File: secA3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (2647 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 175,623 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>A.3 What types of anarchism are there? </title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>A.3 What types of anarchism are there?</h1>

<p>
One thing that soon becomes clear to any one interested in anarchism
is that there is not one single form of anarchism. Rather, there are
different schools of anarchist thought, different types of anarchism 
which have many disagreements with each other on numerous issues. 
These types are usually distinguished by tactics and/or goals, with
the latter (the vision of a free society) being the major division.
</p><p>
This means that anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can 
be grouped into broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements 
that they consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, all 
types of anarchists share a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the 
abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of 
the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must 
be available to all without distinction; for personal and social
freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages
for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the Anarchists 
represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at 
the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for 
in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with 
political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and 
the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the 
condition of the other."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, pp. 62-3]  
</blockquote></p><p> 
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main  
differences are between <b><i>"individualist"</i></b> and 
<b><i>"social"</i></b> anarchists,  
although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually 
exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists,
anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority, 
with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United 
States. In this section we indicate the differences between these
main trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear,
while social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and
capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to
get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions 
to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a 
society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist 
anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have 
a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we must
not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common, namely
a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and capitalist
domination and exploitation.
</p><p>
In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over 
such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights  
and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are  
only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas,  
the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant  
state of change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected  
in a movement that values freedom so highly. 
</p><p> 
The most obvious thing to note about the different types of anarchism
is that <i>"[n]one are named after some Great Thinker; instead, they are
invariably named either after some kind of practice, or, most often,
organisational principle . . . Anarchists like to distinguish themselves
by what they do, and how they organise themselves to go about doing it."</i>
[David Graeber, <b>Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology</b>, p. 5] This
does not mean that anarchism does not have individuals who have 
contributed significantly to anarchist theory. Far from it, as can be 
seen in <a href="secA4.html">section A.4</a> there are many such people. Anarchists simply 
recognise that to call your theory after an individual is a kind of
idolatry. Anarchists know that even the greatest thinker is only human
and, consequently, can make mistakes, fail to live up to their ideals
or have a partial understanding of certain issues (see <a href="secH2.html">section H.2</a> 
for more discussion on this). Moreover, we see that the world changes 
and, obviously, what was a suitable practice or programme in, say, 
industrialising France of the 1840s may have its limitations in 21st 
century France!
</p><p>
Consequently, it is to be expected that a social theory like anarchism
would have numerous schools of thought and practice associated with it.
Anarchism, as we noted in <a href="secA5.html">section A.5</a>, has 
its roots in the struggles
of working class people against oppression. Anarchist ideas have 
developed in many different social situations and, consequently, have
reflected those circumstances. Most obviously, individualist anarchism
initially developed in pre-industrial America and as a result has a 
different perspective on many issues than social anarchism. As America 
changed, going from a predominantly pre-capitalist rural society to an industrialised capitalist one, American anarchism changed: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Originally the American movement, the native creation which arose with 
Josiah Warren in 1829, was purely individualistic; the student of economy 
will easily understand the material and historical causes for such 
development. But within the last twenty years the communist idea has 
made great progress, owning primarily to that concentration in capitalist production which has driven the American workingman [and woman] to grasp 
at the idea of solidarity, and, secondly, to the expulsion of active 
communist propagandists from Europe."</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, <b>The 
Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, p. 110]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus rather than the numerous types of anarchism being an expression of
some sort of "incoherence" within anarchism, it simply shows a movement
which has its roots in real life rather than the books of long dead 
thinkers. It also shows a healthy recognition that people are different
and that one person's dream may be another's nightmare and that different
tactics and organisations may be required at different social periods and
struggles. So while anarchists have their preferences on how they think a 
free society will, in general, be like and be created they are aware that 
other forms of anarchism and libertarian tactics may be more suitable
for other people and social circumstances. However, just because someone
calls themselves or their theory anarchism does not make it so. Any 
genuine type of anarchism must share the fundamental perspectives of the 
movement, in other words be anti-state and anti-capitalist. 
</p><p>
Moreover, claims of anarchist "incoherence" by its critics are usually overblown. After all, being followers of Marx and/or Lenin has not stopped 
Marxists from splitting into numerous parties, groups and sects. Nor has
it stopped sectarian conflict between them based on whose interpretation of
the holy writings are the "correct" ones or who has used the "correct"
quotes to bolster attempts to adjust their ideas and practice to a world 
significantly different from Europe in the 1850s or Russia in the 1900s. 
At least anarchists are honest about their differences!
</p><p>
Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place  
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This  
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated  
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism  
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger  
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the  
sort of society we would like to live in.</p> 

<a name="seca31"><h2>A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?</h2></a> 

<p>
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that  
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some  
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social  
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority 
and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold. 
</p><p> 
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now
(and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists 
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions, 
such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support 
strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent 
strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out 
of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, 
not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action 
to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being
in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they seek 
to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by means
of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual banks
and co-operatives). In this way a general "social liquidation" would
be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by
expropriation. 
</p><p>
Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this 
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece 
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms 
by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism.
Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles
as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist). 
Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the
state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by
its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit 
the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists 
<b>and</b> revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within 
capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However, 
as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is 
not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
</p><p> 
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy  
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution  
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- <i>"usury,"</i> to use the 
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity).
In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work <b>What is
Property?</b> and argue that possession must replace property in a
free society (see <a href="secB3.html">section B.3</a> for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property). Thus property <i>"will lose a certain
attribute which sanctifies it now. The absolute ownership of it --
'the right to use or abuse' -- will be abolished, and possession,
use, will be the only title. It will be seen how impossible it 
would be for one person to 'own' a million acres of land, without
a title deed, backed by a government ready to protect the title 
at all hazards."</i> [Lucy Parsons, <b>Freedom, Equality & Solidarity</b>, 
p. 33
</p><p>
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for 
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them. Thus <i>"your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people."</i> <i>"Actual use,"</i> continues Berkman, <i>"will be 
considered 
the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The organisation 
of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, 
not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession, 
co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will
take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."</i>
[<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 217] 
</p><p>
This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work 
and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of 
that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
<i>"in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of 
industry is untenable."</i> Given this, it is impossible to <i>"estimate
the share of each in the riches which <b>all</b> contribute to amass"</i>
and, moreover, the <i>"common possession of the instruments of labour 
must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the 
fruits of common labour."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>,
p. 45 and p. 46] By this social anarchists simply mean that the 
social product which is produced by all would be available to all 
and each individual who has contributed productively to society can 
take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is a
moot point, as we discuss in <a href=secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>). 
