File: secA4.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (1280 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 84,665 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?</h1>

Although Gerard Winstanley (<b>The New Law of Righteousness</b>, 1649) 
and William Godwin (<b>Enquiry Concerning Political Justice</b>, 1793) had begun to
unfold the philosophy of anarchism in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was
not until the second half of the 19th century that anarchism emerged as a
coherent theory with a systematic, developed programme. This work was
mainly started by four people -- a German, <b><i>Max Stirner</i></b> (1806-1856), a
Frenchman, <b><i>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</i></b> (1809-1865), and two Russians,
<b><i>Michael Bakunin</i></b> (1814-1876) and <b><i>Peter Kropotkin</i></b> (1842-1921). They took
the ideas in common circulation within sections of the working population
and expressed them in written form.
</p><p>
Born in the atmosphere of German romantic philosophy, Stirner's anarchism
(set forth in <b>The Ego and Its Own</b>) was an extreme form of individualism,
or <b>egoism</b>, which placed the unique individual above all else -- state,
property, law or duty. His ideas remain a cornerstone of anarchism. 
Stirner attacked both capitalism and state socialism, laying the
foundations of both social and individualist anarchism by his egoist
critique of capitalism and the state that supports it. In place of the state
and capitalism, Max Stirner urges the <i>"union of egoists,"</i> free
associations of unique individuals who co-operate as equals in order to
maximise their freedom and satisfy their desires (including emotional ones
for solidarity, or "intercourse" as Stirner called it). Such a union would be non-hierarchical, for, as Stirner wonders, <i>"is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as 
regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an Egoist's 
association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded together when one 
is a slave or a serf of the other?"</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 24] 
</p><p>
Individualism by definition includes no concrete programme for changing 
social conditions. This was attempted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the 
first to describe himself openly as an anarchist. His theories of 
<b>mutualism</b>, <b>federalism</b> and workers' <b>self-management</b> and <b>association</b> had a profound effect on the growth 
of anarchism as a mass movement and spelled out clearly how an 
anarchist world could function and be co-ordinated. It would be no 
exaggeration to state that Proudhon's work defined the fundamental nature 
of anarchism as both an anti-state and anti-capitalist movement and set 
of ideas. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker all claimed inspiration from his 
ideas and they are the immediate source for both social and individualist anarchism, with each thread emphasising different aspects of mutualism (for
example, social anarchists stress the associational aspect of them while 
individualist anarchists the non-capitalist market side). Proudhon's major works include <b>What is Property</b>, <b>System of Economical Contradictions</b>, <b>The Principle of Federation</b> and, and <b>The Political Capacity of the Working Classes</b>. His most detailed discussion of what mutualism would look like can be found in his <b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>. His ideas heavily
influenced both the French Labour movement and the Paris Commune of 1871.
</p><p>
Proudhon's ideas were built upon by Michael Bakunin, who humbly suggested 
that his own ideas were simply Proudhon's <i>"widely developed and pushed
right to . . . [their] final consequences."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings</b>, p. 198] However, he is doing a disservice to his own role in
developing anarchism. For Bakunin is the central figure in the development 
of modern anarchist  activism and ideas. He emphasised the importance of 
<b>collectivism,</b> </b>mass insurrection,</b> <b>revolution</b> and involvement in the
militant <b>labour movement</b> as the means of creating a free, classless society. 
Moreover, he repudiated Proudhon's sexism and added patriarchy to the list
of social evils anarchism opposes. Bakunin also emphasised the social nature 
of humanity and individuality, rejecting the abstract individualism of 
liberalism as a denial of freedom. His ideas become dominant in the 20th 
century among large sections of the radical labour movement. Indeed, many 
of his ideas are almost identical to what would later be called syndicalism
or anarcho-syndicalism. Bakunin influenced many union movements -- especially 
in Spain, where a major anarchist social revolution took place in 1936. His works include <b>Anarchy and Statism</b> (his only book), <b>God and the State</b>, 
<b>The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State</b>, and many others. <b>Bakunin 
on Anarchism</b>, edited by Sam Dolgoff is an excellent collection of his 
major writings. Brian Morris' <b>Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom</b> is an
excellent introduction to Bakunin's life and ideas.
</p><p>
Peter Kropotkin, a scientist by training, fashioned a sophisticated and  
detailed anarchist analysis of modern conditions linked to a thorough-going 
prescription for a future society -- <b>communist-anarchism</b> -- which 
continues to be the most widely-held theory among anarchists. He 
identified <b>mutual aid</b> as the best means by which individuals can develop 
and grow, pointing out that competition <b>within</b> humanity (and other 
species) was often not in the best interests of those involved. Like 
Bakunin, he stressed the importance of direct, economic, class struggle
and anarchist participation in any popular movement, particularly in
labour unions. Taking Proudhon's and Bakunin's idea of the <b>commune,</b> he
generalised their insights into a vision of how the social, economic and
personal life of a free society would function. He aimed to base anarchism 
<i>"on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent
now in society and may indicate its further evolution"</i> towards anarchy
while, at the same time, urging anarchists to <i>"promote their ideas directly
amongst the labour organisations and to induce those union to a direct
struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary
legislation."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 298 and p. 287] Like Bakunin, he was a
revolutionary and, like Bakunin, his ideas inspired those struggle for
freedom across the globe. His major works included <b>Mutual Aid</b>, <b>The 
Conquest of Bread</b>, <b>Field, Factories, and Workshops</b>, <b>Modern Science 
and Anarchism</b>, <b>Act for Yourselves</b>, <b>The State: Its Historic Role</b>, 
<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, and many others. A collection of his revolutionary 
pamphlets is available under the title <b>Anarchism</b> and is essential 
reading for anyone interested in his ideas. In Addition, Graham Purchase's <b>Evolution
and Revolution</b> and <b>Kropotkin: The Politics of Community</b> by Brain 
Morris are both excellent evaluations of his ideas and how they are 
still relevant today.
</p><p>
The various theories proposed by these "founding anarchists" are not,
however, mutually exclusive: they are interconnected in many ways, and to
some extent refer to different levels of social life. Individualism
relates closely to the conduct of our private lives: only by recognising
the uniqueness and freedom of others and forming unions with them can we
protect and maximise our own uniqueness and liberty; mutualism relates to
our general relations with others: by mutually working together and
co-operating we ensure that we do not work for others. Production under
anarchism would be collectivist, with people working together for their
own, and the common, good, and in the wider political and social world
decisions would be reached communally.
</p><p>
It should also be stressed that anarchist schools of thought are <b>not</b>
named after individual anarchists. Thus anarchists are <b>not</b> 
<i>"Bakuninists"</i>, <i>"Proudhonists"</i> or <i>"Kropotkinists"</i> (to name three
possibilities). Anarchists, to quote Malatesta, <i>"follow ideas
and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle
in a man."</i> This did not stop him calling Bakunin <i>"our great master 
and inspiration."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas</b>, p. 199 and
p. 209] Equally, not everything written by a famous anarchist 
thinker is automatically libertarian. Bakunin, for example, only 
became an anarchist in the last ten years of his life (this does 
not stop Marxists using his pre-anarchist days to attack anarchism!). 
Proudhon turned away from anarchism in the 1850s before returning
to a more anarchistic (if not strictly anarchist) position just before 
his death in 1865. Similarly, Kropotkin's or Tucker's arguments in 
favour of supporting the Allies during the First World War had nothing 
to do with anarchism. Thus to say, for example, that anarchism is flawed 
because Proudhon was a sexist pig simply does not convince anarchists. 
No one would dismiss democracy, for example, because Rousseau opinions 
on women were just as sexist as Proudhon's. As with anything, modern 
anarchists analyse the writings of previous anarchists to draw inspiration, 
but a dogma. Consequently, we reject the non-libertarian ideas of "famous"
anarchists while keeping their positive contributions to the development
of anarchist theory. We are sorry to belabour the point, but much of
Marxist "criticism" of anarchism basically involves pointing out the 
negative aspects of dead anarchist thinkers and it is best simply to
state clearly the obvious stupidity of such an approach.
</p><p>
Anarchist ideas of course did not stop developing when Kropotkin died.
Neither are they the products of just four men. Anarchism is by its very 
nature an evolving theory, with many different thinkers and activists. 
When Bakunin and Kropotkin were alive, for example, they drew aspects
of their ideas from other libertarian activists. Bakunin, for example,
built upon the practical activity of the followers of Proudhon in the
French labour movement in the 1860s. Kropotkin, while the most associated
with developing the theory communist-anarchism, was simply the most
famous expounder of the ideas that had developed after Bakunin's death 
in the libertarian wing of the First International and before he became
an anarchist. Thus anarchism is the product of tens of thousands of 
thinkers and activists across the globe, each shaping and developing 
anarchist theory to meet their needs as part of the general movement for
social change. Of the many other anarchists who could be mentioned here, 
we can mention but a few.  
