File: secI7.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 (947 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 58,893 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?</h1>

<p>
No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are 
so shallow that they cannot separate their identity from what they own. 
However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form
of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs to be 
discussed more. 
</p><p>
The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages 
individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As 
Kropotkin noted, <i>"individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and 
in practice, more illusory than real"</i> and that the <i>"want of development 
of the personality (leading to herd-psychology) and the lack of individual 
creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief defects of our 
time. Economical individualism has not kept its promise: it did not result 
in any striking development of individuality."</i> [<b>Ethics</b>, p. 27 and 
p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has reduced individuality to a parody 
of what it could and should be (see 
<a href="secI7.html#seci74">section I.7.4</a>). Little
wonder Emma Goldman argued that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The oft repeated slogan of our time is . . . that ours is an era of
individualism . . . Only those who do not probe beneath the surface might
be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated the wealth
of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute kings of the 
situation? Their success, however, is due not to individualism, but 
the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission of the mass. The
latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced. As to
individualism, at no time in human history did it have less chance
of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in a normal, 
healthy manner."</i> [<b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b>, pp. 70-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
So we see a system which is apparently based on "egotism" and "individualism" 
but whose members are free be standardised individuals, who hardly express 
their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality, capitalism 
standardises it and so restricts it -- that it survives at all is more 
an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of the 
capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly 
surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are 
designed to assure obedience and subordination. Given this, it comes
as no surprise to find libertarian communists like Kropotkin suggesting
that <i>"as for knowing what will be the essence of <b>individual</b> 
development, I do not think it <b>could</b> be along individualist lines. 
Individual -- yes, without doubt, but individ<b>ualist</b> -- I have my 
doubts. That would mean: <b>narrow egoism</b> -- regressive evolution 
and even that would be limited to a certain number."</i> [Kropotkin, 
quoted by Ruth Kinna, <i>"Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical 
Context"</i>, pp. 259-283, <b>International Review of Social History</b>, 
No. 40, p. 268]
</p><p>
So, can we say that libertarian socialism will <b>increase</b> individuality or
is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the
human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to
look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss 
tribal cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies 
in <a href="secI7.html#seci71">section I.7.1</a>. 
Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect 
and increase an individual's sense of self.
</p><p>
Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality. 
They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those 
involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their 
abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval
noted in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution,
<i>"so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right
to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative
to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty;
it is nothingness."</i> [<b>Collectives in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 346]
</p><p>
By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which
directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and
so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The
spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts.
Thus Erich Fromm: <i>"In all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces 
the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes 
stronger and more solidified. <b>For the self is as strong as it is active.</b>"</i> 
[<b>Escape from Freedom</b>, p. 225] 
</p><p>
Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation
as it does under capitalism. It will become stronger as people participate 
and act within the social organisation. In other words, individuality 
requires community. As German philosopher and sociologist Max Horkheimer 
once observed, <i>"individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend 
for himself . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been an 
illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, 
will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as
individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation 
of a fully developed society."</i> [<b>The Eclipse of Reason</b>, p. 135]
</p><p>
The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy
community as it is from individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of 
desire. There is a tendency for <b>community</b> to enrich and develop 
<b>individuality</b>, with this tendency being seen throughout human history. 
This suggests that the abstract individualism of capitalism is more the 
exception than the rule in social life. In other words, history indicates 
that by working together with others as equals individuality is strengthened 
far more than in the so-called "individualism" associated with capitalism. 
Hence the need, as Murray Bookchin put it, to <i>"arrest the ravaging and 
simplification of the human spirit, of human personality, of human community, 
of humanity's idea of the good."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 409]
</p><p>
Communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as individuality 
is a product of the interaction between <b>social</b> forces and 
individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off 
from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This 
can be seen from the 1980's when neo-liberal governments supporting the 
individualism associated with free market capitalism were elected 
in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces lead 
to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised 
state. As this swept across society, the resulting disruption of social 
life ensured that many individuals became impoverished ethically and 
culturally as society became increasingly privatised. Two decades
later, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, complained 
of a broken society in Britain while, of course, skilfully avoiding
discussing the neo-liberal reforms imposed by his predecessor Thatcher 
which made it so.
</p><p>
In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a 
developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold your
own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) <b>social</b> 
skills and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social 
background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by
lack of use, fear of authority, atomisation and limited social interaction. 
Taking the case of workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism 
that a hierarchical working environment will marginalise the individual 
and ensure that they cannot express their opinions, exercise their 
thinking capacities to the full or manage their own activity. This 
will have in impact in all aspects of an individual's life.
</p><p>
Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of 
individuality (see <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>). 