Some social anarchists, 
like mutualists for example, are against such a system of libertarian 
(or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social 
anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying 
and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will see <i>"Capitalistic
and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere"</i> and <i>"the wage system 
abolished"</i> whether by <i>"equal and just exchange"</i> (like Proudhon) or 
by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, <b>The General Idea of 
the Revolution</b>, p. 281]
</p><p>
In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies that 
this system of use-rights should include the product of the workers labour. Instead of 
social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a more market based 
system in which workers would possess their own means of production and 
exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers. They 
argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. Rather, by 
means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the market to create 
and protect their economic and social power (market discipline for the 
working class, state aid for the ruling class in other words). These state 
created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs and patents) and state 
enforcement of capitalist property rights are the source of economic 
inequality and exploitation. With the abolition of government, <b>real</b> 
free competition would result and ensure the end of capitalism and 
capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker's essay <b>State Socialism 
and Anarchism</b> for an excellent summary of this argument).
</p><p>
The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land)
are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should 
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire. 
However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an
<i>"occupancy and use"</i> system. If the means of production, say land, is not  
in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others  
for use. They think this system, called mutualism, will result in  
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation  
and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a regime of 
"occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a workplace
needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the group who use
it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in fact, used by more
than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and use" is violated. Equally,
if an owner employs others to use the workplace then the boss can 
appropriate the product of the workers' labour, so violating the maxim 
that labour should receive its full product. Thus the principles of 
individualist anarchism point to anti-capitalist conclusions (see 
<a href="secG3.html">section G.3</a>).
</p><p> 
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears  
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom  
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that <i>"Communism, by the 
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still
more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity."</i> [<b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 257] Proudhon also 
argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the 
proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are 
based on property and so authority (see the section <i>"Characteristics
of communism and of property"</i> in <b>What is Property?</b>). Thus the 
Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the
individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well 
as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively 
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to 
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue 
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to 
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced 
with that of "society."
</p><p>
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that 
Stirner's and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but 
only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, <i>"before
and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such
a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's distrust as to its
effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of
monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men
of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty
and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever
had to go through such a communism."</i> [<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 98]
Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a <b>new</b>
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's
and Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed
against it as they could not be familiar with it.
</p><p>
Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects
of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish <b>all</b> individual 
"property," communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of 
individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin 
arguing against forms of communism that <i>"desire to manage the 
community after the model of a family . . . [to live] all in 
the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet the 
same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to 
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, 
to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."</i> 
[<b>Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail</b>, pp. 8-9] The aim 
of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place <i>"the 
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to 
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."</i> 
[<b>The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought</b>, 
p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and 
so individuality -- both in consumption <b>and</b> in production, as
social anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.
</p><p>
Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition 
to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and 
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather
use community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society"
control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social 
anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual
expression:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
-- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her] 
independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified 
god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long
as the individual is not so! . . .'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 14-15]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for 
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves, 
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's <b>The Conquest of 
Bread</b>, p. 61 and <b>Act for Yourselves</b>, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's 
<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social
anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles
or the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions
are rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see 
<a href="secI.html#seci62">section I.6.2</a> for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists
an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that  
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their  
common needs. Therefore, <b>all</b> anarchists emphasise the importance  
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all 
anarchists agree with Bakunin: 
</p><p><blockquote> 
<i>"Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of
collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free 
community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure 
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free 
spontaneous movement from below."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>,  
p. 200] 
</blockquote></p><p> 
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods  
with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments
that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individuals <b>not</b> to join a commune
while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to
pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic
associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual 
wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others, 
social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism 
in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to 
be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
</p><p><blockquote> 
<i>"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable  
cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination  
. . . But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism  
in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of 
others."</i> [<b>The End of Anarchism?</b>, p. 40] 
</blockquote></p><p> 
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production  
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an  
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As 
Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious
as those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
affected. 
</p><p>
Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist 
anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into 
capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are 
forced into unemployment they may have 
to sell their labour to the "successful" in order to survive. This would
create authoritarian social relationships and the domination of the few
over the many via "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts
(and others like them), in all likelihood, <i>"opens . . . the way for  
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of  
the State."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 297]
</p><p> 
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and 
free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all 
schools of abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance 
of authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty." 
This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker 
argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and 
<i>"the assumption of authority over a given area and all within 
it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete 
oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."</i> 
[<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also 
has authority over a given area (the property in question) and 
all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the 
actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or 
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the
same social relationships as that created by the state, as it
comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given
area and those who use it).
</p><p>
Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance 
of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation 
of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in 
nature. <i>"The individualists,"</i> argued Malatesta, <i>"give the greatest 
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into 
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the 
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation."</i> [<b>The Anarchist 
Revolution</b>, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the 
worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places 
the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection. 
Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.
</p><p>
Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects 
of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because <i>"the school  of Benjamin Tucker -- by 
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to 
break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this 
school of so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of 
the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition 
of anarchism is <b>no government.</b>"</i> [<b>Anarchism: Arguments For and 
Against</b>, p. 8] It is partly for this reason social anarchists
support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual
liberty.
</p><p> 
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round" 
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of many of Tucker's 
economic ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that 
require more than one worker. This naturally complements their support
for "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish 
landlords. Without co-operatives, workers will be exploited for 
<i>"it is well enough to talk of [the worker] buying hand tools, or 
small machinery which can be moved about; but what about the gigantic 
machinery necessary to the operation of a mine, or a mill? It requires 
many to work it. If one owns it, will he not make the others pay 
tribute for using it?"</i> This is because <i>"no man would employ another 
to work for him unless he could get more for his product than he had 
to pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course of 
exchange and re-exchange would be that the man <b>having received 
less than the full amount.</b>"</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, <i>"Why I am 
an Anarchist"</i>, <b>Exquisite Rebel</b>, p. 61 and p. 60] Only when the 
people who use a resource own it can individual ownership not result 
in hierarchical authority or exploitation (i.e. statism/capitalism). 