</p><p>
Stirner is not the only famous anarchist to come from Germany. It also
produced a number of original anarchist thinkers. Gustav Landauer was
expelled from the Marxist Social-Democratic Party for his radical views
and soon after identified himself as an anarchist. For him, anarchy was
<i>"the expression of the liberation of man from the idols of state, the
church and capital"</i> and he fought <i>"<b>State</b> socialism, levelling from
above, bureaucracy"</i> in favour of <i>"free association and union, the
absence of authority."</i> His ideas were a combination of Proudhon's and
Kropotkin's and he saw the development of self-managed communities and
co-operatives as the means of changing society. He is most famous for
his insight that the <i>"state is a condition, a certain relationship 
among human beings, a mode of behaviour between them; we destroy it 
by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently towards
one another."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall, <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>,
p. 410 and p. 411] He took a leading part in the Munich revolution of
1919 and was murdered during its crushing by the German state. His 
book <b>For Socialism</b> is an excellent summary of his main ideas. 
</p><p>
Other notable German anarchists include Johann Most, originally a Marxist
and an elected member of the Reichstag, he saw the futility of voting
and became an anarchist after being exiled for writing against the
Kaiser and clergy. He played an important role in the American anarchist
movement, working for a time with Emma Goldman. More a propagandist 
than a great thinker, his revolutionary message inspired numerous
people to become anarchists. Then there is Rudolf Rocker, a bookbinder
by trade who played an important role in the Jewish labour movement
in the East End of London (see his autobiography, <b>The London Years</b>,
for details). He also produced the definite introduction to
<b>Anarcho-syndicalism</b> as well as analysing the Russian Revolution in
articles like <b>Anarchism and Sovietism</b> and defending the Spanish 
revolution in pamphlets like <b>The Tragedy of Spain</b>. His <b>Nationalism 
and Culture</b> is a searching analysis of human culture through the
ages, with an analysis of both political thinkers and power politics.
He dissects nationalism and explains how the nation is not the cause
but the result of the state as well as repudiating race science for
the nonsense it is.
</p><p>
In the United States Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were two of 
the  leading anarchist thinkers and activists. Goldman united Stirner's  
egoism with Kropotkin's communism into a passionate and powerful  
theory which combined the best of both. She also placed anarchism  
at the centre of feminist theory and activism as well as being an
advocate of syndicalism (see her book <b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b> 
and the collection of essays, articles and talks entitled <b>Red Emma 
Speaks</b>). Alexander Berkman, Emma's lifelong companion, produced a 
classic introduction to anarchist ideas called <b>What is Anarchism?</b> 
(also known as <b>What is Communist Anarchism?</b> and the <b>ABC of 
Anarchism</b>). Like Goldman, he supported anarchist involvement in the
labour movement was a prolific writer and speaker (the book <b>Life of
An Anarchist</b> gives an excellent selection of his best articles, books
and pamphlets). Both were involved in editing anarchist journals,
with Goldman most associated with <b>Mother Earth</b> (see <b>Anarchy! An 
Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth</b> edited by Peter Glassgold)
and Berkman <b>The Blast</b> (reprinted in full in 2005). Both journals
were closed down when the two anarchists were arrested in 1917 for
their anti-war activism.
</p><p>
In December 1919, both he and Goldman were expelled by 
the US government to Russia after the 1917 revolution had radicalised 
significant parts of the American population. There as they were 
considered too dangerous to be allowed to remain in the land of the 
free. Exactly two years later, their passports arrived to allow them
to leave Russia. The Bolshevik slaughter of the Kronstadt revolt in 
March 1921 after the civil war ended had finally convinced them that 
the Bolshevik dictatorship meant the death of the revolution there.
The Bolshevik rulers were more than happy to see the back of two 
genuine revolutionaries who stayed true to their principles. Once 
outside Russia, Berkman wrote numerous articles on the fate of the
revolution (including <b>The Russian Tragedy</b> and <b>The Kronstadt
Rebellion</b>) as well as publishing his diary in book from as <b>The 
Bolshevik Myth</b>. Goldman produced her classic work <b>My Disillusionment
in Russia</b> as well as publishing her famous autobiography <b>Living My
Life</b>. She also found time to refute Trotsky's lies about the Kronstadt
rebellion in <b>Trotsky Protests Too Much</b>.
</p><p>
As well as Berkman and Goldman, the United States also produced other
notable activists and thinkers. Voltairine de Cleyre played an important 
role in the US anarchist movement,  enriching both US and international 
anarchist theory with her articles, poems and speeches. Her work includes 
such classics as <b>Anarchism and American Traditions</b>, <b>Direct Action</b>,
<b>Sex Slavery</b> and <b>The Dominant Idea</b>. These are included, along 
with other articles and some of
her famous poems, in <b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>. These and 
other important essays
are included in <b>Exquisite Rebel</b>, another anthology of her writings, 
while Eugenia C. Delamotte's <b>Gates of Freedom</b> provides an excellent 
overview of her life and ideas as well as selections from her works.
In addition,
the book <b>Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth</b> contains
a good selection of her writings as well as other anarchists active at
the time. Also of interest is the collection of the speeches she made to
mark the state murder of the Chicago Martyrs in 1886 (see <b>the First Mayday:
The Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910</b>). Every November the 11th, except when 
illness made it impossible, she spoke in their memory. For those interested 
in the ideas of that previous generation of anarchists which the Chicago 
Martyrs represented, Albert Parsons' <b>Anarchism: Its Philosophy and 
Scientific Basis</b> is essential reading. His wife, Lucy Parsons, was
also an outstanding anarchist activist from the 1870s until her 
death in 1942 and selections of her writings and speeches can be
found in the book <b>Freedom, Equality & Solidarity</b> (edited by
Gale Ahrens).
</p><p>
Elsewhere in the Americas, Ricardo Flores Magon helped lay the ground for
the Mexican revolution of 1910 by founding the (strangely named) <b>Mexican
Liberal Party</b> in 1905 which organised two unsuccessful uprising against
the Diaz dictatorship in 1906 and 1908. Through his paper <b>Tierra y 
Libertad</b> (<i>"Land and Liberty"</i>) he influenced the developing labour movement
as well as Zapata's peasant army. He continually stressed the need to
turn the revolution into a <b>social</b> revolution which will <i>"give the lands
to the people"</i> as well as <i>"possession of the factories, mines, etc."</i> Only
this would ensure that the people <i>"will not be deceived."</i> Talking of the
Agrarians (the Zapatista army), Ricardo's brother Enrique he notes that
they <i>"are more or less inclined towards anarchism"</i> and they can work
together because both are <i>"direct actionists"</i> and <i>"they act perfectly 
revolutionary. They go after the rich, the authorities and the priestcraft"</i>
and have <i>"burnt to ashes private property deeds as well as all official
records"</i> as well as having <i>"thrown down the fences that marked private
properties."</i> Thus the anarchists <i>"propagate our principles"</i> while the
Zapatista's <i>"put them into practice."</i> [quoted by David Poole, <b>Land
and Liberty</b>, p. 17 and p. 25] Ricardo died as a political prisoner in
an American jail and is, ironically, considered a hero of the revolution 
by the Mexican state. A substantial collection of his writings are 
available in the book <b>Dreams of Freedom</b> (which includes an impressive
biographical essay which discusses his influence as well as placing his 
work in historical context).
</p><p>
Italy, with its strong and dynamic anarchist movement, has produced some  
of the best anarchist writers. Errico Malatesta spent over 50 years fighting  
for anarchism across the world and his writings are amongst the best in  
anarchist theory. For those interested in his practical and inspiring 
ideas then his short pamphlet <b>Anarchy</b> cannot be beaten. Collections of
his articles can be found in <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b> and <b>Errico Malatesta:  
His Life and Ideas</b>, both edited by Vernon Richards. A favourite writing
technique was the use of dialogues, such as <b>At the Cafe: Conversations 
on Anarchism</b>. These, using the conversations he had with non-anarchists 
as their basis, explained anarchist ideas in a clear and down to Earth 
manner. Another dialogue, <b>Fra 
Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy</b>, was translated into many languages,
with 100,000 copies printed in Italy in 1920 when the revolution Malatesta
had fought for all his life looked likely. At this time Malatesta edited
<b>Umanita Nova</b> (the first Italian daily anarchist paper, it soon gained
a circulation of 50 000) as well as writing the programme for the <b>Unione
Anarchica Italiana</b>, a national anarchist organisation of some 20 000. For
his activities during the factory occupations he was arrested at the age
of 67 along with 80 other anarchists activists. Other Italian anarchists
of note include Malatesta's friend Luigi Fabbri (sadly little of his work
has been translated into English bar <b>Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism</b>
and <b>Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism</b>) Luigi Galleani produced a  
very powerful anti-organisational anarchist-communism which proclaimed 
(in <b>The End of Anarchism?</b>) that <i>"Communism is simply the economic 
foundation by which the individual has the opportunity to regulate himself 
and carry out his functions."</i> Camillo Berneri, before being murdered by 
the Communists during the Spanish Revolution, continued the fine tradition 
of critical, practical anarchism associated with Italian anarchism. His
study of Kropotkin's federalist ideas is a classic (<b>Peter Kropotkin: 
His Federalist Ideas</b>). His daughter Marie-Louise Berneri, before her 
tragic early death, contributed to the British anarchist press (see 
her <b>Neither East Nor West: Selected Writings 1939-48</b> and <b>Journey
Through Utopia</b>).
