Enemies of the State
by DAVE COULL
The thoughtful student of history learns to take nothing for
granted. Received "wisdom" is there to be questioned.
Much of what has passed for "history" concerns the activities
of kings and lords, and, later, those of professional politicians;
much of what has passed for "history" is about the ruling
class - about "statesmen". Much history is about states
; and the more that we learn about the history of states, the
less loveable the state as an institution seems. There have been
many statesmen/politicians who claimed to want to minimise the
state. But has there been a historical movement which has sought
the complete abolition of all states, both existing and potential,
everywhere ? Has there been more than one such movement? Whether
singular or plural, how should we describe such a phenomenon?
Finally, does such a movement have a future? The intention of
this essay is to seek to show that there has indeed been such
a movement; that there still is such a movement; that "movement"
- singular, not plural - is the appropriate way to describe this
phenomenon; that those who are actively involved in this movement
refer to it as "the anarchist movement"; and that the
confidence with which this movement regards its future is not
totally without foundation.
You can find movements with anti-state aspects to them in many
different periods of history and in many different cultures: for
instance, in ancient Greece, in Taoism, in the history of Buddhism,
in early Christianity and in Christian "heresies" of
the Middle Ages and 'The English Revolution'; but fully fledged
anarchism as a thorough-going alternative world view involving
complete rejection of all existing and all possible states first
appears in the Nineteenth Century, and has a continuing existence
from then on.
The English philosopher William Godwin put forward an anarchist
viewpoint in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its
Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (1793) but in Godwin's
day the word "anarchist" only had a pejorative meaning.
Godwin's son-in-law, the poet Shelley, also advanced what would
now be considered anarchistic views, yet shied away from the self-description
"anarchist". "The word anarchy comes from the Greek
and its literal meaning is without government : the condition
of a people who live without a constituted authority, without
government."1 In
the time of Godwin and of Shelley, it was assumed that such a
"condition" would automatically be equivalent to chaos.
The first personwho actually said "I am an anarchist"
was the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
in 1840. " 'I understand, you are being satirical at the
expense of government.' Not in the least. I have just given you
my considered and serious profession of faith. Although I am a
strong supporter of order, I am in the fullest sense of the term
an anarchist."2 In
a great tirade expressing the anarchist attitude towards the state,
Proudhon fumed "To be governed means that at every move,operation
or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census,
taxed, stamped,priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorised,
recommended, admonished, reformed.....exploited, monopolised,
extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name
of public utility and the general good." 3
As well as being against the state in all its forms, Proudhon
was (like all anarchists) against capitalism. His most famous
saying was "property is theft".By this Proudhon meant
property in a capitalistic sense. Like most anarchists ,he did
not oppose all private possessions, but only those which were
necessarily exploitative of other people. It was okay to own a
plough; but to own the factory which produces ploughs was to be
a capitalist. To begin with, Karl Marx was a fan of Proudhon,
hailing him as "the proletariat become conscious of itself";but
later they quarrelled, and Marx called Proudhon "petit bourgeois".
This curious change from "proletarian" to "petit
bourgeois" had nothing to do with class analysis, and everything
to do with the fact that Proudhon opposed Marx on the question
of the state ! "The communists in general are under a strange
illusion: fanatics of state power, they claim that they can use
the state authority to ensure, by methods of restitution, the
well being of the workers who created the collective wealth. As
if the individual came into existence after society, and not society
after the individual." 4
Once Proudhon had breached the taboo on the word "anarchist",
many other libertarian-minded people in and around the fledgling
socialist and working class movements also started to describe
themselves as such. These people were not just philosophers, but
men (and women) of action. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta,
and many thousands of less well-known anarchists would all see
the insides of various states' jails.