Only when an industry is co-operatively owned, can the workers ensure 
that they govern themselves during work and can get the full value 
of the goods they make once they are sold.
</p><p>
This solution is the one Individualist Anarchists <i><b>do</b></i> seem to accept 
and the only one consistent with all their declared principles (as 
well as anarchism). This can be seen when French individualist E. 
Armand argued that the key difference between his school of anarchism
and communist-anarchism is that as well as seeing <i>"ownership of the
consumer goods representing an extension of [the worker's] personality"</i> 
it also <i>"regards ownership of the means of production and free disposal
of his produce as the quintessential guarantee of the autonomy of the
individual. The understanding is that such ownership boils down to the
chance to deploy (as individuals, couples, family groups, etc.) the 
requisite plot of soil or machinery of production to meet the 
requirements of the social unit, provided that the proprietor does
not transfer it to someone else or reply upon the services of someone
else in operating it."</i> Thus the individualist anarchist could <i>"defend
himself against . . . the exploitation of anyone by one of his 
neighbours who will set him to work in his employ and for his
benefit"</i> and <i>"greed, which is to say the opportunity for an 
individual, couple or family group to own more than strictly 
required for their normal upkeep."</i> [<i>"Mini-Manual of the Anarchist
Individualist"</i>, pp. 145-9, <b>Anarchism</b>, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 147 
and pp. 147-8] 
</p><p>
The ideas of the American individualist anarchists logically flow to
the same conclusions. "Occupancy and Use" automatically excludes wage
labour and so exploitation and oppression. As Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, the US 
Individualist anarchists <i>"expected a society of largely self-employed 
workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between any of them."</i> 
[<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 104] It is 
this vision of a self-employed society that logically flows from their
principles which ensures that their ideas are truly anarchist. As it is,
their belief that their system would ensure the elimination of profit,
rent and interest place them squarely in the anti-capitalist camp alongside 
social anarchists.
</p><p>
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism,
arguing that there are undesirable features of even non-capitalist markets
which would undermine freedom and equality. Moreover, the development of
industry has resulted in <b>natural</b> barriers of entry into markets and this 
not only makes it almost impossible to abolish capitalism by competing against it, it also makes the possibility of recreating usury in 
new forms likely. Combine this with the difficulty in determining the exact
contribution of each worker to a product in a modern economy and you see
why social anarchists argue that the only real solution to capitalism is to 
ensure community ownership and management of the economy. It is this 
recognition of the developments within the capitalist economy which make 
social anarchists reject individualist anarchism in favour of communalising, 
and so decentralising, production by freely associated and co-operative 
labour on a large-scale rather than just in the workplace. 
</p><p>
For more discussion on the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, and why
social anarchists reject them, see section G -- <a 
href="secGcon.html">"Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?"</a></p>

<a name="seca32"><h2>A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?</h2></a> 

<p>
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,  
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply 
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist 
is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is  
based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging 
the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual 
bank network would be <i>"formed by the whole community, not for the especial  
advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . . 
[with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks  
and expenses."</i> Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression  
for by <i>"introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it  
everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic."</i> [Charles A. Dana, <b>Proudhon and his <i>"Bank of the People"</i></b>, pp. 44-45 and p. 45] 
</p><p>
The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist 
form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune) 
instead of being independent co-operatives. This would ensure that they
provided investment funds to co-operatives rather than to capitalistic
enterprises. Another difference is that some social anarchist mutualists
support the creation of what Proudhon termed an <b><i>"agro-industrial federation"</i></b> 
to complement the federation of libertarian communities (called communes 
by Proudhon). This is a <i>"confederation . . . intended to provide 
reciprocal security in commerce and industry"</i> and large scale developments 
such as roads, railways and so on. The purpose of <i>"specific federal arrangements
is to protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist
and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside."</i> This is
because <i>"political right requires to be buttressed by economic right."</i> Thus
the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the anarchist
nature of society from the destabilising effects of market exchanges (which
can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so power). Such a 
system would be a practical example of solidarity, as <i>"industries are
sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the
others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate, not
to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to guarantee mutually
the conditions of common prosperity . . . Making such an agreement 
will not detract from their liberty; it will simply give their liberty
more security and force."</i> [<b>The Principle of Federation</b>, p. 70, p. 67
and p. 72]
</p><p> 
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support  
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is  
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products  
freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social
anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of
producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of 
individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the <i>"future social organisation
must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or
federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and
universal"</i> and <i>"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
may become the collective property of the whole of society and be 
utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and
industrial associations."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 206 
and p. 174] Only by extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual 
workplaces can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section 
I.1.3</a> for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share 
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial confederations 
would <i>"guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are
the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal 
contract become the collective property of the whole . . . federation.
In this way, the federation of groups will be able to . . . regulate
the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society."</i> 
[James Guillaume, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 376] 
</p><p>
These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management 
of production within co-operatives but see confederations of these 
associations as being the focal point for expressing mutual aid, not 
a market. Workplace autonomy and self-management would be the basis 
of any federation, for <i>"the workers in the various factories have not 
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the 
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"</i>
[Guillaume, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 364] In addition to this industry-wide federation, there
would also be cross-industry and community confederations to look after 
tasks which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any
particular industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this
has similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.
</p><p>
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means  
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the  
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The  
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and  
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other 
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can 
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For  
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution. 
</p><p> 
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the  
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the  
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider  
the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. 
As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism <i>"express[es] a state of things
in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour
groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. 
distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 295] Thus, while communism
and collectivism both organise production in common via producers'
associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed.
Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is 
more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the 
labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, 
over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes 
stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society 
would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: <b><i>"From each 
according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."</i></b> They 
just disagree on how quickly this will come about (see 
<a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>). 
</p><p>
For anarcho-communists, they think that <i>"communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established than collectivism"</i> after a revolution.
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 298] They think that moves towards communism are essential
as collectivism <i>"begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system
of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction
of inequality."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 230] The
quicker the move to communism, the less chances of new inequalities 
developing. Needless to say, these positions are <b>not</b> that different 
and, in practice, the necessities of a social revolution and the level 
of political awareness of those introducing anarchism will determine which 
system will be applied in each area.