</p><p>
In Japan, Hatta Shuzo developed Kropotkin's communist-anarchism in new
directions between the world wars. Called "true anarchism," he created
an anarchism which was a concrete alternative to the mainly peasant
country he and thousands of his comrades were active in. While rejecting
certain aspects of syndicalism, they organised workers into unions as 
well as working with the peasantry for the <i>"foundation stones on which 
to build the new society that we long for are none other than the 
awakening of the tenant farmers"</i> who <i>"account for a majority of the
population."</i> Their new society was based on decentralised communes 
which combined industry and agriculture for, as one of Hatta's comrade's 
put it, <i>"the village will cease to be a mere communist agricultural 
village and become a co-operative society which is a fusion of 
agriculture and industry."</i> Hatta rejected the idea that they sought 
to go back to an ideal past, stating that the anarchists were <i>"completely opposite 
to the medievalists. We seek to use machines as means of production 
and, indeed, hope for the invention of yet more ingenious machines."</i> 
[quoted by John Crump, <b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar
Japan</b>, p. 122-3, and p. 144] 
</p><p>
As far as individualist anarchism goes, the undoubted "pope" was Benjamin
Tucker. Tucker, in his <b>Instead of Book</b>, used his intellect and wit to 
attack all who he considered enemies of freedom (mostly capitalists, but 
also a few social anarchists as well! For example, Tucker excommunicated
Kropotkin and the other communist-anarchists from anarchism. Kropotkin 
did not return the favour). Tucker built on the such notable thinkers as 
Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews and William B.
Greene, adapting Proudhon's mutualism to the conditions of pre-capitalist
America (see Rudolf Rocker's <b>Pioneers of American Freedom</b> for details). 
Defending the worker, artisan and small-scale farmer from a state intent
on building capitalism by means of state intervention, Tucker argued that
capitalist exploitation would be abolished by creating a totally free 
non-capitalist market in which the four state monopolies used to create capitalism would be struck down by means of mutual banking and <i>"occupancy 
and use"</i> land and resource rights. Placing himself firmly in the socialist 
camp, he recognised (like Proudhon) that all non-labour income was theft
and so opposed profit, rent and interest. he translated Proudhon's <b>What
is Property</b> and <b>System of Economical Contradictions</b> as well as Bakunin's
<b>God and the State</b>. Tucker's compatriot, Joseph Labadie was an active
trade unionist as well as contributor to Tucker's paper <b>Liberty</b>. His
son, Lawrence Labadie carried the individualist-anarchist torch after 
Tucker's death, believing that <i>"that freedom in every walk of life is the greatest
possible means of elevating the human race to happier conditions."</i>
</p><p>
Undoubtedly the Russian Leo Tolstoy is the most famous writer associated 
with religious anarchism and has had the greatest impact in spreading the 
spiritual and pacifistic ideas associated with that tendency. Influencing 
such notable people as Gandhi and the <b><i>Catholic Worker Group</i></b> 
around Dorothy 
Day, Tolstoy presented a radical interpretation of Christianity which 
stressed individual responsibility and freedom above the mindless 
authoritarianism and hierarchy which marks so much of mainstream 
Christianity. Tolstoy's works, like those of that other radical libertarian 
Christian William Blake, have inspired many Christians towards a libertarian
vision of Jesus' message which has been hidden by the mainstream churches. 
Thus Christian Anarchism maintains, along with Tolstoy, that <i>"Christianity 
in its true sense puts an end to government"</i> (see, for example, Tolstoy's 
<b>The Kingdom of God is within you</b> and Peter Marshall's <b>William Blake: 
Visionary Anarchist</b>).
</p><p>
More recently, Noam Chomsky (in such works as <b>Deterring Democracy</b>, <b>Necessary Illusions</b>, <b>World Orders, Old and New</b>, <b>Rogue States</b>, <b>Hegemony or Survival</b> and many others) and Murray
Bookchin (<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, <b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, <b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>, and <b>Remaking Society</b>, among others) have kept the
social anarchist movement at the front of political theory and analysis. 
Bookchin's work has placed anarchism at the centre of green thought and
has been a constant threat to those wishing to mystify or corrupt the
movement to create an ecological society. <b>The Murray
Bookchin Reader</b> contains a representative selection of his writings.  
Sadly, a few years before his death Bookchin distanced himself from 
the anarchism he spent nearly four decades advocating (although 
he remained a libertarian socialist to the end). Chomsky's well 
documented critiques of U.S. imperialism and how the 
media operates are his most famous works, but
he has also written extensively about the anarchist tradition and its 
ideas, most famously in his essays <i>"Notes on Anarchism"</i> (in <b>For Reasons of State</b>)
and his defence of the anarchist social revolution against bourgeois 
historians in <i>"Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship"</i> (in <b>American Power
and the New Mandarins</b>). These and others of his more explicitly anarchist essays and interviews can be 
found in the collection <b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>. Other good sources 
for his anarchist ideas are <b>Radical Priorities</b>, <b>Language and 
Politics</b> and the pamphlet <b>Government in the Future</b>. Both 
<b>Understanding Power</b> and <b>The Chomsky Reader</b> are excellent
introductions to his thought.
</p><p>
Britain has also seen an important series of anarchist thinkers. Hebert
Read (probably the only anarchist to ever accept a knighthood!) wrote
several works on anarchist philosophy and theory (see his <b>Anarchy and
Order</b> compilation of essays). His anarchism flowered directly from his
aesthetic concerns and he was a committed pacifist. As well as giving
fresh insight and expression to the tradition themes of anarchism, he
contributed regularly to the anarchist press (see the collection of
articles <b>A One-Man Manifesto and other writings from Freedom Press</b>).
Another pacifist anarchist was Alex Comfort. As well as writing the <b>Joy
of Sex</b>, Comfort was an active pacifist and anarchist. He wrote 
particularly on pacifism, psychiatry and sexual politics from a 
libertarian perspective. His most famous anarchist book was <b>Authority
and Delinquency</b> and a collection of his anarchist pamphlets and 
articles was published under the title <b>Writings against Power and 
Death</b>.
</p><p>
However, the most famous and influential British anarchist must be Colin 
Ward. He became an anarchist when stationed in Glasgow during the Second
World War and came across the local anarchist group there. Once an 
anarchist, he has contributed to the anarchist press extensively. As 
well as being an editor of <b>Freedom</b>, he also edited the influential
monthly magazine <b>Anarchy</b> during the 1960s (a selection of articles
picked by Ward can be found in the book <b>A Decade of Anarchy</b>). However,
his most famous single book is <b>Anarchy in Action</b> where he has updated 
Kropotkin's <b>Mutual Aid</b> by uncovering and documenting the anarchistic 
nature of everyday life even within capitalism. His extensive writing on 
housing has emphasised the importance of collective self-help and social 
management of housing against the twin evils of privatisation and nationalisation (see, for example, his books <b>Talking Houses</b> and 
<b>Housing: An Anarchist Approach</b>). He has cast an anarchist eye on 
numerous other issues, including water use (</b>Reflected in Water: A 
Crisis of Social Responsibility</b>), transport (<b>Freedom to go: after the motor age</b>)  and the welfare state (<b>Social Policy: 
an anarchist response</b>). His
<b>Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction</b> is a good starting point for
discovering anarchism and his particular perspective on it while <b>Talking Anarchy</b> provides an excellent overview
of both his ideas and life. Lastly we must mention both Albert Meltzer and 
Nicolas Walter, both of whom contributed extensively to the anarchist press 
as well as writing two well known short introductions to anarchism 
(<b>Anarchism: Arguments for and against</b> and <b>About Anarchism</b>, respectively).