In such a system, as left-wing classical liberal John Stuart Mill 
argued, the <i>"business"</i> side of group activities would be 
<i>"properly carried out"</i> but at the expense of the individuals 
involved. Anarchists agree with Mill when he called it <i>"benevolent 
dictatorship"</i> and asked <i>"what sort of human beings
can be formed under such a regimen? What development can either their 
thinking or their active faculties attain under it? . . . Their moral
capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human
beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and
dwarfed."</i> [<b>Representative Government</b>, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, 
he extended his critique of political organisations into all forms of 
associations and stated that if <i>"mankind is to continue to improve"</i> 
then in the end one form of association will predominate, <i>"not that 
which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without 
a voice in the management, but the association of labourers themselves 
on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they 
carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable 
by themselves."</i> [<b>The Principles of Political Economy</b>, p. 147]
</p><p>
Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the
means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect
them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is built upon the central
assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in
isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a
servile personality, one that feels safest conforming to authority and
what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based
upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality,
one that knows its own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in its 
own powers. 
</p><p>
Therefore, as Bakunin argued, liberty <i>"is not a fact springing from
isolation but from reciprocal action, a fact not of exclusion, but,
on the contrary, of social interaction -- for freedom of every
individual is simply the reflection of his humanity or his human
right in the consciousness of all free men, his brothers, his
equals."</i> Freedom <i>"is something very positive, very complex, and
above all eminently social, since it can be realised only by 
society and only under conditions of strict equality and solidarity."</i> 
Hierarchical power, by necessity, kills individual freedom as
it is <i>"characteristic of privilege and of every privileged 
position to kill the minds and hearts of men"</i> and <i>"power and
authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who
are compelled to submit to them."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of 
Bakunin</b>, p. 266, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 249]
</p><p>
A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage, 
a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation 
within self-managed organisations individuals will educate themselves for 
the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out, 
<i>"participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it;
the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so."</i> 
[<b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b>, pp. 42-43] This, of course,
implies a mutually interactive transformation of individuals, their social 
relationships and organisations (in the words of Spanish anarchist Garcia 
Oliver: <i>"Who hasn't been changed by the revolution? It wouldn't be worth
making it just to continue being the same."</i> [quoted by Abel Paz, 
<b>Durruti in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 498]).
</p><p>
Such a re-organisation (as we will see in 
<a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>) is based upon the 
tactic of <b>direct action.</b> This tactic also encourages individuality by
encouraging the individual to fight for themselves, by their own self-activity,
that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly 
and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist . . . </i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, 
or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it 
with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing 
for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are 
essentially direct action.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle,
and want straight to the other persons involved to settle it . . . was
a direct actionist. Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts . . .
</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>
"These actions . . . are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel 
oppressed by a situation."</i> [<b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, 
pp. 47-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and 
this can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when 
there is a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based 
upon the principle of direct action (<i>"all co-operative experiments are 
essentially direct action"</i>) we can suggest that individuality will have 
little to fear from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly
stress the importance of individuality within a society. To quote
communist-anarchist J. Burns-Gibson:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only
realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no motive
that does not issue from its individual members, no end that does not
centre in them, no mind that is not theirs. 'Spirit of the age,' 'public
opinion,' 'commonweal or good,' and like phrases have no meaning if
they are thought of as features of something that hovers or floats 
between man and woman. They name what resides in and proceeds from
individuals. Individuality and community, therefore, are equally
constitutive of our idea of human life."</i> [quoted by William R. 
McKercher, <b>Freedom and Authority</b>, p. 31]
</blockquote></p><p>
Little wonder, then, that anarchism <i>"recognises and values 
individuality which means character, conduct and the springs of
conduct, free initiative, creativeness, spontaneity, autonomy."</i> 
[J. Burns-Gibson, quoted by McKercher, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 31f]
As Kropotkin put it, anarchism <i>"seeks the most complete development
of individuality combined with the highest development of 
voluntary association in all its aspects . . . ever changing,
ever modified"</i>. [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 123]
</p><p>
For anarchists real liberty requires social equality. For <i>"[i]f
individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own
lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be
so organised that they can participate in decision making."</i> [Pateman, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and 
developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden, 
hierarchical society like capitalism. As Kropotkin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[Libertarian] Communism is the best basis for individual development
and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war
of each against all . . . but that which represents the full 
expansion of man's [and woman's] faculties, the superior development 
of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness
of intelligence, feeling and will."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 141]
</blockquote></p><p>
It is because wonders are so enriching to life, and none is more wonderful 
than individuality, that anarchists oppose capitalism in the name of 
socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association of free individuals. 