</p><p>
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists,  
like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on  
anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralised, federated unions that  
use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong  
enough to overthrow it. In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered
as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the 
importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating
unions which prefigure the future free society.
</p><p> 
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create <i>"free  
associations of free producers."</i> They think that these associations would  
serve as <i>"a practical school of anarchism"</i> and they take very seriously  
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create <i>"not only  
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself"</i> in the pre-revolutionary  
period. 
</p><p> 
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, <i>"are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes 
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers 
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, 
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers 
themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches 
of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and  
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products 
in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."</i> 
[Rudolf Rocker, <b>Anarcho-syndicalism</b>, p. 55] 
</p><p>
Again, like all social
anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists see the collective struggle and 
organisation implied in unions as the school for anarchism. As Eugene
Varlin (an anarchist active in the First International who was murdered
at the end of the Paris Commune) put it, unions have <i>"the enormous advantage of making people
accustomed to group life and thus preparing them for a more extended
social organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with
one another and to understand one another, but also to organise 
themselves, to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective."</i>
Moreover, as well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression
in the here and now, the unions also <i>"form the natural elements of the 
social edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed
into producers associations; it is they who can make the social ingredients
and the organisation of production work."</i> [quoted by Julian P. W. Archer,
<b>The First International in France, 1864-1872</b>, p. 196]
</p><p> 
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social 
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of 
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that 
building libertarian unions is important and that work within the 
labour movement is essential in order to ensure <i>"the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge 
the importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think 
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle, 
and so consider encouraging the <b><i>"spirit of revolt"</i></b> as more important than 
creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them (of course,
anarcho-syndicalists support such autonomous struggle and organisation,
so the differences are not great). Communist-anarchists also 
do not place as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles 
within it to be equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy 
and domination outside the workplace (most anarcho-syndicalists would
agree with this, however, and often it is just a question of emphasis). 
A few communist-anarchists reject the labour movement as hopelessly
reformist in nature and so refuse to work within it, but these are
a small minority.
</p><p> 
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for  
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations.  
They think it is essential that anarchists work together as  
anarchists to clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists  
often deny the importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing  
that revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.  
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused  
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point  
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist  
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion 
of anarchism and unionism a source of potential <b>confusion</b> that would 
result in the two movements failing to do their respective work correctly. 
For more details on anarcho-syndicalism see <a href="secJ3.html#secj38">section J.3.8</a> (and <a href="secJ3.html#secj39">section
J.3.9</a> on why many anarchists reject aspects of it). It should be stressed that non-syndicalist anarchists
do <b>not</b> reject the need for collective struggle and organisation by
workers (see <a href="secH2.html#sech28">section H.2.8</a> on that particular Marxist myth).
</p><p>
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an  
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist.  
For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist  
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman  
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas. 
</p><p>
For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the
works of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat different, 
as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than the work of a 
"famous" name (although this does not stop academics calling George Sorel 
the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote about a syndicalist movement 
that already existed. The idea that working class people can develop their
own ideas, by themselves, is usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker 
is often considered a leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the works 
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand 
anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social 
anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's excellent 
anthology <b>No Gods No Masters</b> cannot be bettered.</p>

<a name="seca33"><h2>A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?</h2></a>

<p>
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back 
to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin and Elisee 
Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a <i>"secret harmony exists 
between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and when imprudent 
societies let themselves violate this harmony, they always end up 
regretting it."</i> Similarly, no contemporary ecologist would disagree
with his comments that the <i>"truly civilised man [and women] understands
that his [or her] nature is bound up with the interest of all and with
that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage caused by his predecessors
and works to improve his domain."</i> [quoted by George Woodcock, 
<i>"Introduction"</i>, Marie Fleming, <b>The Geography of Freedom</b>, p. 15]
</p><p>
With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be based 
on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and brain  
work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and agriculture 
(see his classic work <b>Fields, Factories, and Workshops</b>). This idea of an 
economy in which <i>"small is beautiful"</i> (to use the title of E.F. Schumacher's 
Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before it was taken up by what 
was to become the green movement. In addition, in <b>Mutual Aid</b> Kropotkin 
documented how co-operation within species and between them and their 
environment is usually of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's 
work, combined with that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of 
whom, like Kropotkin, were world-renowned geographers), and many others 
laid the foundations for the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
</p><p>
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within classical
anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the similarities between ecological
thought and anarchism has come to the fore (essentially from the publication
of Murray Bookchin's classic essay <i>"Ecology and Revolutionary Thought"</i>
in 1965). Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and
work of Murray Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at 
the heart of anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects 
of the green movement.
</p><p>
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called eco-anarchism)
it would be worthwhile to explain exactly <b>what</b> anarchism and ecology
have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, <i>"both the ecologist and the
anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity"</i> and <i>"to both the ecologist
and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is achieved by growing differentiation.
<b>An expanding whole is created by the diversification and enrichment of its
parts.</b>"</i> Moreover, <i>"[j]ust as the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an
eco-system and promote free interplay between species, so the anarchist
seeks to expand the range of social experiments and remove all fetters to
its development."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 36]
</p><p>
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation, diversity
and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and concerns. Hierarchy, 
centralisation, the state and concentrations of wealth reduce diversity and
 the free development of individuals and their communities by their very
nature, and so weakens the social eco-system as well as the actual 
eco-systems human societies are part of. As Bookchin argues, <i>"the 
reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is that] we must conserve and
promote variety"</i> but within modern capitalist society <i>"[a]ll 
that is spontaneous, creative and individuated is circumscribed by the 
standardised, the regulated and the massified."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 35
and p. 26] So, in many ways, anarchism can be considered the application
of ecological ideas to society, as anarchism aims to empower individuals
and communities, decentralise political, social and economic power so
ensuring that individuals and social life develops freely and so becomes
increasingly diverse in nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris 
argues that <i>"the only political tradition that complements and, as
it were, integrally connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic
way -- is that of anarchism."</i> [<b>Ecology and Anarchism</b>, p. 132]
</p><p>
So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of 
modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main 
focal points, <b><i>Social Ecology</i></b> and <b><i>"primitivist"</i></b>. 