</p><p>
We could go on; there are many more writers we could mention. But 
besides these, there are the thousands of "ordinary" anarchist militants
who have never written books but whose common sense and activism have
encouraged the spirit of revolt within society and helped build the new
world in the shell of the old. As Kropotkin put it, <i>"anarchism was born
<b>among the people</b>; and it will continue to be full of life and creative 
power only as long as it remains a thing of the people."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 146]  
</p><p>
So we hope that this concentration on anarchist thinkers should not 
be taken to mean that there is some sort of division between activists 
and intellectuals in the movement. Far from it. Few anarchists are 
purely thinkers or activists. They are usually both. Kropotkin,
for example, was jailed for his activism, as was Malatesta and
Goldman. Makhno, most famous as an active participate in the
Russian Revolution, also contributed theoretical articles to 
the anarchist press during and after it. The same can be said of
Louise Michel, whose militant activities during the Paris Commune
and in building the anarchist movement in France after it did not
preclude her writing articles for the libertarian press. We are 
simply indicating key anarchists thinkers so that those interested 
can read about their ideas directly.</p>

<a name="seca41"><h2>A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
Yes. There are numerous thinkers who are close to anarchism. They
come from both the liberal and socialist traditions. While this may
be considered surprising, it is not. Anarchism has links with both
ideologies. Obviously the individualist anarchists are closest to
the liberal tradition while social anarchists are closest to the 
socialist.
</p><p>
Indeed, as Nicholas Walter put it, <i>"Anarchism can be seen as a 
development from either liberalism or socialism, or from both 
liberalism and socialism. Like liberals, anarchists want freedom;
like socialists, anarchists want equality."</i> However, <i>"anarchism 
is not just a mixture of liberalism and socialism . . . we differ
fundamentally from them."</i> [<b>About Anarchism</b>, p. 29 and p. 31] In 
this he echoes Rocker's comments in <b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>. And this 
can be a useful tool for seeing the links between anarchism and other 
theories however it must be stressed that anarchism offers an 
<b><i>anarchist</i></b> critique of both liberalism and socialism and we should
not submerge the uniqueness of anarchism into other philosophies.
</p><p>
<a href="secA4.html#seca42">Section A.4.2</a> discusses liberal thinkers who are close to anarchism,
while <a href="secA4.html#seca43">section A.4.3</a> highlights those socialists who are close to
anarchism. There are even Marxists who inject libertarian ideas into
their politics and these are discussed in <a href="secA4.html#seca44">section A.4.4</a>. And, of 
course, there are thinkers who cannot be so easily categorised and 
will be discussed here.
</p><p>
Economist David Ellerman has produced an impressive body of work arguing
for workplace democracy. Explicitly linking his ideas the early British
Ricardian socialists and Proudhon, in such works as <b>The Democratic 
Worker-Owned Firm</b> and <b>Property and Contract in Economics</b> he has 
presented both a rights based and labour-property based defence of 
self-management against capitalism. He argues that <i>"[t]oday's economic 
democrats are the <b>new abolitionists</b> trying to abolish the whole 
institution of renting people in favour of democratic self-management 
in the workplace"</i> for his <i>"critique is not new; it was developed 
in the Enlightenment doctrine of inalienable rights. It was applied 
by abolitionists against the voluntary self-enslavement contract 
and by political democrats against the voluntary contraction defence 
of non-democratic government."</i> [<b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, 
p. 210] Anyone, like anarchists, interested in producer co-operatives 
as alternatives to wage slavery will find his work of immense interest.
</p><p>
Ellerman is not the only person to stress the benefits of co-operation.
Alfie Kohn's important work on the benefits of co-operation builds upon
Kropotkin's studies of mutual aid and is, consequently, of interest to
social anarchists. In <b>No Contest: the case against competition</b> and
<b>Punished by Rewards</b>, Kohn discusses (with extensive empirical evidence)
the failings and negative impact of competition on those subject to it.
He addresses both economic and social issues in his works and shows that
competition is not what it is cracked up to be.
</p><p>
Within feminist theory, Carole Pateman is the most obvious libertarian
influenced thinker. Independently of Ellerman, Pateman has produced a
powerful argument for self-managed association in both the workplace 
and society as a whole. Building upon a libertarian analysis of 
Rousseau's arguments, her analysis of contract theory is ground 
breaking. If a theme has to be ascribed to Pateman's work it could 
be freedom and what it means to be free. For her, freedom can 
only be viewed as self-determination and, consequently, the 
absence of subordination. Consequently, she has advocated 
a participatory form of democracy from her first major work, 
<b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b> onwards. In that book,
a pioneering study of in participatory democracy, she exposed 
the limitations of liberal democratic theory, analysed the 
works of Rousseau, Mill and Cole and presented empirical 
evidence on the benefits of participation on the individuals 
involved. 
</p><p>
In the <b>Problem of Political Obligation</b>, Pateman discusses 
the "liberal" arguments on freedom and finds them wanting. 
For the liberal, a person must consent to be ruled by another 
but this opens up the "problem" that they might not consent 
and, indeed, may never have consented. Thus the liberal 
state would lack a justification. She deepens her analysis to
question why freedom should be equated to consenting to be ruled
and proposed a participatory democratic theory in which people
collectively make their own decisions (a self-assumed obligation
to your fellow citizens rather to a state). In discussing 
Kropotkin, she showed her awareness of the social anarchist
tradition to which her own theory is obviously related.
</p><p>
Pateman builds on this analysis in her <b>The Sexual Contract</b>,
where she dissects the sexism of classical liberal and democratic
theory. She analyses the weakness of what calls 'contractarian' 
theory (classical liberalism and right-wing "libertarianism") 
and shows how it leads not to free associations of self-governing 
individuals but rather social relationships based on authority, 
hierarchy and power in which a few rule the many. Her analysis
of the state, marriage and wage labour are profoundly libertarian,
showing that freedom must mean more than consenting to be ruled. 
This is the paradox of capitalist liberal, for a person is
assumed to be free in order to consent to a contract but once 
within it they face the reality subordination to another's 
decisions (see <a href="secA4.html#seca42">section A.4.2</a> for further discussion). 
</p><p>
Her ideas challenge some of Western culture's core beliefs about 
individual freedom and her critiques of the major Enlightenment 
political philosophers are powerful and convincing. Implicit is 
a critique not just of the conservative and liberal tradition, 
but of the patriarchy and hierarchy contained within the Left 
as well. As well as these works, a collection of her essays is 
available called <b>The Disorder of Women</b>.
</p><p>
Within the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement Naomi Klein shows
an awareness of libertarian ideas and her own work has a libertarian
thrust to it (we call it "so-called" as its members are internationalists, 
seeking a globalisation from below not one imposed from above by and for 
a few). She first came to attention as the author of <b>No Logo</b>, which
charts the growth of consumer capitalism, exposing the dark reality 
behind the glossy brands of capitalism and, more importantly, highlighting
the resistance to it. No distant academic, she is an active participant 
in the movement she reports on in <b>Fences and Windows</b>, a collection of 
essays on globalisation, its consequences and the wave of protests 
against it.
</p><p>
Klein's articles are well written and engaging, covering the reality of 
modern capitalism, the gap, as she puts it, <i>"between rich and power but 
also between rhetoric and reality, between what is said and what is done.
Between the promise of globalisation and its real effects."</i> She shows 
how we live in a world where the market (i.e. capital) is made "freer" 
while people suffer increased state power and repression. How an 
unelected Argentine President labels that country's popular assemblies 
<i>"antidemocratic."</i> How rhetoric about liberty is used as a tool to defend 
and increase private power (as she reminds us, <i>"always missing from 
[the globalisation] discussion is the issue of power. So many of the
debates that we have about globalisation theory are actually about 
power: who holds it, who is exercising it and who is disguising it, 
pretending it no longer matters"</i>). [<b>Fences and Windows</b>, pp 83-4
and p. 83]
</p><p>
And how people across the world are resisting. As she puts it, 
<i>"many [in the movement] are tired of being spoken for and about. 
They are demanding a more direct form of political participation."</i> 
She reports on a movement which she is part of, one which aims for a 
globalisation from below, one <i>"founded on principles of transparency, 
accountability and self-determination, one that frees people instead 
of liberating capital."</i> This means being against a <i>"corporate-driven 
globalisation . . . that is centralising power and wealth into fewer 
and fewer hands"</i> while presenting an alternative which is about 
<i>"decentralising power and building community-based decision-making 
potential -- whether through unions, neighbourhoods, farms, villages, 
anarchist collectives or aboriginal self-government."</i> All strong 
anarchist principles and, like anarchists, she wants people to manage 
their own affairs and chronicles attempts around the world to do just 
that (many of which, as Klein notes, are anarchists or influenced by 
anarchist ideas, sometimes knowing, sometimes not). [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 77, 
p. 79 and p. 16]
</p><p>
While not an anarchist, she is aware that real change comes from below, 
by the self-activity of working class people fighting for a better world.