</p>

<a name="seci71"><h2>I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends 
individuality?</h2></a>

<p>
Yes. In many tribal cultures (or aboriginal cultures), we find a strong 
respect for individuality. As anthropologist Paul Radin pointed out, 
<i>"respect for the individual, irrespective of age or sex"</i> was
one of <i>"the outstanding features of aboriginal civilisation"</i>
as well as <i>"the amazing degree of social and political integration
achieved by them"</i> and <i>"a concept of personal security."</i> 
[quoted by Murray Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 48] Murray 
Bookchin commented on Radin's statement:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"respect for the individual, which Radin lists first as an aboriginal 
attribute, deserves to be emphasised, today, in an era that rejects the 
collective as destructive of individuality on the one hand, and yet, 
in an orgy of pure egotism, has actually destroyed all the ego boundaries 
of free-floating, isolated, and atomised individuals on the other. A 
strong collectivity may be even more supportive of the individual as close 
studies of certain aboriginal societies reveal, than a 'free market' society 
with its emphasis on an egoistic, but impoverished, self."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 48]</blockquote>
</p><p>
This individualisation associated with tribal cultures was also noted by 
historian Howard Zinn. He quotes fellow historian Gary Nash describing 
Iroquois culture (which appears typical of most Native American tribes):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, 
or courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European societies 
-- were to be found in the north-east woodlands prior to European 
arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though 
priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained 
a strict sense of right and wrong."</i> [quoted by Zinn, <b>A People's 
History of the United States</b>, p. 21]
</blockquote></p><p>
This respect for individuality existed in a society based on communistic
principles. As Zinn notes, in the Iroquois <i>"land was owned in common
and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was
divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered 
common property and were shared by several families. The concept of
private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois."</i> 
In this communal society women <i>"were important and respected"</i> and
families were matrilineal. Power was shared between the sexes
(unlike the European idea of male domination). Similarly, children
<i>"while taught the cultural heritage of their people and solidarity
with the tribe, were also taught to be independent, not to submit
to overbearing authority. They were taught equality of status and
the sharing of possessions."</i> As Zinn stresses, Native American 
tribes <i>"paid careful attention to the development of personality, 
intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, 
to their partnership with one another and with nature."</i> [<b>Op. 
Cit.</b>, p. 20 and pp. 21-2]
</p><p>
Thus tribal societies indicate that community defends individuality,
with communal living actually encouraging a strong sense of individuality.
This is to be expected, as equality is the only condition in which
individuals can be free and so in a position to develop their 
personality to its full. Furthermore, this communal living took
place within an anarchist environment:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The foundation principle of Indian government had always been
the rejection of government. The freedom of the individual was
regarded by practically all Indians north of Mexico as a canon
infinitely more precious than the individual's duty to his [or
her] community or nation. This anarchistic attitude ruled all
behaviour, beginning with the smallest social unity, the family.
The Indian parent was constitutionally reluctant to discipline
his [or her] children. Their every exhibition of self-will was
accepted as a favourable indication of the development of 
maturing character. . ."</i> [Van Every, quoted by Zinn, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 136]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living 
and high standards of living can and do go together. For example, during 
the 1870s in the Cherokee Nation <i>"land was held collectively and life 
was contented and prosperous"</i> with the US Department of the Interior 
recognising that it was <i>"a miracle of progress, with successful production 
by people living in considerable comfort, a level of education 'equal to that 
furnished by an ordinary college in the States,' flourishing industry and 
commerce, an effective constitutional government, a high level of literacy, 
and a state of 'civilisation and enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 
'What required five hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this 
direction they have accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department 
declared in wonder."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>Year 501</b>, p. 231] 
</p><p>
Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited in 1883 and described what 
he found in glowing terms: <i>"There was not a pauper in that nation, 
and the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol . . . and 
it built its schools and its hospitals."</i> No family lacked a home. 
In spite of this (or, perhaps, more correctly, because of this), 
Dawes recommended that the society must be destroyed: <i>"They have got 
as far as they can go, because they own their land in common . . . there 
is no enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbours. 
There is no selfishness, which is the bottom of civilisation. Till this 
people will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among their 
citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not make 
much more progress."</i> [quoted by Chomsky, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231-2] 
The introduction of capitalism -- as usual by state action -- resulted in 
poverty and destitution, again showing the link between capitalism and high 
living standards is not clear cut, regardless of claims otherwise.
</p><p>
Undoubtedly, having access to the means of life ensured that members
of such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which could
produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to follow the
orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could
develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This self-government 
allowed the development of a custom in such tribes called <i>"the principle 
of non-interference"</i> in anthropology. This is the principle of defending 
someone's right to express the opposing view and it is a pervasive 
principle in the tribal world, and it is so much so as to be safely 
called a universal. 