Proudhon expressed some unpleasant prejudices which would be
unacceptable today; so did Bakunin. But then, Karl Marx's son-in-law
Paul Lafargue, who was one-sixteenth Afro-Cuban, had to put up
with constantly being called "nigger" and "gorilla"
by Marx. 5 When Lafargue
showed some interest in Proudhon's, rather than Marx's, ideas,
Marx commented on the need to "beat some sense into that
thick Creole skull of his".6
To anarchists, the failings of supposedly "great" anarchists
are merely a source of amusement; while to Marxists, criticism
of the great prophets can undermine faith in their religion! Like
everyone else, anarchists are the imperfect products of this society;
however, as Martha Ackelsberg points out : "Along with contemporary
feminists, anarchists insist that those who are defined by others
have great difficulty defining themselves". 7
One of the most misunderstood of anarchist writers is the arch-individualist
Max Stirner. Here is Max Nettlau on Stirner : "I have elsewhere
published some notes to support my judgement of Max Stirner (in
Vorfrühling der Anarchie pp. 169-173).His thinking, in substance,
was eminently socialist. He wanted the social revolution, but,
since he was sincerely anarchist, his so-called 'egoism' represented
the protection,the defence which he considered it was necessary
to adopt against authoritarian socialism and any statism that
the authoritarians might infuse into socialism. His 'egoism' is
individual initiative. His 'Verein' is the free association which
accomplishes a purpose but which is not converted into an organisation
or society. His method is eminently disobedience, the individual
and collective negation of authority, and a voluntary association
according to what a situation may need. It is the free life as
against the life which is controlled and ordered by the usurpers
of property and authority." 8
Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" is an anarchist classic,
but Stirner himself, while certainly part of the movement, was
not a central player. In contrast, Mikhail Bakunin became a formidable
opponent both of all existing states and of the Marxist alternative
to them. He led the opposition to Karl Marx in the International
Working Men's Association, and, with the other anarchists, was
expelled from the International as a result. Very much the man
of action, Bakunin only wrote in response to things that other
people said, and he wrote articles or pamphlets, not books; yet
long after his death, Bakunin's writings would influence the development
of the anarchist movements in Spain and South America; and during
the resurgence of interest in anarchism of the 1960s, Bakunin
was the most influential thinker. However, we must again stress
that anarchists are not Bakuninists (as we can be sure Bakunin
would have been the first to agree).
Bakunin's attitude towards the state was : "The State denotes
violence, oppression, exploitation, and injustice raised into
a system and made into the cornerstone of the existence of any
society. The State never had and never will have any morality.
Its morality and only justice is the supreme interest of self-preservation
and almighty power - an interest before which all humanity has
to kneel in worship. The State is the complete negation of humanity,
a double negation: the opposite of human freedom and justice,
and the violent breach of the universal solidarity of the human
race." 9 Bakunin's
alternative to the state was libertarian socialism, which for
him was synonymous with anarchy : "Freedom without Socialism
is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery
and brutality". 10
Another Russian who had considerable influence on the anarchist
movement was Pyotr Kropotkin. As well as being a revolutionary
anarchist, Kropotkin was a geographer/environmental scientist.
"It was Darwin himself, said Kropotkin, who had shown that
'sociability' conferred an important evolutionary advantage. Therefore
Thomas Huxley's insistence that mankind must struggle against
a harsh,competitive 'law of nature' was unnecessary. To Kropotkin,
it was social co-operation that gave a species its competitive
edge. As he grew older, Kropotkin became an anarchist-nihilist,
doing everything he could to undermine a social system he saw
as unjust, inhumane and 'unnatural'." 11
After spells in Russian and French prisons, Kropotkin moved to
London in 1886, where he helped set up the Freedom Press Group,
which still exists today. A century after being set up by Kropotkin,
Freedom Press republished his essay on The State , which concludes
:
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local
life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing
with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace
revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably
at the end of this development there is.....death! Or the destruction
of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centres
on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual
and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with
you !" 12
Despite having seen that the State was the bringer of war, Kropotkin
was disastrously wrong about the First World War, in effect supporting
the allies against Germany, and allowing the nationalistic press
in both Britain and France to crow "even the anarchists say
our cause is just". Yet in fact the vast majority of anarchists
disagreed with Kropotkin and opposed the war. Prominent amongst
opponents of the war was Errico Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist.
Having fled South America with most of the governments of that
continent pursuing him, Malatesta spent some years in London,
where he met Kropotkin. During sixty years as an active anarchist,
Malatesta wrote many articles and pamphlets. Unlike Kropotkin,
between earning his living as an electrician and being involved
in revolutionary activity, Malatesta never had time to write a
book; yet nobody has ever had more influence on the international
anarchist movement. "Uniting his theory and action with rare
consistency, he combined idealism with common sense, philosophical
rigour
with practical experience." 13
Since we are still living in a world of states, by definition,
there has never been a successful anarchist revolution. But four
years after Malatesta's death came one of the closest things to
it, the Catalan Revolution of 1936. Here is George Orwell's 'Homage
to Catalonia' : "I had come to Spain with some notion of
writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost
immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed
the only conceivable thing to do.The Anarchists were still in
virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was in full swing".