Decentralisation of power is a key idea in the book. As she puts it, the 
<i>"goal"</i> of the social movements she describes is <i>"not to take power for 
themselves but to challenge power centralisation on principle"</i> and so 
creating <i>"a new culture of vibrant direct democracy . . . one that is
fuelled and strengthened by direct participation."</i> She does not urge the movement to invest itself with new leaders and neither does she (like 
the Left) think that electing a few leaders to make decisions for us 
equals "democracy" (<i>"the goal is not better faraway rules and rulers 
but close-up democracy on the ground"</i>). Klein, therefore, gets to the 
heart of the matter. Real social change is based on empowering the 
grassroots, <i>"the desire for self-determination, economic sustainability
and participatory democracy."</i> Given this, Klein has presented 
libertarian ideas to a wide audience. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. xxvi, 
p. xxvi-xxvii, p. 245 and p. 233]
</p><p>
Other notable libertarian thinkers include Henry D. Thoreau, 
Albert Camus, Aldous Huxley, Lewis Mumford, Lewis Mumford and 
Oscar Wilde. Thus there are numerous thinkers who approach anarchist 
conclusions and who discuss subjects of interest to libertarians. As 
Kropotkin noted a hundred years ago, these kinds of writers <i>"are full 
of ideas which show how closely anarchism is interwoven with the work 
that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement 
of man from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 300] The only change since then is that more names
can be added to the list.
</p><p>
Peter Marshall discusses the ideas of most, but not all, of the
non-anarchist libertarians we mention in this and subsequent sections
in his book history of anarchism, <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>. Clifford 
Harper's <b>Anarchy: A Graphic Guide</b> is also a useful guide for finding 
out more.</p>

<a name="seca42"><h2>A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
As noted in the <a href="secA4.html#seca41">last section</a>, there are thinkers in both the liberal and 
socialist traditions who approach anarchist theory and ideals. This 
understandable as anarchism shares certain ideas and ideals with both. 
</p><p>
However, as will become clear in sections <a href="secA4.html#seca43">A.4.3</a> 
and <a href="secA4.html#seca44">A.4.4</a>, anarchism 
shares most common ground with the socialist tradition it is a part of. 
This is because classical liberalism is a profoundly elitist tradition. 
The works of Locke and the tradition he inspired aimed to justify 
hierarchy, state and private property. As Carole Pateman notes, 
<i>"Locke's state of nature, with its father-rulers and capitalist economy,
would certainly not find favour with anarchists"</i> any more than his vision
of the social contract and the liberal state it creates. A state, which 
as Pateman recounts, in which <i>"only males who own substantial amounts of
material property are [the] politically relevant members of society"</i> and
exists <i>"precisely to preserve the property relationships of the developing
capitalist market economy, not to disturb them."</i> For the majority, the
non-propertied, they expressed <i>"tacit consent"</i> to be ruled by the few
by <i>"choosing to remain within the one's country of birth when reaching
adulthood."</i> [<b>The Problem of Political Obligation</b>, p. 141, p. 71, p. 78 
and p. 73] 
</p><p>
Thus anarchism is at odds with what can be called the pro-capitalist
liberal tradition which, flowing from Locke, builds upon his rationales
for hierarchy.  As David Ellerman notes, <i>"there is a whole liberal
tradition of apologising for non-democratic government based on 
consent -- on a voluntary social contract alienating governing rights
to a sovereign."</i> In economics, this is reflected in their support for
wage labour and the capitalist autocracy it creates for the <i>"employment
contract is the modern limited workplace version"</i> of such contracts.
[<b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, p. 210] This pro-capitalist 
liberalism essentially boils down to the liberty to pick a master or,
if you are among the lucky few, to become a master yourself. The idea
that freedom means self-determination for all at all times is alien to 
it. Rather it is based on the idea of "self-ownership," that you "own"
yourself and your rights. Consequently, you can sell (alienate) your 
rights and liberty on the market. As we discuss in <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>, in
practice this means that most people are subject to autocratic rule
for most of their waking hours (whether in work or in marriage).
</p><p>
The modern equivalent of classical liberalism is the right-wing 
"libertarian" tradition associated with Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick,
von Hayek and so forth. As they aim to reduce the state to simply the
defender to private property and enforcer of the hierarchies that
social institution creates, they can by no stretch of the imagination
be considered near anarchism. What is called "liberalism" in, say,
the United States is a more democratic liberal tradition and has,
like anarchism, little in common with the shrill pro-capitalist 
defenders of the minimum state. While they may (sometimes) be happy
to denounce the state's attacks on individual liberty, they are more
than happy to defend the "freedom" of the property owner to impose
exactly the same restrictions on those who use their land or capital.
</p><p>
Given that feudalism combined ownership and rulership, that the
governance of people living on land was an attribute of the ownership
of that land, it would be no exaggeration to say that the right-wing 
"libertarian" tradition is simply its modern (voluntary) form. It is 
no more libertarian than the feudal lords who combated the powers of 
the King in order to protect their power over their own land and serfs.
As Chomsky notes, <i>"the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable 
in the US and UK particularly . . . seem to me to reduce to advocacy 
of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real 
tyranny."</i> [<b>Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures</b>, p. 777] 
Moreover, as Benjamin Tucker noted with regards their predecessors, 
while they are happy to attack any state regulation which benefits 
the many or limits their power, they are silent on the laws (and 
regulations and "rights") which benefit the few. 
</p><p>
However there is another liberal tradition, one which is essentially
pre-capitalist which has more in common with the aspirations of 
anarchism. As Chomsky put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"These ideas [of anarchism] grow out the Enlightenment; their roots are 
in Rousseau's <b>Discourse on Inequality</b>, Humbolt's <b>The Limits of State 
Action</b>, Kant's insistence, in his defence of the French Revolution, 
that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, 
not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved . . . With 
the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated 
system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and 
extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the 
classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain 
the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led 
classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social 
life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, 
for example, from the classic work of [Wilhelm von] Humboldt, <b>The Limits 
of State Action</b>, which anticipated and perhaps inspired [John Stuart] 
Mill . . . This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its 
essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must 
be attenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of 
industrial capitalism."</i> [<i>"Notes on Anarchism"</i>, <b>For Reasons of State</b>, 
p. 156]
</blockquote></p><p>
Chomsky discusses this in more detail in his essay <i>"Language and 
Freedom"</i> (contained in both <b>Reason of State</b> and <b>The Chomsky 
Reader</b>). As well as Humbolt and Mill, such "pre-capitalist" 
liberals would include such radicals as Thomas Paine, who 
envisioned a society based on artisan and small farmers (i.e. 
a pre-capitalist economy) with a rough level of social equality 
and, of course, a minimal government. His ideas inspired working 
class radicals across the world and, as E.P. Thompson reminds us,
Paine's <b>Rights of Man</b> was <i>"a foundation-text of the English [and
Scottish] working-class movement."</i> While his ideas on government 
are <i>"close to a theory of anarchism,"</i> his reform proposals <i>"set
a source towards the social legislation of the twentieth century."</i>
[<b>The Making of the English Working Class</b>, p. 99, p. 101 and p. 102]
His combination of concern for liberty and social justice places him
close to anarchism.
</p><p>
Then there is Adam Smith. While the right (particularly elements of 
the "libertarian" right) claim him as a classic liberal, his ideas 
are more complex than that. For example, as Noam Chomsky points out, 
Smith advocated the free market because <i>"it would lead to perfect 
equality, equality of condition, not just equality of opportunity."</i> 
[<b>Class Warfare</b>, p. 124] As Smith himself put it, <i>"in a society 
where things were left to follow their natural course, where there 
is perfect liberty"</i> it would mean that <i>"advantages would soon return 
to the level of other employments"</i> and so <i>"the different employments of 
labour and stock must . . . be either perfectly equal or continually
tending to equality."</i> Nor did he oppose state intervention or state
aid for the working classes. For example, he advocated public 
education to counter the negative effects of the division of labour.
Moreover, he was against state intervention because whenever <i>"a 
legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and
their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When regulation,
therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable;
but it is otherwise when in favour of the masters."</i> He notes how <i>"the
law"</i> would <i>"punish"</i> workers' combinations <i>"very severely"</i> while
ignoring the masters' combinations (<i>"if it dealt impartially, it 
would treat the masters in the same manner"</i>). [<b>The Wealth of Nations</b>,
p. 88 and p. 129] Thus state intervention was to be opposed in general 
because the state was run by the few for the few, which would make state 
intervention benefit the few, not the many. It is doubtful Smith would
have left his ideas on laissez-faire unchanged if he had lived to see
the development of corporate capitalism. It is this critical edge of 
Smith's work are conveniently ignored by those claiming him for the
classical liberal tradition.