</p><p>
The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends 
from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life
(significantly, tribal groups <i>"respect the personality of their children, 
much as they do that of the adults in their communities."</i> [Bookchin,
<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 115]). Most people today, used as they
are to hierarchy everywhere, are aghast when they realise the extent to 
which it is practised, but it has proven itself to be an integral part of 
living anarchy. It means that people simply do not limit the activities 
of others, period (unless that behaviour is threatening the survival of
the tribe). This in effect makes absolute tolerance a custom (the difference 
between law and custom is important to point out: Law is dead, and Custom 
lives -- see <a href="secI7.html#seci73">section I.7.3</a>). This is not 
to idealise such communities as they are must be considered imperfect 
anarchist societies in many ways (mostly obviously in that many eventually 
evolved into hierarchical systems so suggesting that informal hierarchies, 
undoubtedly a product of religion and other factors, existed). 
</p><p>
As people accustomed to authority we have so much baggage that relates 
to "interfering" with the lives of others that merely visualising the 
situation that would eliminate this daily pastime for many is impossible. 
But think about it. First of all, in a society where people do not interfere 
with each other's behaviour, people tend to feel trusted and empowered by 
this simple social fact. Their self-esteem is already higher because they 
are trusted with the responsibility for making learned and aware choices. 
This is not fiction; individual responsibility is a key aspect of social 
responsibility.
</p><p>
Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with
no private property, no state and little or no other hierarchical structures 
within them, can we not conclude that anarchism will defend individuality 
and even develop it in ways blocked by capitalism? At the very least we 
can say "possibly", and that is enough to allow us to question that dogma 
that capitalism is the only system based on respect for the individual. 
</p>

<a name="seci72"><h2>I.7.2 Do anarchists worship the past or the "noble savage"?</h2></a>

<p>
No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of 
capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is
"backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on
inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists
maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of the
"noble savage" (see, for example, free market capitalist guru Frederick 
von Hayek's work <b>Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism</b>).
</p><p>
Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive communist" 
societies they have used as examples of anarchistic tendencies within 
history or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with
using <b>any</b> historical period as an example of "anarchism in action." 
Take for example the "free cities" of Medieval Europe, which was used by 
Kropotkin as an example of the potential of decentralised, confederated
communes. He was sometimes accused of being a <i>"Medievalist"</i> (as was
William Morris) while all he was doing was indicating that capitalism
need not equal progress and that alternative social systems have existed
which have encouraged freedom in ways capitalism restricts.
</p><p>
In a similar way, Marxists often accuse Proudhon of being "petty-bourgeois" 
and looking backward to a pre-industrial society of artisans and peasants.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Proudhon lived in a
France which was predominantly pre-industrial and based on peasant and 
artisan production. He, therefore, based his socialist ideas on the needs 
of working people as they required them at the time. When Proudhon did 
look at large-scale production (such as railways, factories and so on) 
he proposed co-operative associations to run them. These associations 
would maintain the dignity of the worker by maintaining the essential 
feature of artisan and peasant life, namely the control of work and 
product by the labourer. Thus he used "the past" (artisan production) to 
inform his analysis of current events (industrialisation) to create a 
solution to the social problem which built upon and extended a freedom 
crushed by capitalism (namely workers' self-management in production). 
Rather than being backward looking and worshipping a past which was 
disappearing, Proudhon analysed the present <b>and</b> past, drew any 
positive features he could from both and applied them to the present 
and the future (see also <a href="secI3.html#seci38">section I.3.8</a>).
Unlike Marx, who argued that industrialisation (i.e. proletarianisation) 
was the pre-conditions of socialism, Proudhon wanted justice and freedom for 
working class people during his lifetime, not some (unspecified) time 
in the future after capitalism had fully developed. 
</p><p>
Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of capitalism 
ignore the insights that can be gained by studying tribal cultures and 
the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom. Instead, they 
duck the issues raised and accuse socialists of idealising the "noble 
savage." As indicated, nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, this claim has been directed towards Rousseau (often considered
the father of socialist and anarchist idealisation of the "noble
savage") even though he explicitly asked <i>"must societies be 
totally abolished? Must <b>meum</b> and <b>tuum</b> be annihilated, 
and must we return again to the forests to live among bears? This 
is a deduction in the manner of my adversaries, which I would as 
soon anticipate as let them have the shame of drawing."</i> Similarly, 
Rousseau is often thought of idealising "natural man" but he actually 
wrote that <i>"men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or 
determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or 
bad, virtuous or vicious."</i> [<b>The Social Contract and Discourses</b>, 
p. 112 and p. 64] Rousseau failed to understand that his adversaries, 
both then and now, seem to know no shame and will happy suggest that he
advocated the exact opposite of what he actually wrote. Anarchists are
also subject to this (particularly by Marxists), particularly when we 
look through history, draw libertarian currents from it and are then
denounced as backward looking utopians.