14 Spain is one of a handful
of countries (so far) where anarchism achieved the status of a
mass movement, through the FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica)
and the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT (Confederación Nacional
del Trabajo). Here is a report of the CNT congress of 1936 : "Tolerance
of diversity was one of the keynotes of the Congress. Every attempt
was made to incorporate the many shades of anarchist opinion,
from the collectivist to the individualist. It was recognised
that the communes would take on many different forms, and opponents
of industrial technology and advocates of nudism would be free
to create their own" 15
This spirit of tolerance of diversity amongst anarchists continues
to this day, as those of us who attended the Glasgow Anarchist
Summer Schools of 1993 and 1996 can testify.
While most emphatically not claiming any anarchist equivalent
of "apostolic succession", it is a fact that this writer
first came in contact with active anarchists in 1963, and came
to know such veterans as Tom Brown and Albert Meltzer quite well;
they knew Emma Goldman, Emma knew Malatesta, Malatesta knew Kropotkin,
Kropotkin knew Bakunin, and Bakunin knew Proudhon; so the historical
continuity of the anarchist movement is complete. Some of those
who organised the campaign of non-payment of the poll tax, and
who rioted against Margaret Thatcher's "flagship policy"
in 1990, were not a "new" anarchist movement; they were
the same one ! Of course, anarchist groups and organisations come
and go; but the movement
has a continuing existence. "A libertarian organisation is
not some tool acting in obedience to orders emanating from on
high or from some central point, but rather a theater for the
implementation of mutual aid and a way of blending individual
endeavours, so as to bestow upon them, in so doing, greater social
impact. Should that organisation be permanent, ad hoc, specific
or broadly-based ? Let us answer with a statement of the obvious
: it all depends on the aim." 16
|
The anarchist movement in Scotland dates back to around 1880,
when some French refugees from the post-Paris Commune repression
settled in Glasgow, and one Frenchman set up home with a Scottish
woman with the surname MacTavish, and their flat in London Road
became the focus of the first Glasgow Anarchist Group. While we
can speak of "the anarchist movement in Scotland" or
"the anarchist movement in Argentina", the movement
has from its very beginnings always been consciously and deliberately
internationalist. Sometimes communication has been difficult,
but at all times anarchists have seen themselves as being part
of one movement. Today, anarchists are organising internationally
via the internet, through various groupings such as the Anarchy-List
(open to absolutely anyone) and the Organise-List (not quite so
open). The 1997 speaking tour of many European cities (including
Dundee), by the black American revolutionary anarchist Lorenzo
Komboa Ervin, was arranged through the Organise-List.
Recently, there has been some discussion on "History of
Anarchism" on the Anarchy-List. There was general agreement
that Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible is the best history
of anarchism - "far better than Woodcock's Anarchism , and
better referenced, too"; and more up to date than, and certainly
easier to read than, Max Nettlau's monumental 9-volume History
of Anarchism ! Marshall's book is "an excellent resource
- until such time as activists can write their own history - which
may be easier with the net". 17
Another recent discussion on the Anarchy-List, involving people
from many countries, has concerned the American anarcho-socialist
Noam Chomsky's ideas on "expanding the floor of the cage".
18 We know the welfare
state is a cage; but removing the bars while we are weak just
invites the capitalist wolves to dinner. We should make living
space for ourselves by "expanding the floor of the cage",
until such time as we are strong enough to tear down the bars
and deal with the wolves. Some anarchists agree with Chomsky;
many disagree; and some just dislike Chomsky because he has become
too prominent.
But, it may be objected, so far we have only considered "left-wing"
or socialistic anarchists. Even arch-individualists like Stirner
turn out to be in favour of solidarity and mutual aid. What about
other forms of anarchism ?
What other forms of anarchism ? Oh, there are many variations,
but,
essentially, we have now described the historical anarchist
movement - rebels
who are opposed to the state and to all forms of authority,
including the authority
of the capitalist boss.
What, it may be objected, about "anarcho-capitalists"
like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard ? The answer is that they
are not anarchists. Their ideas are really those of the so-called
minimal state - a state which always turns out, on closer examination,
to be not-so-minimal-after-all . Peter Marshall says "Anarcho-capitalism
overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist
anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would
accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp."
