want they want to hear.
It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural"
elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an
"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great
mass of "second-handers" or who will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown
"ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody reading an elitist text will
consider him or herself to be part of the "select few." It's "natural" in
an elitist society to consider elites to be natural and yourself a
potential member of one!
Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which
has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes
since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This ideology
merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content.
During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being
adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that
human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need
"direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary
mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people
are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a
carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.
In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or
cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can
say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial
look at history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers of
those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if this
intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this
is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy
and the conformity produced by authority. (See also
section B.1 for more on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black points
outs:
When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it
being given to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. Only
self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and distorting
effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few examples
of such self-liberation prove that most people, once considered incapable
of freedom, are more than up for the task.
Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their
authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves from the
debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in the words
of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on our knees."
As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the
loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do
so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged.
This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over his
economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping
her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides."
The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful
experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution, To
quote Rousseau:
No, and this is for two reasons. Terrorism means either targeting or not
worrying about killing innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be
created by ordinary people. One does not convince people of one's ideas by
blowing them up. Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One
cannot blow up a social relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the
actions of an elite few destroying rulers on behalf of the majority.
For so long as people feel the need for rulers, hierarchy will exist (see
section A.2.16 for more on this). As we have stressed earlier, freedom
cannot be given, only taken.
Moreover anarchists are not against individuals but the institutions and
social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power over
others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist revolution
is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin pointed out, "we do not want the death of men but the abolition of positions and things" [The Lullers].
How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? Partly this
is because the state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are
not anarchists as anarchists. For example, the German Bader-Meinhoff
gang were often called "anarchists" despite their self-proclaimed
Marxist-Leninism. Smears, unfortunately, work. But the main reason for
the association of terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda
by deed" period in the anarchist movement.
This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1890 -- was marked by a small number
of individual anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class
(royalty, politicians and so forth). This was done for two reasons:
firstly, in revenge for the 20,000-plus deaths due to the French state's
brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which many anarchists were
killed (propaganda by the deed began and was most frequent in France); and
secondly, as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their
oppressors could be defeated.
It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support this
tactic, which in any case was a failure, as it gave the state an excuse to
clamp down on both the anarchist and labour movements as well as giving the
media a chance to associate anarchism with mindless violence, thus
alienating much of the population from the movement.
In addition, the assumption behind propaganda by the deed, i.e. that everyone
was waiting for a chance to rebel, was false. In fact, people are products
of the system in which they live; hence they accepted most of the myths
used to keep that system going. With the failure of propaganda by deed,
anarchists turned back to what most of the movement had been doing
anyway: encouraging the class struggle and the process of self-liberation.
This turn back to the roots of anarchism can be seen from the rise in
anarchosyndicalist unions after 1890 (see
section A.5.3 ).
Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by deed,
few would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination under all
circumstances. Bombing a village because there might be an enemy in it is
terrorism, whereas taking out a murdering dictator is defence at best and
revenge at worst. As anarchists have long pointed out, if by terrorism it is
meant "killing innocent people," then the state is the greatest terrorist
of them all. If the people committing "acts of terror" are really anarchists,
they would do everything possible to avoid harming innocent people and never
use the statist line that "collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable.
So, to summarise. Terrorism has been used by anarchists. It has also been
used by many other political, social and religious groups and parties. For
example, Christians, Marxists, Hindus, Nationalists, Republicans, Mohammedans,
Sikhs, Marxists, Fascists, Jews and Patriots have all committed acts of
terrorism. Few of these movements or ideas have been labelled as "terrorist
by nature" - which shows anarchism`s threat to the status quo. There is
nothing more likely to discredit and marginalise an idea than for malicious
and/or ill-informed persons to portray those who believe and practice it
as "mad bombers" with no opinions or ideals at all, just an insane urge
to destroy.
Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism
as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of
anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that in our case
it is necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time and time again.
So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been
anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been
terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised that
social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of existence.
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?
"[t]he abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official"[quoted by
Malatesta, in Anarchy, p. 50]
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
"the very fact . . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being
different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait."
[Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 393]
"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a collective development -- which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free." [Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism]
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
"[t]o get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to
co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose
that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.
"capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation or union
may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do
so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over" [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, p. 53].
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?
"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will there be no
longer any difference in the talents and degree of application of the
various individuals? There will be a difference, not so many as exist
today, perhaps, but there will always be differences. Of that there
can be no doubt. This is a proverbial truth which will probably never
cease to be true -- that no tree ever brings forth two leaves that are
exactly identical. How much more will this be true of men, men being
much more complicated creatures than leaves. But such diversity, far
from constituting an affliction is. . . one of the assets of mankind.
Thanks to it, the human race is a collective whole wherein each human
being complements the rest and has need of them; so that this infinite
variation in human beings is the very cause and chief basis of their
solidarity -- an important argument in favour of equality"
[Integral Education]
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I want to appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured only when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people
around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other
people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a
question of my own contentment, only of my own self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ."
[Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner magazine quoted by
Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the legends, pp. 133-4]
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept
with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation
with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at
the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates
now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly
successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and
at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also
good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health
and to liking one another." [No Contest: The Case Against
Competition, p. 7]
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
"history tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual] gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts"
[Red Emma Speaks, p. 142].
A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?
A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No
more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen,
each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [The General
Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6]
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will have
to take political action, including politically disobedient action action
if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the
political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing
democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the
right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent,
or where necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political
Obligation, p. 162]
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it
is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of
the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing
something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should
feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such adaptation
on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal,
voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to
prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy.
It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op.
Cit.,
p. 100]
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced
that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice
his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should
support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [Life and Ideas,
p. 132]
A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
"[i]n order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority
dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline
to vote on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially
amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in
American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of the
dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the
decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing
expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance
with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings--so
that a 'decision' could be made. . . . '[C]onsensus' was ultimately achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as
participants in the process.
A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative
and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . .
[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to
individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society
or the collectivity - and the State or government which claims to
represent it - if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of
individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all
thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being
individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or
become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither
the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the
resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who
make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the
relationship between society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question
of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving
all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of
replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a
key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the
oppression of everyone else . . . " [Anarchy, pp. 36-37]
A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?
Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; but she is grossly
mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As
soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker.
A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid,
monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid, and
monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping
cretinisation all around us than even such significant moronising
mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all
their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by the family in the
beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated to hierarchy and
psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that
their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias.
Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they
start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into
politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from
people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in
everything. They're used to it" [The Abolition of Work].
"when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve
only their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves to reason
about freedom" [quoted by Noam Chomsky, Red and Black
Revolution, issue 2].
A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?