</p><p>
What libertarian socialists point out from this analysis of history 
is that the atomised individual associated with capitalist society is 
not "natural" and that capitalist social relationships help to weaken 
individuality. All the many attacks on libertarian socialist analysis 
of past societies are a product of capitalists attempts to deny history 
and state that "Progress" reaches its final resting place in capitalism.
As David Watson argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"When we consider people living under some of the harshest, most
commanding conditions on earth, who can nevertheless do what they
like when the notion occurs to them, we should be able to witness
the contemporary doubt about civilisation's superiority without
growing indignant. Primitivism, after all, reflects not only a
glimpse of life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate
response to real conditions of life under civilisation . . . Most
people do not live in aboriginal societies, and most tribal peoples
themselves now face wholly new contexts which will have to be
confronted in new ways if they are to survive as peoples. But 
their lifeways, their histories, remind us that <b>other modes of
being are possible.</b> Reaffirmation of our primal past offers insight
into our history -- not the only possible insight, to be sure, but
one important, legitimate entry point for a reasoned discussion
about (and an impassioned reaction to) this world we must leave
behind."</i> [<b>Beyond Bookchin</b>, p. 240]
</blockquote></p><p>
This essential investigation of history and modern society to see 
what other ways of living have and do exist is essential. It is
too easy to forget that what exists under modern capitalism has
not always existed (as neo-classical economics does with its 
atomistic and ahistoric analysis, for example). It is also useful 
to remember what many people now consider as "normal" was not 
always the case. As we discussed in 
<a href="secF8.html#secf86">section F.8.6</a>, 
the first generation of industrial wage
slaves <b>hated</b> the system, considering it both tyranny and
unnatural. Studying history, previous cultures and the process
of hierarchical society and the resistance of the oppressed to it 
can enrich our analysis and activity in the here and now and help
us to envision an anarchist society, the problems it could
face and possible solutions to them.
</p><p>
If the challenge for anarchists is to smash power-relations and
domination, it would make sense to get to the root of the problem.
Hierarchy, slavery, coercion, patriarchy, and so on far outdate 
capitalism and it is hardly enough to just analyse the economic
system of capitalism, which is merely the current and most 
insidious form of hierarchical civilisation. Similarly, without 
looking to cultures and communities that functioned quite well
before the rise of the state, hierarchies and classes, anarchists
do not really have much solid ground to prove to people that 
anarchy is desirable or possible. For this reason, historical
analysis and the celebration of the positive aspects of tribal 
and other societies is essential.
</p><p>
Moreover, as George Orwell pointed out, attacks that reject this critical
analysis as worshipping the "noble savage" miss the point:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you that 
it is impossible to 'go back' . . . and will then accuse you of being a 
medievalist and begin to descant upon the horrors of the Middle Ages . . . 
As a matter of fact, most attacks upon the Middle Ages and the past 
generally by apologists of modernity are beside the point, because their 
essential trick is to project a modern man, with his squeamishness and his 
high standard of comfort, into an age when such things were unheard of. But 
notice that in any case this is not an answer. For dislike of the mechanised 
future does not imply the smallest reverence for any period of the past . . . 
When one pictures it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend 
that it has ever existed in space and time."</i> [<b>The Road to Wigan Pier</b>, 
p. 183]
</blockquote></p><p>
We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of past
cultures assumes that these cultures have <b>no</b> good aspects at all and so
indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to modern life.
The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have got <b>some</b> things 
right and others wrong and should be investigated is rejected for a
totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern society. Of course, 
the well known "free market" capitalist love of 19th century capitalist 
life and values (specifically the grim reality of Victorian Britain or 
Gilded Age America) warrants no such claims of "past worship" by the 
supporters of the system.
</p><p>
Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage" ideal
indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of looking 
at the implications of the system they support than about anarchist theory.
</p>

<a name="seci73"><h2>I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?</h2></a>

<p>
No, far from it. It is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, <i>"[n]o
society is possible without certain principles of morality generally
recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men; 
if we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone
treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare 
is justified -- no society could exist."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 73] 
However, this does not mean that a legal system (with its resultant 
bureaucracy, vested interests and inhumanity) is the best way to protect 
individual rights within a society. 
</p><p>
What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an 
alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is 
<b>custom</b> -- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" 
which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. 
However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used 
to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?
</p><p>
The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than 
the "rule of law". <b>Custom</b> is a body of living institutions that enjoys 
the support of the body politic, whereas <b>law</b> is a codified (read dead) 
body of institutions that separates social control from moral force. 