In addition, some anarchists are influenced by <b><i>Deep Ecology</i></b>, although not many. Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous 
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray 
Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the 1950's 
and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with revolutionary
social anarchism. His works include <b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, 
<b>Toward
an Ecological Society</b>, <b>The Ecology of Freedom</b> and a host of others.
</p><p>
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen
as a product of domination within society, but this domination only reaches
crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the
domination of man by man. . .  But it was not until organic community
relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself
was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency
finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to
its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans
against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the natural
world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of
nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured
and merchandised wantonly . . . The plundering of the human spirit by 
the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 24-5]
</blockquote></p><p>
<i>"Only insofar,"</i> Bookchin stresses, <i>"as the ecology <b>consciously</b> cultivates 
an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility, structure, and
strategy for social change can it retain its very <b>identity</b> as the voice
for a new balance between humanity and nature and its <b>goal</b> for a truly
ecological society."</i> Social ecologists contrast this to what Bookchin 
labels <i>"environmentalism"</i> for while social ecology <i>"seeks to eliminate
the concept of the domination of nature by humanity by eliminating
domination of human by human, environmentalism reflects an 'instrumentalist'
or technical sensibility in which nature is viewed merely as a passive
habit, an agglomeration of external objects and forces, that must be
made more 'serviceable' for human use, irrespective of what these uses
may be. Environmentalism . . . does not bring into question the underlying
notions of the present society, notably that man must dominate nature.
On the contrary, it seeks to facilitate that domination by developing
techniques for diminishing the hazards caused by domination."</i> 
[Murray Bookchin, <b>Towards an Ecological Society</b>, p. 77]
</p><p>
Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
one which <i>"involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
-- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
beings."</i> Such an ecotopia <i>"establish entirely new eco-communities that
are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."</i>
Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that <i>"[s]uch an eco-community . . . 
would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by 
fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
rotation or diversification of vocational tasks."</i>  This society would
be based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a <i>"new kind of
technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . . .
Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities of
nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature 
differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
wastes that could be recycled."</I> [Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 68-9]
</p><p>
However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society <i>"is
more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium that
exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple technical
or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's function
degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads them to
purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological problems.
Social ecology is, first of all, a <b>sensibility</b> that includes not only
a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive outlook . . .
guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without structuring differences
into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts for such an ethics . . .
[are] participation and differentiation."</i> [<b>The Modern Crisis</b>, 
pp. 24-5]
</p><p>
Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of ecological
problems. This is one of the key areas in which they disagree with
"Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more critical of
<b>all</b> aspects of modern life, with some going so far as calling for 
<i>"the end of civilisation"</i> including, apparently, all forms of technology
and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in 
<a href="secA3.html#seca39">section A.3.9</a>.
</p><p> 
We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing 
with its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social 
Ecologists see this as a means of
creating popular self-managing assemblies and creating a counter
power to the state, few anarchists agree. Rather they see it as inherently
reformist as well as being hopelessly naive about the possibilities of
using elections to bring about social change 
(see <a href="secJ5.html#secj514">section J.5.14</a> for
a fuller discussion of this). Instead they propose direct action as the
means to forward anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering
as a dead-end which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting
the people involved (see section J.2 -- <a href="secJ2.html">What is Direct Action?</a>).
</p><p>
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature,
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think
that <b>people,</b> as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which
many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has
been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the
anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see <b>Which Way for
the Ecology Movement?</b>, for example). David Watson has also argued 
against Deep Ecology (see his <b>How Deep is Deep Ecology?</b> written
under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue that 
it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and that 
only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a crude
biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an ever-diminishing sense of
humanity and papers over a profound ignorance of social reality by 
ignoring the fact it is <b>capitalism</b> we are talking about, not an abstraction
called 'Humanity' and 'Society.'"</i> [<b>The Philosophy of Social Ecology</b>,
p. 160]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, as Morris stresses, <i>"by focusing entirely on the category of 'humanity' the Deep 
Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social origins of 
ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are essentially
social problems."</i> To submerge ecological critique and analysis into a 
simplistic protest against the human race ignores the real causes and 
dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore, ensures an end to 
this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is hardly "people" 
who are to blame when the vast majority have no real say in the 
decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries and 
eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that places 
profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on "Humanity" 
(and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men and women, 
whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and 
oppressed) the system we live under is effectively ignored, and so 
are the institutional causes of ecological problems. This can be
<i>"both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications, and 
substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study of
real social issues and concerns."</i> [Morris, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 135]
</p><p>
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their spokes-persons 
ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the anti-human ideas
associated with their movement. Deep ecology, particularly the organisation
<b><i>Earth First!</i></b> (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a
close working relationship with the <b><i>Industrial Workers of the World</i></b> (IWW),
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it
shares many ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects
its few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book <b>Defending the Earth</b>).</p>

<a name="seca34"><h2>A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?</h2></a>

<p>
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy 
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called <b><i>"anarcho-pacifism"</i></b> 
(the term <b><i>"non-violent anarchist"</i></b> is sometimes used, but this term is 
unfortunate because it implies the rest of the movement are "violent," 
which is not the case!). The union  of anarchism and pacifism is not
surprising given the fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism.
After all, violence, or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by 
which individual freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out,
<i>"[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the 
long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist 
values."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p.637] Malatesta is even
more explicit when he wrote that the <i>"main plank of anarchism is the 
removal of violence from human relations"</i> and that anarchists <i>"are
opposed to violence."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 53]
</p><p>
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism, 
the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed 
all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being
against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are
important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the
violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has
always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine
and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising
armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist
army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White
armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists 
during the Spanish Revolution -- see sections 
<a href="secA5.html#seca54">A.5.4</a> and <a href="secA5.html#seca56">A.5.6</a>, 
respectively). 
</p><p>
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists
support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists. 
However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support 
the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists, 
on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that 
physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to
resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist,
Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, <b>The Conquest of Violence</b>). 