19 It should be added
that anarchists throughout the world, whether they call themselves
individualist-anarchists, anarchist-communists, anarcho-syndicalists,
or just plain anarchists, are virtually unanimous in regarding
the so-called anarcho-capitalists, not as friend or allies, not
as fellow travellers along the road to anarchy, but as capitalists
first, foremost, and always, and therefore as the sworn enemies
of anarchy. The "anarcho"-capitalists' obsession with
protection of property rights means that they are prepared to
defend the legalistic "rights" of the rich, so they
have to think in terms of "law and order"; they have
to come up with some means of defending the indefensible, and
essentially that means the state. Their "minimal state"
would lock up the true anarchists who would be seeking to take
the opportunity of a weak state to expropriate the capitalistic
property of the rich. The so-called "anarcho"-capitalists
are latter-day frauds and charlatans who pretend to some spurious
connection with historical anarchism in order to give a false
impression of being libertarians who oppose the state. Financially,
the "anarcho"-capitalists are quite rich, especially
in the USA, and can well afford to spread their misrepresentations
; but in terms of numbers, they are insignificant.The anarchist
movement has historically shown itself capable of becoming, in
some countries, during favourable circumstances, a mass movement;
that could never be said about the "anarcho"-capitalists.
This brief look at the history of anarchism shows that a movement
of principled opposition to the State - to all states, and to
all possible states - first appeared in the Nineteenth Century.
Though there were many religious and other movements with anti-state
aspects to them in earlier centuries, these can be seen as preludes
to anarchism. Since its beginning, the anarchist movement has
been, as well as anti-State, also anti-capitalist ; indeed , anti-
all forms of authority ; and since its beginning the movement
has been internationalist.
There are many different groups and factions within the anarchist
movement - sometimes it can seem there are as many anarchisms
as there are anarchists - but they all consider themselves to
be part of one movement. "Movement" is also the correct
term for non-anarchists to use, because, even if there might appear
to be little actual "motion" for considerable periods
of time, nevertheless, the word fits better than any other. The
anarchist movement is not just a "school" of philosophical
or political thought, but the sum of all those who actively seek,
individually and collectively, to put that thought into practice.
Nor is the anarchist movement a political "party" in
the sense that the SNP or the Liberal Democrats are parties, because
it does not seek governmental power, it does not have leaders,
and it does not have a manifesto.
As to the future, with the failure of Marxist communism (as
predicted by Bakunin as long ago as 1870), the greatest challenge
to the untrammelled power of the capitalistic states comes from
the anarchist movement. Anarchists are constantly adapting to
changing circumstances, have established a formidable intellectual
and organisational presence on the internet, and are the fiercest
opponents of all attempts to control the net. The new International
which is evolving consists not just of talk, but of action too,
for it consists of activists involved in a wide variety of struggles.
While a census is of course quite impossible (one hundred per
cent non-co-operation guaranteed) there are probably more anarchists
world-wide today than at any previous time in history. In short,
people in the anarchist movement feel that they have some reasons
for looking to the future with a certain amount of confidence.
Anarchists are proud of the fact that, at all times, in all countries,
they are "enemies of the state" . So far as they are
concerned , history most definitely remains (to quote the title
of a 1990s Class War pamphlet) "Unfinished Business"
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackelsberg, Martha
Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation
of Women
Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991.
Bakunin, Michael (ed. G.P. Maximoff)
The Political Philosophy of Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism
New York : Free Press, 1953.
Barsamian, David
"Expanding the Floor of the Cage: An Interview with Noam
Chomsky"
Z Mag (March 97)
Boston : Z Magazine, 1997.
Godwin, William
An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness
London : G.G. & J. Priestley, 1793.
Goldman, Emma
Anarchism and Other Essays
New York : Dover, 1969.
Guerin, Daniel
Anarchism : From Theory to Practice
New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970.
Hyams, Edward
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works
London : John Murray, 1979.
Kropotkin, Peter
The State : Its Historic Role
London : Freedom Press, 1987.
Malatesta, Errico
Anarchy
London : Freedom Press, 1974.
Marshall, Peter
Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism
London : Fontana Press, 1993.
Mehring, Franz
Karl Marx : The Story of His Life
London : Allen & Unwin, 1951.
Meltzer, Albert
The Anarchists in London, 1935-1955
Sanday, Orkney : Cienfuegos Press, 1976.
Milner, Richard
The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity's Search for its
Origins
New York, Oxford : Facts on File, 1990.
Nettlau, Max
A Short History of Anarchism
London : Freedom Press, 1996.
Orwell, George
Homage to Catalonia
London : Secker & Warburg, 1967.
Payne, Robert
Marx
London : W.H. Allen, 1968.
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (ed. Stewart Edwards, trans. Elizabeth
Fraser)
Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
London : Macmillan, 1969.
Rothbard, Murray N.
For a New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto
New York : Collier, 1978.
Skirda, Alexandre
Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective :
Les Anarchistes et L'Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours
Paris : Skirda, 1987.
Stirner, Max (trans. Steven T. Byington)
The Ego and its Own
London : Rebel Press, 1982.
Woodcock, George
Anarchism : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements
Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1986.
|