This, as anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates
everyone. A <b>just outcome</b> is the predictable, but not necessarily 
the inevitable, outcome of interpersonal conflict because in an
anarchistic society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists 
think people have to grow up in a social environment free from the 
confusions generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and 
social control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential 
ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to come 
up with <b>functional solutions</b> to interpersonal conflict. This stands in 
sharp contrast with the present situation of people being infantilised by 
the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social structures removing
all possibility of people developing their own unique solutions.
</p><p>
Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society. 
What was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as 
oppressive and hateful. This is because the <i>"conception of good or evil 
varies according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired. 
There is nothing unchangeable about it."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 92] Only by removing the dead hand of the past can society's ethical 
base develop and grow with the individuals that make it up (see 
<a href="secA2.html#seca219">section A.2.19</a> 
for a discussion of anarchist ethics).
</p><p>
We should also like to point out here that laws (or <i>"The Law"</i>) also restrict 
the development of an individual's sense of ethics or morality. This is 
because it relieves them of the responsibility of determining if something 
is right or wrong. All they need to know is whether it is legal. The morality 
of the action is irrelevant. This "nationalisation" of ethics is very
handy for the would be capitalist, governor or other exploiter. In addition,
capitalism also restricts the development of an individual's ethics because
it creates the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote
Shakespeare's <b>Richard III</b>:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Second Murderer: Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me.</i>
</p></blockquote>
<p><blockquote>
<i>First Murderer: Remember our reward, when the deed's done.</i>
</p></blockquote>
<p><blockquote>
<i>Second Murderer: Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.</i>
</p></blockquote>
<p><blockquote>
<i>First Murderer: Where's thy conscience now?</i>
</p></blockquote>
<p><blockquote>
<i>Second Murderer: O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."</i> 
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, as far as <i>"The Law"</i> defending individual rights, it creates the
necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence
of concentrations wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical 
behaviour, and so respect for other individual's rights. As English 
libertarian socialist Edward Carpenter put it, <i>"I think we may fairly 
make the following general statement, viz., that legal ownership is
essentially a negative and anti-social thing, and that unless qualified
or antidoted by human relationship, it is pretty certain to be positively
<b>harmful.</b> In fact, when a man's chief plea is 'The law allows it,' 
you may be pretty sure he is up to some mischief!"</i> The state forces 
an individual into a relationship with a governing body. This means, as 
anarchist J. B. Smith put it, <i>"taking away from the individual his 
[or her] direct interest in life and in his surroundings . . . blunting 
his [or her] moral sense . . . teaching that he [or she] must never rely 
on himself [or herself] . . . [but] upon a small part of men who are 
elected to do everything . . . [which] destroys to a large extent his 
[or her] perception of right and wrong."</i> [quoted by William R. 
McKercher, <b>Freedom and Authority</b>, p. 48 and p. 67f]
</p><p>
Individual rights, for anarchists, are best protected in a social environment 
based on the self-respect and sympathy. Custom, because it is based on the 
outcome of numerous individual actions and thought reflects (and so
encourages the development of) individual ethical standards and so 
a generalised respect for others. Thus, <i>"under anarchism all rules
and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries
which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of the law,
its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage
to be inflicted because if its infraction . . . under Anarchism the law
will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and
need no alteration. And it will be regarded as <b>just</b> in proportion to
its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity."</i> 
[Benjamin Tucker, <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 160-1] Tucker,
like other individualist Anarchists, believed that the role of juries
had been very substantial in the English common-law tradition and that
they had been gradually emasculated by the state. This system of juries,
based on common-law/custom could be the means of ensuring justice in a
free society.
</p><p>
Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the
society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if
the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove 
of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict individual
rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this occurring but
given the power of social custom this is often limited in scope and 
has to wait until people recognise the need for change. Needless 
to say, governments can, and have, been far more at the forefront of 
denying and ignoring individual rights and so appealing to it for 
justice is, to say the least, problematic!
</p><p>
As such, anarchists are well aware that social custom can be oppressive
and, as discussed in <a href="secI5.html#seci56">section I.5.6</a>, 
argue for direct action by oppressed minorities to combat any tendency 
towards "dictatorship by the majority". Anarchists, as 
Kropotkin suggested, are <i>"the last to underrate the part 
which the self-assertion of the individual has played in the
evolution of mankind."</i> However, this <i>"has often been, and
continually is, something quite different from, and far larger and
deeper than, the petty, unintelligent narrow-mindedness which,
with a large class of writers goes for 'individualism' and 
'self-assertion.'"</i> There are <i>"two classes of revolted 
individuals"</i>, those who rise up and aim to <i>"purify the
old institutions [of mutual aid], or to work out a higher form of
commonwealth, based on the same Mutual Aid principles"</i> and
those who sought to <i>"break down the protective institutions of
mutual support, with no other intention but to increase their 
own wealth and their own powers."</i> [<b>Mutual Aid</b>, pp. 18-9]
We aim to support and encourage the former.