As Malatesta put it, violence, while being  <i>"in itself an evil,"</i> is <i>"justifiable 
only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence"</i> and 
that a <i>"slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently, 
his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally 
justifiable."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 55 and pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use 
the words of Bakunin, since social oppression <i>"stems far less from individuals 
than from the organisation of things and from social positions"</i> anarchists aim 
to <i>"ruthlessly destroy positions and things"</i> rather than people, since the aim of 
an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes <i>"not as individuals, 
but as classes."</i> [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, <b>The Social and Political Thought 
of Michael Bakunin</b> p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]
</p><p>
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, as 
they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum during any
social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with the Dutch pacifist 
anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that <i>"the violence and warfare 
which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the 
liberation of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited 
classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where 
violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution."</i> [<b>The 
Conquest of Violence</b>, p. 75]
</p><p>
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one
of his book's chapters, <i>"the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism."</i> For de Ligt,
and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any attempt
to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, on the one
hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other means. Nations
often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in 
economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, <i>"violence
is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling class would
be completely unable to maintain its privileged position with regard to the 
exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and foremost to hold
down the workers. . . when they become discontented."</i> [Bart de Ligt, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so,
for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the
consistent anarchist must be a pacifist.
</p><p>
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an unavoidable
and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as well as the only means 
by which the privileged classes will renounce their power and wealth. Those
in authority rarely give up their power and so must be forced. Hence
the need for <i>"transitional"</i> violence <i>"to put an end to the far greater, and
permanent, violence which keeps the majority of mankind in servitude."</i>
[Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 55] To concentrate on the issue of violence versus
non-violence is to ignore the real issue, namely how do we change society
for the better. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists 
who are pacifists confuse the issue, like those who think <i>"it's the same 
as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work 
itself."</i> To the contrary, <i>"[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely 
rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead."</i> [<b>What is 
Anarchism?</b>, p. 183] And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions
start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and 
only degenerate into violence when those in power try to maintain
their position (a classic example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the
occupation of factories by their workers was followed by fascist
terror -- see <a href="secA5.html#seca55">section A.5.5</a>). 
</p><p>
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the 
military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as statist/capitalist 
wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff, 
supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war 
as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and 
anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world
war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting
a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their
striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both 
arrested and deported from America for organising a <b><i>"No-Conscription League"</i></b> 
in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the
armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist
influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression 
due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful 
elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like 
Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement 
as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists.
Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War, 
the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest 
against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the slogan <b><i>"No war but the class war"</i></b> which 
nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil 
consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of 
different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their 
rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists 
urge working people to fight for their own interests, not those 
of their masters:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of
guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all;
and we must prepare to accomplish these things."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 251]
</blockquote></p><p>
We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against 
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything 
he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War  
as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course,  
as Malatesta pointed out, <i>"all Governments and all capitalist classes"</i> do  
<i>"misdeeds . . . against the workers and rebels of their own countries."</i>  
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 246] He, along with Berkman, Goldman and a host of other 
anarchists, put their name to International Anarchist Manifesto against 
the First World War. It expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist 
movement (at the time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is 
worth quoting from:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the 
existence of the State, which is the form of privilege . . . Whatever
the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression
for the advantage of a privileged minority . . . 
</p><p>
"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace,
is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the
State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political
parties . .  . This confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and
continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the whole of
the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a war
of liberation.
</p><p>
"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have
been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.
</p><p>
"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that 
there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is
waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against
the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt against 
their masters.
</p><p>
"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly
aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the
spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . .
</p><p>
"We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the 
revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social
justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war 
and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won,
by the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."</i>
[<i>"International Anarchist Manifesto on the War,"</i> <b>Anarchy! An 
Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth</b>, pp. 386-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence <b>is</b>
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist
principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he
argues that <i>"[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason
wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible."</i>
[Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists 
agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be
counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to
repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social
change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil 
disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change. 
 </p><p>
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All
agree that a revolution which <b>institutionalises</b> violence will just
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence. 
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence
except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.</p> 

<a name="seca35"><h2>A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?</h2></a>

<p>
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong 
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent 
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist 
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring  
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist 
movements to remind them of their principles. 
</p><p>
The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have 
always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been 
anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of 
<b>A Vindication of the Rights of Woman</b>), the Communard Louise Michel, 
and the American anarchists (and tireless champions of women's freedom) 
Voltairine de Cleyre and Emma Goldman (for the former, see her essays
<i>"Sex Slavery"</i>, <i>"Gates of Freedom"</i>, <i>"The Case of Woman vs. Orthodoxy"</i>, <i>"Those Who Marry Do Ill"</i>; for the latter see <i>"The Traffic in 
Women"</i>, <i>"Woman Suffrage"</i>, <i>"The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation"</i>, <i>"Marriage 
and Love"</i> and <i>"Victims of Morality"</i>, for example). <b>Freedom</b>, the world's  
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886. 
Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played important
roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The <b><i>"Mujeres Libres"</i></b>
(<i>"Free Women"</i>) movement in Spain during the Spanish revolution is a classic 
example of women anarchists organising themselves to defend their basic 
freedoms and create a society based on women's freedom and equality (see 
<b>Free Women of Spain</b> by Martha Ackelsberg for more details on this 
important organisation). In addition, all the male major anarchist 
thinkers (bar Proudhon) were firm supporters of women's equality. For 
example, Bakunin opposed patriarchy and how the law <i>"subjects [women] 
to the absolute domination of the man."</i> He argued that <i>"[e]qual rights 
must belong to men and women"</i> so that women can <i>"become independent
and be free to forge their own way of life."</i> He looked forward to the
end of <i>"the authoritarian juridical family"</i> and <i>"the full sexual 
freedom of women."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 396 and p. 397]
</p><p>
Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of 
patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria 
Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it,
women <i>"will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the
legislator who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces
you to an <b>object</b> is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is
a man; that the capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid
work and the speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body,
are men."</i> Little has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists 
and, to quote the anarchist paper <b>La Questione Sociale</b>, it is 
still usually the case that women <i>"are slaves both in social
and private life. If you are a proletarian, you have two tyrants:
the man and the boss. If bourgeois, the only sovereignty left to
you is that of frivolity and coquetry."</i> [quoted by Jose Moya, 
<b>Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement</b>, pp. 197-8 and
p. 200] 
</p><p>
Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy 
is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. For <i>"[y]ou 
can have no free, or just, or equal society, nor anything approaching it, 
so long as womanhood is bought, sold, housed, clothed, fed, and <b>protected</b>, 
as a chattel."</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, <i>"The Gates of Freedom"</i>, pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte, 
<b>Gates of Freedom</b>, p. 242] To quote 
Louise Michel:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The first thing that must change is the relationship between the
sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be
walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will 
last as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its controls,
the 'weaker' half."</i> [<b>The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel</b>, p. 139]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's 
equality. Both share much common history and a concern about 
individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female 
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have  
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going 
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism  
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much  
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine  
points out that, during this time, <i>"independent groups of women began  
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the  
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations  
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,  
either."</i> [<i>"The Tyranny of Tyranny,"</i> <b>Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist
Reader</b>, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have 
noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical society, 
which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and 
ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn 
French argues (in <b>Beyond Power</b>) that the first major social 
stratification of the human race occurred when men began dominating 
women, with women becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social 
class. 