</p><p>
Smith, argues Chomsky, was <i>"a pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist 
person with roots in the Enlightenment."</i> Yes, he argues, <i>"the classical 
liberals, the [Thomas] Jeffersons and the Smiths, were opposing the 
concentrations of power that they saw around them . . . They didn't 
see other forms of concentration of power which only developed later. 
When they did see them, they didn't like them. Jefferson was a good 
example. He was strongly opposed to the concentrations of power that 
he saw developing, and warned that the banking institutions and the 
industrial corporations which were barely coming into existence in 
his day would destroy the achievements of the Revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 125]
</p><p>
As Murray Bookchin notes, Jefferson <i>"is most clearly identified in 
the early history of the United States with the political demands 
and interests of the independent farmer-proprietor."</i> [<b>The Third 
Revolution</b>, vol. 1, pp. 188-9] In other words, with pre-capitalist
economic forms. We also find Jefferson contrasting the <i>"aristocrats"</i> 
and the <i>"democrats."</i> The former are <i>"those who fear and distrust the
people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands
of the higher classes."</i> The democrats <i>"identify with the people,
have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest
& safe . . . depository of the public interest,"</i> if not always
<i>"the most wise."</i> [quoted by Chomsky, <b>Powers and Prospects</b>, 
p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the <i>"aristocrats"</i> were <i>"the advocates 
of the rising capitalist state, which Jefferson regarded with 
dismay, recognising the obvious contradiction between democracy 
and the capitalism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 88] Claudio J. Katz's essay
on <i>"Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism"</i> usefully explores
these issues. [<b>American Journal of Political Science</b>, vol. 47,
No. 1 (Jan, 2003), pp. 1-17]
</p><p>
Jefferson even went so far as to argue that <i>"a little rebellion now 
and then is a good thing . . . It is a medicine necessary for the 
sound health of government . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed 
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."</i> [quoted by 
Howard Zinn, <b>A People's History of the United States</b>, p. 94] However,
his libertarian credentials are damaged by him being both a President
of the United States and a slave owner but compared to the other 
"founding fathers" of the American state, his liberalism is of a 
democratic form. As Chomsky reminds us, <i>"all the Founding Fathers 
hated democracy -- Thomas Jefferson was a partial exception, but 
only partial."</i> The American state, as a classical liberal state,
was designed (to quote James Madison) <i>"to protect the minority of
the opulent from the majority."</i> Or, to repeat John Jay's principle,
the <i>"people who own the country ought to govern it."</i> [<b>Understanding 
Power</b>, p. 315] If American is a (formally) democracy rather than an
oligarchy, it is in spite of rather than because of classical liberalism.
</p><p>
Then there is John Stuart Mill who recognised the fundamental contradiction 
in classical liberalism. How can an ideology which proclaims itself for 
individual liberty support institutions which systematically nullify that 
liberty in practice? For this reason Mill attacked patriarchal marriage, 
arguing that marriage must be a voluntary association between equals, 
with <i>"sympathy in equality . . . living together in love, without power
on one side or obedience on the other."</i> Rejecting the idea that there
had to be <i>"an absolute master"</i> in any association, he pointed out that
in <i>"partnership in business . . . it is not found or thought necessary
to enact that in every partnership, one partner shall have entire 
control over the concern, and the others shall be bound to obey his rule."</i>
[<i>"The Subjection of Women,"</i> quoted by Susan L. Brown, <b>The Politics of
Individualism</b>, pp. 45-6] 
</p><p>
Yet his own example showed the flaw in liberal support for capitalism, 
for the employee <b><i>is</i></b> subject to a relationship in which power accrues 
to one party and obedience to another. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he 
argued that the <i>"form of association . . . which is mankind continue 
to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that 
which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without 
a voice in management, but the association of the labourers themselves 
on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital . . . and working
under managers elected and removable by themselves."</i> [<b>The Principles
of Political Economy</b>, p. 147] Autocratic management during working
hours is hardly compatible with Mill's maxim that <i>"[o]ver himself, over 
his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."</i> Mill's opposition
to centralised government and wage slavery brought his ideas closer 
to anarchism than most liberals, as did his comment that the <i>"social 
principle of the future"</i> was <i>"how to unite the greatest individual 
liberty of action with a common ownership in the raw materials of 
the globe, and equal participation of all in the benefits of combined 
labour."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall, <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, 
p. 164] His defence of individuality, <b>On Liberty</b>, is a classic, 
if flawed, work and his analysis of socialist tendencies (<i>"Chapters 
on Socialism"</i>) is worth reading for its evaluation of their pros and 
cons from a (democratic) liberal perspective. 
</p><p>
Like Proudhon, Mill was a forerunner of modern-day market socialism 
and a firm supporter of decentralisation and social participation.
This, argues Chomsky, is unsurprising for pre-capitalist classical 
liberal thought <i>"is opposed to state intervention in social life, 
as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for 
liberty, diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, 
capitalist relations of production, wage labour, competitiveness, 
the ideology of 'possessive individualism' -- all must be regarded 
as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be 
regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment."</i> 
[<i>"Notes on Anarchism"</i>, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 157]
</p><p>
Thus anarchism shares commonality with pre-capitalist and democratic
liberal forms. The hopes of these liberals were shattered with the
development of capitalism. To quote Rudolf Rocker's analysis:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Liberalism and Democracy were pre-eminently political concepts, and 
since the great majority of the original adherents of both maintained 
the right of ownership in the old sense, these had to renounce them 
both when economic development took a course which could not be 
practically reconciled with the original principles of Democracy, 
and still less with those of Liberalism. Democracy, with its motto 
of 'all citizens equal before the law,' and Liberalism with its 'right 
of man over his own person,' both shipwrecked on the realities of the 
capitalist economic form. So long as millions of human beings in every 
country had to sell their labour-power to a small minority of owners, 
and to sink into the most wretched misery if they could find no buyers, 
the so-called 'equality before the law' remains merely a pious fraud, 
since the laws are made by those who find themselves in possession of 
the social wealth. But in the same way there can also be no talk of 
a 'right over one's own person,' for that right ends when one is 
compelled to submit to the economic dictation of another if he does
not want to starve."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 10]
</blockquote></p>

<a name="seca43"><h2>A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchism developed in response to the development of capitalism
and it is in the non-anarchist socialist tradition which anarchism 
finds most fellow travellers. 
</p><p>
The earliest British socialists (the so-called Ricardian Socialists) 
following in the wake of Robert Owen held ideas which were similar 
to those of anarchists. For example, Thomas Hodgskin expounded ideas 
similar to Proudhon's mutualism while William Thompson developed a 
non-state, communal form of socialism based on <i>"communities of 
mutual co-operative"</i> which had similarities to anarcho-communism 
(Thompson had been a mutualist before becoming a communist in light 
of the problems even a non-capitalist market would have). John Francis 
Bray is also of interest, as is the radical agrarianist Thomas Spence 
who developed a communal form of land-based socialism which 
expounded many ideas usually associated with anarchism (see <i>"The 
Agrarian Socialism of Thomas Spence"</i> by Brian Morris in his book 
<b>Ecology and Anarchism</b>). Moreover, the early British trade union 
movement <i>"developed, stage by stage, a theory of syndicalism"</i> 40 
years before Bakunin and the libertarian wing of the First 
International did. [E.P. Thompson, <b>The Making of the English 
Working Class</b>, p. 912] Noel Thompson's <b>The Real Rights of Man</b> 
is a good summary of all these thinkers and movements, as is
E.P. Thompson's classic social history of working class life 
(and politics) of this period, <b>The Making of the English 
Working Class</b>.
</p><p>
Libertarian ideas did not die out in Britain in the 1840s. There was 
also the quasi-syndicalists of the Guild Socialists of the 1910s and 
1920s who advocated a decentralised communal system with workers' 
control of industry. G.D.H. Cole's <b>Guild Socialism Restated</b> is the 
most famous work of this school, which also included author's S.G. 
Hobson and A.R. Orage (Geoffrey Osteregaard's <b>The Tradition of 
Workers' Control</b> provides an good summary of the ideas of Guild 
Socialism). Bertrand Russell, another supporter of Guild Socialism, 
was attracted to anarchist ideas and wrote an extremely informed and 
thoughtful discussion of anarchism, syndicalism and Marxism in his
classic book <b>Roads to Freedom</b>. 