</p><p>
However, while recognising the potential tyranny of custom anarchists
stress that, firstly, this is a natural part of human society and,
secondly, it palls into insignificance compared to the actual 
tyranny of the state and the laws it imposes on society in the 
interests of the few. Facts which, needless to say, ruling elites
are at pains to hide. As Kropotkin explained <i>"all our religious, 
historical, juridical, and social education is imbued with the 
idea that human beings, if left to themselves, would revert to 
savagery; that without authority men would eat one another; 
for nothing, they say, can be expected from the 'multitude' but 
brutishness and the warring of each against all. Men would 
perish if above them soared not the elect . . . These saviours 
prevent, we are told, the battle of all against all."</i> This, he 
argued, was nonsense as <i>"a <b>scientific</b> study of societies 
and institutions brings us to quite different views. It proves that 
usages and customs created by mankind for the sake of mutual aid, 
mutual defence, and peace in general, were precisely elaborated by 
the 'nameless multitude.' And it was these customs that enabled man 
to survive in his struggle for existence in the midst of extremely 
hard natural conditions."</i> The notion that the state was merely the 
instrument of the people is hardly supported by history nor current 
practice, for what the state and its laws have done is to <i>"fix, or 
rather to crystallise in a permanent form, such customs as already 
were in existence"</i> and adding to them <i>"some new rules -- rules 
of inequality and servile submission of the masses in the interest of 
the armed rich and the warlike minorities."</i> [<b>Evolution and 
Environment</b>, pp. 48-9] Unsurprisingly, then, the state perverts 
social customs for its own, and the interests of the economically 
and socially powerful:
</p></p><blockquote>
<i>"as society became more and more divided into two hostile classes, one
seeking to establish its domination, the other struggling to escape,
the strife began. Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure the results
of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place them beyond 
question, to make them holy and venerable by every means in his power.
Law made its appearance under the sanction of the priest, and the 
warriors club was placed at its service. Its office was to render 
immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the dominant
minority . . . If law, however, presented nothing but a collection
of prescriptions serviceable to rulers, it would find some difficulty
in insuring acceptance and obedience. Well, the legislators confounded
in one code the two currents of custom . . . , the maxims which 
represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a
result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure
external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential
to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled
with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect
from the crowd . . . Such was the law; and it has maintained its
two-fold character to this day."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 205] 
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, the law has <i>"has used Man's social feelings to get 
passed not only moral precepts which were acceptable to Man, but also 
orders which were useful only to the minority of exploiters against whom 
he would have rebelled."</i> [Kropotkin quoted by Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, 
pp. 24-5]
</p><p>
Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only unneeded
to create an ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting individuality)
but actively undermines such a society. That the economically and politically
powerful assert that a state is a necessary condition for a free society and
individual space is hardly surprising for, as Malatesta put it, a ruling elite 
<i>"cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature behind a 
pretence of general usefulness . . . it cannot impose acceptances of the 
privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of the rights 
of all."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24] Thus laws <i>"exist to keep up the
machinery of government which serves to secure to capital the exploitation
and monopoly of wealth produced"</i> and <i>"to facilitate the exploitation
of the worker by the capitalist."</i> And people <i>"who long for freedom 
begin the attempt to obtain it by entreating their masters to be kind enough 
to protect them by modifying the laws which these masters themselves have 
created!"</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 200 and p. 210]
</p><p>
Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever
actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the
powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state 
are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in 
the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition,
capitalism itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by
encouraging people to grow accustomed to deceiving their fellows and 
treating them as a competitor, against whom every means of action is 
justified. Hence capitalism undermines the basic social context and customs
within which individuals develop and need to become fully human and free. 
Little wonder that a strong state has always been required to introduce 
a free market -- firstly, to protect wealth from the increasingly
dispossessed and secondly, to try to hold society together as capitalism
destroys the social fabric which makes a society worth living in.
</p><p>
For more on this issue, Kropotkin's classic essay <i>"Law and Authority"</i>
cannot be bettered (contained in <b>Anarchism</b> and <b>Words of a Rebel</b>).
</p>

<a name="seci74"><h2>I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?</h2></a>

<p>
Given that many people claim that <b>any</b> form of socialism will 
destroy liberty (and so individuality) it is worthwhile to consider 
whether capitalism actually does protect individuality. The answer 
must be no. Capitalism creates a standardisation which helps to 
distort individuality and the fact that individuality does exist 
under capitalism says more about the human spirit than capitalist 
social relationships.