</p><p>
The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both
ideas and action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes 
that her <i>"discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian 
and patriarchal basis] owes something to"</i> libertarian ideas, 
that is the <i>"anarchist wing of the socialist movement."</i> [<b>The 
Sexual Contract</b>, p. 14] Moreover, she noted in the 1980s how 
the <i>"major locus of criticism of authoritarian, hierarchical, 
undemocratic forms of organisation for the last twenty years has 
been the women's movement . . . After Marx defeated Bakunin in 
the First International, the prevailing form of organisation in 
the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in the left 
sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The women's 
movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged idea 
[of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments 
in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social 
organisation."</i> [<b>The Disorder of Women</b>, p. 201]
</p><p> 
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between 
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. <i>"The radical feminist 
perspective is almost pure anarchism,"</i> she writes. <i>"The basic theory  
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.  
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is  
to <b>obey</b> the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from  
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable  
of questioning or even of thinking clearly."</i> [<i>"Anarchism: The Feminist
Connection,"</i> <b>Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader</b>, p. 26] 
Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism <i>"consists 
in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it."</i> 
[<i>"Anarchism/Feminism,"</i> pp. 3-7, <b>The Raven</b>, no. 21, p. 6] 
</p><p>  
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values, 
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,  
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and  
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian 
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity, 
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.  
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of 
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of 
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and 
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however, 
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since 
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See 
e.g. Riane Eisler, <b>The Chalice and the Blade</b>; Elise Boulding, <b>The 
Underside of History</b>). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the 
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation, 
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."  
</p><p>
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved 
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the 
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow  
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies 
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists 
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective 
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and 
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued 
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political 
forms. [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock <i>"Feminist Theory and the Development of 
Revolutionary Strategy,"</i> in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., <b>Capitalist Patriarchy 
and the Case for Socialist Feminism</b>, pp. 56-77] Like all anarchists, 
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's 
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman: 
</p><p><blockquote><i> 
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and  
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and 
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over 
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by 
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the 
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That 
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its 
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and 
public condemnation."</i> [<b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b>, p. 211] 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and 
dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It 
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist 
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its  
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion  
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move 
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called  
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become  
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques 
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies, 
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist 
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists  
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor  
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujeres Libres put  
it, <i>"[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a  
masculine one"</i> [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, <b>Free Women of Spain</b>,  
pp. 22-3] -- also see <a href="secB1.html#secb14">section B.1.4</a> for a further discussion on patriarchy 
and hierarchy). 
</p><p>
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)  
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica  
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued  
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge  
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's only  
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to  
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege and if these  
institutions <i>"are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will 
still be unjust if women take advantage of them."</i> [quoted by Martha 
A. Ackelsberg, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 119] Thus, for anarchists, women's freedom did 
not mean an equal chance to become a boss or a wage slave, a voter or
a politician, but rather to be a free and equal individual co-operating
as equals in free associations. <i>"Feminism,"</i> stressed Peggy Kornegger,
<i>"doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no
corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a
hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy
-- economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist
revolution."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 27] 
</p><p>
Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis
which is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time,
showing an awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations 
which eluded the mainstream socialist movement. This flows from
our hatred of hierarchy. As Mozzoni put it, <i>"Anarchy defends the
cause of all the oppressed, and because of this, and in a special
way, it defends your [women's] cause, oh! women, doubly oppressed
by present society in both the social and private spheres."</i> [quoted
by Moya, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 203] This means that, to quote a Chinese
anarchist, what anarchists <i>"mean by equality between the sexes is
not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We also want
men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no longer
to be oppressed by other women."</i> Thus women should <i>"completely 
overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special 
privileges and become equal to women, and make a world with 
neither the oppression of women nor the oppression of men."</i>
[He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow, <b>Anarchism and Chinese 
Political Culture</b>, p. 147] 
</p><p>
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,  
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being <i>"too narrowly  
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle 
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist 
project as a whole."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 119] Anarcha-feminism continues 
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong, 
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its 
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same 
chance of being a boss as a man does. They simply state the obvious,
namely that they <i>"do not believe that power in the hands of women 
could possibly lead to a non-coercive society"</i> nor do they <i>"believe
that anything good can come out of a mass movement with a 
leadership elite."</i> The <i>"central issues are always power and
social hierarchy"</i> and so people <i>"are free only when they have
power over their own lives."</i> [Carole Ehrlich, <i>"Socialism, Anarchism
and Feminism"</i>, <b>Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader</b>, p. 44]
For if, as Louise Michel put it, <i>"a proletarian is a slave; the 
wife of a proletarian is even more a slave"</i> ensuring that the wife
experiences an equal level of oppression as the husband misses the
point. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 141]
</p><p>
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism 
as a denial of liberty. Their critique of hierarchy in the society does
not start and end with patriarchy. It is a case of wanting freedom 
everywhere, of wanting to <i>"[b]reak up . . . every home that rests in 
slavery! Every marriage that represents the sale and transfer of the 
individuality of one of its parties to the other! Every institution, 
social or civil, that stands between man and his right; every tie 
that renders one a master, another a serf."</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, 
<i>"The Economic Tendency of Freethought"</i>, <b>The Voltairine de Cleyre
Reader</b>, p. 72] The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism  
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see 
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For 
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be  
separated from the struggle against hierarchy <b>as such.</b> As L. Susan  
Brown puts it: 
</p><p><blockquote><i> 
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility 
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting 
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination, 
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserve individual 
existential freedom, for both men and women."</i> [<b>The Politics of 
Individualism</b>, p. 144] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of 
the origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of 
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars 
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination  
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See, 
for example, Caroline Merchant, <b>The Death of Nature</b>, 1980). Both women  
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises  
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both 
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be 
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.  