</p><p>
While Russell was pessimistic about the 
possibility of anarchism in the near future, he felt it was <i>"the 
ultimate idea to which society should approximate."</i> As a Guild 
Socialist, he took it for granted that there could <i>"be no real 
freedom or democracy until the men who do the work in a
business also control its management."</i> His vision of a good
society is one any anarchist would support: <i>"a world in which
the creative spirit is alive, in which life is an adventure full
of joy and hope, based upon the impulse to construct than upon 
the desire to retain what we possess or to seize what is possessed
by others. It must be a world in which affection has free play,
in which love is purged of the instinct for domination, in which
cruelty and envy have been dispelled by happiness and the 
unfettered development of all the instincts that build up life
and fill it with mental delights."</i> [quoted by Noam Chomsky,
<b>Problems of Knowledge and Freedom</b>, pp. 59-60, p. 61 and p. x]
An informed and interesting writer on many subjects, his thought
and social activism has influenced many other thinkers, including
Noam Chomsky (whose <b>Problems of Knowledge and Freedom</b> is a wide
ranging discussion on some of the topics Russell addressed).
</p><p>
Another important British libertarian socialist thinker and activist
was William Morris. Morris, a friend of Kropotkin, was active in the
<b>Socialist League</b> and led its anti-parliamentarian wing. While stressing
he was not an anarchist, there is little real difference between the ideas
of Morris and most anarcho-communists (Morris said he was a communist and 
saw no need to append "anarchist" to it as, for him, communism was 
democratic and liberatory). A prominent member of the "Arts and Crafts"
movement, Morris argued for humanising work and it was, to quoted the 
title of one of his most famous essays, as case of <b>Useful Work vrs
Useless Toil</b>. His utopia novel <b>News from Nowhere</b> paints a compelling
vision of a libertarian communist society where industrialisation has
been replaced with a communal craft-based economy. It is a utopia which
has long appealed to most social anarchists. For a discussion of Morris'
ideas, placed in the context of his famous utopia, see <b>William Morris
and News from Nowhere: A Vision for Our Time</b> (Stephen Coleman and
Paddy O'Sullivan (eds.))
</p><p>
Also of note is the Greek thinker Cornelius Castoriadis. Originally
a Trotskyist, Castoriadis evaluation of Trotsky's deeply flawed 
analysis of Stalinist Russia as a degenerated workers' state lead 
him to reject first Leninism and then Marxism itself. This led him
to libertarian conclusions, seeing the key issue not who owns the
means of production but rather hierarchy. Thus the class struggle was
between those with power and those subject to it. This led him to
reject Marxist economics as its value analysis abstracted from (i.e.
ignored!) the class struggle at the heart of production (Autonomist
Marxism rejects this interpretation of Marx, but they are the only
Marxists who do). Castoriadis, like social anarchists, saw the future
society as one based on radical autonomy, generalised self-management 
and workers' councils organised from the bottom up. His three volume
collected works (<b>Political and Social Writings</b>) are essential reading
for anyone interested in libertarian socialist politics and a radical
critique of Marxism.
</p><p>
Special mention should also be made of Maurice Brinton, who, as well as
translating many works by Castoriadis, was a significant libertarian
socialist thinker and activist as well. An ex-Trotskyist like Castoriadis,
Brinton carved out a political space for a revolutionary libertarian 
socialism, opposed to the bureaucratic reformism of Labour as well as
the police-state "socialism" of Stalinism and the authoritarianism of 
the Leninism which produced it. He produced numerous key pamphlets which 
shaped the thinking of a generation of anarchists and other libertarian 
socialists. These included <b>Paris: May 1968</b>, his brilliant eyewitness 
account of the near-revolution in France, the essential <b>The Bolsheviks 
and Workers' Control</b> in which he exposed Lenin's hostility to workers' 
self-management, and <b>The Irrational in Politics</b>, a restatement and 
development of the early work of Wilhelm Reich. These and many more
articles have been collected in the book <b>For Workers' Power: The
Selected Writings of Maurice Brinton</b>, edited by David Goodway.
</p><p>
The American radical historian Howard Zinn has sometimes called himself 
an anarchist and is well informed about the anarchist tradition (he 
wrote an excellent introductory essay on <i>"Anarchism"</i> for a US edition 
of a Herbert Read book) . As well as his classic <b>A People's History of
the United States</b>, his writings of civil disobedience and non-violent 
direct action are essential. An excellent collection of essays by this
libertarian socialist scholar has been produced under the title <b>The 
Zinn Reader</b>. Another notable libertarian socialists close to anarchism 
are Edward Carpenter (see, for example, Sheila Rowbotham's <b>Edward
Carpenter: Prophet of the New Life</b>) and Simone Weil (<b>Oppression
and Liberty</b>)
</p><p>
It would also be worthwhile to mention those market socialists who, 
like anarchists, base their socialism on workers' self-management.
Rejecting central planning, they have turned back to the ideas of
industrial democracy and market socialism advocated by the likes of
Proudhon (although, coming from a Marxist background, they generally
fail to mention the link which their central-planning foes stress).
Allan Engler (in <b>Apostles of Greed</b>) and David Schweickart (in
<b>Against Capitalism</b> and <b>After Capitalism</b>) have provided useful
critiques of capitalism and presented a vision of socialism rooted
in co-operatively organised workplaces. While retaining an element 
of government and state in their political ideas, these socialists 
have placed economic self-management at the heart of their economic
vision and, consequently, are closer to anarchism than most socialists.</p>

<a name="seca44"><h2>A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
None of the libertarian socialists we highlighted in the last section 
were Marxists. This is unsurprising as most forms of Marxism are 
authoritarian. However, this is not the case for all schools of Marxism. 
There are important sub-branches of Marxism which shares the anarchist 
vision of a self-managed society. These include Council Communism, 
Situationism and Autonomism. Perhaps significantly, these few Marxist 
tendencies which are closest to anarchism are, like the branches of 
anarchism itself, not named after individuals. We will discuss each
in turn.
</p><p>
Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when 
Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted 
by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist 
social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist 
and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since Bakunin. 
Like Marx's libertarian opponent in the First International, they argued 
that a federation of workers' councils would form the basis of a 
socialist society and, consequently, saw the need to build militant 
workplace organisations to promote their formation. Lenin attacked 
these movements and their advocates in his diatribe <b>Left-wing Communism: 
An Infantile Disorder</b>, which council communist Herman Gorter demolished 
in his <b>An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin</b>. By 1921, the council communists 
broke with the Bolshevism that had already effectively expelled them 
from both the national Communist Parties and the Communist International. 
</p><p>
Like the anarchists, they argued that Russia was a state-capitalist party 
dictatorship and had nothing to be with socialism. And, again like anarchists, 
the council communists argue that the process of building a new society, 
like the revolution itself, is either the work of the people themselves or 
doomed from the start. As with the anarchists, they too saw the Bolshevik 
take-over of the soviets (like that of the trade unions) as subverting the 
revolution and beginning the restoration of oppression and exploitation. 
</p><p>
To discover more about council communism, the works of Paul Mattick are
essential reading. While best known as a writer on Marxist economic theory 
in such works as <b>Marx and Keynes</b>, <b>Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory</b> and 
<b>Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation</b>, Mattick had been a council 
communist since the German revolution of 1919/1920. His books <b>Anti-Bolshevik 
Communism</b> and <b>Marxism: The Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie?</b> are excellent 
introductions to his political ideas. Also essential reading is Anton Pannekeok's 
works. His classic <b>Workers' Councils</b>  explains council communism from first 
principles while his <b>Lenin as Philosopher</b> dissects Lenin's claims to being 
a Marxist (Serge Bricianer, <b>Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils</b> is the 
best study of the development of Panekoek's ideas). In the UK, the militant suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst became a council communist under the impact 
of the Russian Revolution and, along with anarchists like Guy Aldred, led 
the opposition to the importation of Leninism into the communist movement 
there (see Mark Shipway's <b>Anti-Parliamentary Communism: The Movement for Workers Councils in Britain, 1917-45</b> for more details of libertarian 
communism in the UK). Otto Ruhle and Karl Korsch are also important 
thinkers in this tradition.
</p><p>
Building upon the ideas of council communism, the Situationists developed
their ideas in important new directions. Working in the late 1950s and 
1960s, they combined council communist ideas with surrealism and other
forms of radical art to produce an impressive critique of post-war 
capitalism. Unlike Castoriadis, whose ideas influenced them, the 
Situationists continued to view themselves as Marxists, developing 
Marx's critique of capitalist economy into a critique of capitalist
society as alienation had shifted from being located in capitalist 
production into everyday life. They coined the expression <b><i>"The Spectacle"</i></b>
to describe a social system in which people become alienated from their
own lives and played the role of an audience, of spectators. Thus
capitalism had turned being into having and now, with the spectacle,
it turned having into appearing. They argued that we could not wait for 
a distant revolution, but rather should liberate ourselves in the here
and now, creating events (<i>"situations"</i>) which would disrupt the 
ordinary and normal to jolt people out of their allotted roles within
society. A social revolution based on sovereign rank and file assemblies
and self-managed councils would be the ultimate "situation" and the
aim of all Situationists. 