</p><p>
So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit
result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main reasons:
</p><p><blockquote>
1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes self-government 
in many areas of life;</blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the necessary 
supports for the encouragement of individuality; </blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it becomes 
identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism); </blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless obedience 
to authority.
</blockquote></p><p>
We have discussed point one on many occasions (see, for example,  
<a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>). As Emma Goldman put it, 
under capitalism, the individual <i>"must sell his [or her] labour"</i> 
and so their <i>"inclination and judgement are subordinated to the 
will of a master."</i> This, naturally, represses individual 
initiative and the skills needed to know and express ones own 
mind. This <i>"condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities, 
living corpses without originality or power of initiative . . . who 
pile up mountains of wealth for others and pay for it with a grey, 
dull and wretched existence for themselves."</i> <i>"There can be 
no freedom in the large sense of the word,"</i> Goldman stressed, 
<i>"so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an 
important part in the determination of personal conduct."</i> 
[<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 50] Hence Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"With the hollowing out of community by the market system . . . we
witness the concomitant hollowing out of personality itself. Just as
the spiritual and institutional ties that linked human beings 
together into vibrant social relations are eroded by the mass 
market, so the sinews that make for subjectivity, character and
self-definition are divested of form and meaning. The isolated, 
seemingly autonomous ego of 'modernity' turns out to be the mere
husk of a once fairly rounded individual whose very completeness
as an ego was possible because he or she was rooted in a fairly
rounded and complete community."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, 
p. 211] </blockquote>
</p><p>
As regards point one, given the social relationships it is based on, 
capitalism cannot foster individuality but only harm it. As Kropotkin 
argued, <i>"obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities . . .
lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 285] As far as point two goes, we have discussed it above and will not 
repeat ourselves (see <a href="secI7.html">section I.7</a>). The last two 
points are worth discussing more thoroughly, and we will do so here.
</p><p>
Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the guiding 
aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in) they usually 
end up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the individual dominating 
their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they end up being possessed by 
one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of 
the ego who practices it. As libertarian Marxist psychiatrist Erich 
Fromm argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains
an insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real
satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an
endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction . . .
this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes
himself.</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. Selfishness
is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself . . . He does not 
have the inner security which can exist only on the basis of genuine 
fondness and affirmation."</i> [<b>The Fear of Freedom</b>, pp. 99-100]
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate their
ego and they sacrifice their personality feeding this new God. This
was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a <i>"one-sided, 
unopened, narrow egoism"</i> which leads the ego being <i>"ruled by a 
passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices"</i> [<b>The Ego and
Its Own</b>, p. 76]. Like all <i>"spooks,"</i> capitalism results in the 
self-negation of the individual and so the impoverishment of individuality. 
Little wonder, then, that a system apparently based upon "egotism" and 
"individualism" ends up weakening individuality.
</p><p>
As regards the fourth point, the effects of competition on individuality 
are equally as destructive. Indeed, a <i>"culture dedicated to creating 
standardised, specialised, predictable human components could find no 
better way of grinding them out than by making every possible aspect of 
life a matter of competition.
'Winning out' in this respect does not make rugged individualists. It
shapes conformist robots."</i> [George Leonard, quoted by Alfie Kohn,
<b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition</b>, p. 129] Why is this?
</p><p>
Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if you
are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the most
unique thing there is and <i>"unique characteristics by definition cannot
be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands essential
conformity."</i> The extensive research into the effects of competition
suggests that it in fact <i>"encourages rank conformity"</i> as well as 
undermining the <i>"substantial and authentic kind of individualism"</i> 
associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [Alfie Kohn, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 130 and p. 129] As well as impoverishing individuality by encouraging 
conformity, competition also makes us less free thinking and rebellious:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the kinds of 
competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If I want to get 
the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to challenge the teacher's 
version of whatever topic is being covered. After a while, I may cease to
think critically altogether . . . If people tend to 'go along to get along,'
there is even more incentive to go along when the goal is to be number one.
In the office or factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next
person for a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to 
extinguish the Promethean fire of rebellion."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130]
</blockquote></p><p>
In <a href="secI4.html#seci411">section I.4.11</a> we noted that when 
an artistic task is turned 
into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity 
and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so 
individuality because creativity is <i>"anti-conformist at its core: it 
is nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.
Competition inhibits this process."</i> Competition, therefore, will 
result in a narrowing of our lives, a failing to experience new 
challenges in favour of trying to win and be "successful." It turns 
<i>"life into a series of contests [and] turns us into cautious, 
obedient people. We do not sparkle as individuals <b>or</b> embrace 
collective action when we are in a race."</i> [Kohn, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 130 and p. 131] 
</p><p>
So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers
(both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are trying to
express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has
not created the free society it supporters claimed it would. 
</p>

</body>
</html>