</p><p>
While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories
are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism 
cannot be underestimated. Many anarchists embraced their critique of 
modern capitalist society, their subversion of modern art and culture
for revolutionary purposes and call for revolutionising everyday life.
Ironically, while Situationism viewed itself as an attempt to transcend
tradition forms of Marxism and anarchism, it essentially became subsumed
by anarchism. The classic works of situationism are Guy Debord's <b>Society
of the Spectacle</b> and Raoul Veneigem's <b>The Revolution of Everyday Life</b>.
The <b>Situationist International Anthology</b> (edited by Ken Knabb) is 
essential reading for any budding Situationists, as is Knabb's own 
<b>Public Secrets</b>.
</p><p>
Lastly there is Autonomist Marxism. Drawing on the works of the
council communism, Castoriadis, situationism and others, it 
places the class struggle at the heart of its analysis of 
capitalism. It initially developed in Italy during the 1960s and
has many currents, some closer to anarchism than others. While
the most famous thinker in the Autonomist tradition is probably
Antonio Negri (who coined the wonderful phrase <i>"money has only
one face, that of the boss"</i> in <b>Marx Beyond Marx</b>) his ideas 
are more within traditional Marxist. For an Autonomist whose ideas
are closer to anarchism, we need to turn to the US thinker and
activist who has written the one of the best summaries of 
Kropotkin's ideas in which he usefully indicates the similarities
between anarcho-communism and Autonomist Marxism (<i>"Kropotkin,
Self-valorisation and the Crisis of Marxism,"</i> <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, 
vol. 2, no. 3). His book <b>Reading Capital Politically</b> is an 
essential text for understanding Autonomism and its history.
</p><p>
For Cleaver, <i>"autonomist Marxism"</i> as generic name for a variety of 
movements, politics and thinkers who have emphasised the autonomous power 
of workers -- autonomous from capital, obviously, but also from their 
official organisations (e.g. the trade unions, the political parties) 
and, moreover, the power of particular groups of working class people to 
act autonomously from other groups (e.g. women from men). By <i>"autonomy"</i> 
it is meant the ability of working class people to define their own 
interests and to struggle for them and, critically, to go beyond mere 
reaction to exploitation and to take the offensive in ways that shape 
the class struggle and define the future. Thus they place working class 
power at the centre of their thinking about capitalism, how it develops
and its dynamics as well as in the class conflicts within it. This
is not limited to just the workplace and just as workers resist the 
imposition of work inside the factory or office, via slowdowns, strikes
and sabotage, so too do the non-waged resist the reduction of their lives 
to work. For Autonomists, the creation of communism is not something 
that comes later but is something which is repeatedly created by current 
developments of new forms of working class self-activity. 
</p><p>
The similarities with social anarchism are obvious. Which probably 
explains why Autonomists spend so much time analysing and quoting 
Marx to justify their ideas for otherwise other Marxists will follow 
Lenin's lead on the council communists and label them anarchists and 
ignore them! For anarchists, all this Marx quoting seems amusing. 
Ultimately, if Marx really was an Autonomist Marxist then why do 
Autonomists have to spend so much time re-constructing what Marx 
"really" meant? Why did he not just say it clearly to begin with? 
Similarly, why root out (sometimes obscure) quotes and (sometimes
passing) comments from Marx to justify your insights? Does something
stop being true if Marx did not mention it first?  Whatever the
insights of Autonomism its Marxism will drag it backwards by rooting
its politics in the texts of two long dead Germans. Like the surreal
debate between Trotsky and Stalin in the 1920s over <i>"Socialism in One 
Country"</i> conducted by means of Lenin quotes, all that will be proved 
is not whether a given idea is right but simply that the mutually
agreed authority figure (Lenin or Marx) may have held it. Thus 
anarchists suggest that Autonomists practice some autonomy when it
comes to Marx and Engels.
</p><p>
Other libertarian Marxists close to anarchism include Erich Fromm
and Wilhelm Reich. Both tried to combine Marx with Freud to produce
a radical analysis of capitalism and the personality disorders it
causes. Erich Fromm, in such books as <b>The Fear of Freedom</b>, <b>Man 
for Himself</b>, <b>The Sane Society</b> and <b>To Have or To Be?</b> developed 
a powerful and insightful analysis of capitalism which discussed how 
it shaped the individual and built psychological barriers to freedom 
and authentic living. His works discuss many important topics, 
including ethics, the authoritarian personality (what causes it and 
how to change it), alienation, freedom, individualism and what a 
good society would be like. 
</p><p>
Fromm's analysis of capitalism and the <i>"having"</i> mode of life are 
incredibly insightful, especially in context with today's consumerism.
For Fromm, the way we live, work and organise together influence 
how we develop, our health (mental and physical), our happiness more 
than we suspect. He questions the sanity of a society which covets 
property over humanity and adheres to theories of submission and 
domination rather than self-determination and self-actualisation. 
His scathing indictment of modern capitalism shows that it is the 
main source of the isolation and alienation prevalent in today. 
Alienation, for Fromm, is at the heart of the system (whether private
or state capitalism). We are happy to the extent that we realise 
ourselves and for this to occur our society must value the human 
over the inanimate (property).
</p><p>
Fromm rooted his ideas in a humanistic interpretation of Marx, 
rejecting Leninism and Stalinism as an authoritarian corruption 
of his ideas (<i>"the destruction of socialism . .  . began with
Lenin."</i>). Moreover, he stressed the need for a decentralised 
and libertarian form of socialism, arguing that the anarchists 
had been right to question Marx's preferences for states and 
centralisation. As he put it, the <i>"errors of Marx and Engels
. . . [and] their centralistic orientation, were due to the
fact they were much more rooted in the middle-class tradition
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, both psychologically
and intellectually, than men like Fourier, Owen, Proudhon and
Kropotkin."</i> As the <i>"contradiction"</i> in Marx between 
<i>"the principles
of centralisation and decentralisation,"</i> for Fromm <i>"Marx and
Engels were much more 'bourgeois' thinkers than were men like
Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Landauer. Paradoxical as it
sounds, the Leninist development of Socialism represented a
regression to the bourgeois concepts of the state and of
political power, rather than the new socialist concept as it
was expressed so much clearer by Owen, Proudhon and others."</i>
[<b>The Sane Society</b>, p. 265, p. 267 and p. 259] Fromm's Marxism, 
therefore, was fundamentally of a libertarian and humanist type
and his insights of profound importance for anyone interested in 
changing society for the better.
</p><p>
Wilheim Reich, like Fromm, set out to elaborate a social psychology 
based on both Marxism and psychoanalysis. For Reich, sexual repression 
led to people amenable to authoritarianism and happy to subject 
themselves to authoritarian regimes. While he famously analysed 
Nazism in this way (in <b>The Mass Psychology of Fascism</b>, his 
insights also apply to other societies and movements (it is no 
co-incidence, for example, that the religious right in America oppose
pre-martial sex and use scare tactics to get teenagers to associate 
it with disease, dirt and guilt). 
</p><p>
His argument is that due to sexual repression we develop what he called 
<i>"character armour"</i> which internalises our oppressions and ensures that 
we can function in a hierarchical society. This social conditioning is 
produced by the patriarchal family and its net results is a powerful 
reinforcement and perpetuation of the dominant ideology and the mass 
production of individuals with obedience built into them, individuals 
ready to accept the authority of teacher, priest, employer and politician 
as well as to endorse the prevailing social structure. This explains how 
individuals and groups can support movements and institutions which 
exploit or oppress them. In other words, act think, feel and act 
against themselves and, moreover, can internalise their own oppression 
to such a degree that they may even seek to defend their subordinate 
position.
</p><p>
Thus, for Reich, sexual repression produces an individual who is adjusted 
to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all 
misery and degradation it causes them. The net result is fear of freedom, 
and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political 
power, not only through the process which makes the mass individual passive 
and unpolitical, but also by creating in their character structure an 
interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order. 
</p><p>
While his uni-dimensional focus on sex is misplaced, his analysis of how 
we internalise our oppression in order to survive under hierarchy is 
important for understanding why so many of the most oppressed people 
seem to love their social position and those who rule over them. By 
understanding this collective character structure and how it forms also
provides humanity with new means of transcending such obstacles to social
change. Only an awareness of how people's character structure prevents them 
from becoming aware of their real interests can it be combated and social 
self-emancipation assured.
</p><p>
Maurice Brinton's <b>The Irrational in Politics</b> is an excellent short 
introduction to Reich's ideas which links their insights to libertarian 
socialism.</p>

</body>
</html>