</p><p> 
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating 
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's  
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting  
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists  
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are  
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism  
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the 
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not 
only external constraints but also internal ones. 
</p><p>
This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we preach. 
As Voltairine de Cleyre argued, <i>"I never expect men to <b>give</b> us 
liberty. No, Women, we are not <b>worth</b> it, until we <b>take</b> it."</i> This
involves <i>"insisting on a new code of ethics founded on the law of 
equal freedom: a code recognising the complete individuality of 
woman. By making rebels wherever we can. By ourselves <b>living our 
beliefs</b> . . . . We are revolutionists. And we shall use propaganda 
by speech, deed, and most of all life -- <b>being</b> what we teach."</i> 
Thus anarcha-feminists, like all anarchists, see the struggle against 
patriarchy as being a struggle of the oppressed for their own 
self-liberation, for <i>"<b>as a class</b> I have nothing to hope from men 
. . . No tyrant ever renounced his tyranny until he had to. If history 
ever teaches us anything it teaches this. Therefore my hope lies in 
creating rebellion in the breasts of women."</i> [<i>"The Gates of Freedom"</i>, pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte, 
<b>Gates of Freedom</b>, p. 249 and p. 239] This was sadly as applicable within the
anarchist movement as it was outside it in patriarchal society.
</p><p>
Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual
equality, women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the
<b>Mujeres Libres</b> organisation to combat it. They did not believe in
leaving their liberation to some day after the revolution. Their
liberation was a integral part of that revolution and had to be 
started today. In this they repeated the conclusions of anarchist
women in Illinois Coal towns who grew tried of hearing their male
comrades <i>"shout in favour"</i> of sexual equality <i>"in the future society"</i>
while doing nothing about it in the here and now. They used a 
particularly insulting analogy, comparing their male comrades to
priests who <i>"make false promises to the starving masses . . . [that]
there will be rewards in paradise."</i> The argued that mothers should
make their daughters <i>"understand that the difference in sex does 
not imply inequality in rights"</i> and that as well as being <i>"rebels
against the social system of today,"</i> they <i>"should fight especially
against the oppression of men who would like to retain women as
their moral and material inferior."</i> [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by 
Caroline Waldron Merithew, <b>Anarchist Motherhood</b>, p. 227] They
formed the <b><i>"Luisa Michel"</i></b> group to fight against capitalism and
patriarchy in the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three
decades before their Spanish comrades organised themselves.
</p><p>
For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle 
for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the 
rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against capitalism
which would somehow be automatically solved after the revolution. It is 
an essential part of the struggle:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"We do not need any of your titles . . . We want none of them. What
we do want is knowledge and education and liberty. We know what our
rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing next to you
fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men, to
make part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women?
And then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."</i>
[Louise Michel, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 142]
</blockquote></p><p>
A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
evil for <i>"the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death doth
part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty of the 
man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and commands."</i> 
Women are reduced <i>"to the function of man's servant and bearer of his 
children."</i> [Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 220-1] Instead of this, anarchists proposed <b><i>"free love,"</i></b> that is couples and families based on free agreement between equals 
than one partner being in authority and the other simply obeying.
Such unions would be without sanction of church or state for <i>"two beings 
who love each other do not need permission from a third to go to bed."</i> 
[Mozzoni, quoted by Moya, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 200] 
</p><p>
Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. For <i>"if 
social progress consists in a constant tendency towards the equalisation 
of the liberties of social units, then the demands of progress are not 
satisfied so long as half society, Women, is in subjection. . . . 
Woman  . . . is beginning to feel her servitude; that there is a 
requisite acknowledgement to be won from her master before he is 
put down and she exalted to -- Equality. This acknowledgement is, 
<b>the freedom to control her own person</b>. "</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, 
<i>"The Gates of Freedom"</i>, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 242] Neither men nor state 
nor church should say what a woman does with her body. A logical 
extension of this is that women must have control over their own 
reproductive organs. Thus anarcha-feminists, like anarchists 
in general, are pro-choice and pro-reproductive rights (i.e. the right 
of a woman to control her own reproductive decisions). This is a long 
standing position. Emma Goldman was persecuted and incarcerated because 
of her public advocacy of birth control methods and the extremist notion 
that women should decide when they become pregnant (as feminist writer
Margaret Anderson put it, <i>"In 1916, Emma Goldman was sent to prison for
advocating that 'women need not always keep their mouth shut and their
wombs open.'"</i>).
</p><p>
Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it 
aims at changing <b>all</b> aspects of society not just what happens in 
the home. For, as Goldman asked, <i>"how much independence is gained if 
the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the 
narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department 
store, or office?"</i> Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought 
everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they 
be achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is 
only possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's 
self-activity and self-liberation for while the <i>"right to vote, or 
equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins 
neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . . 
her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches."</i> 
[Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 216 and p. 224]
</p><p>
The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has 
come from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise 
Michel put it, <i>"[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without 
begging anyone, we are taking our place in the struggles; otherwise, 
we could go ahead and pass motions until the world ends and gain 
nothing."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 139] If women waited for others to act 
for them their social position would never have changed. This
includes getting the vote in the first place. Faced with the
militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British anarchist 
Rose Witcop recognised that it was <i>"true that this movement shows 
us that women who so far have been so submissive to their masters, 
the men, are beginning to wake up at last to the fact they are not 
inferior to those masters."</i> Yet she argued that women would not be 
freed by votes but <i>"by their own strength."</i> [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, 
<b>Hidden from History</b>, pp. 100-1 and p. 101] The women's movement
of the 1960s and 1970s showed the truth of that analysis. In spite
of equal voting rights, women's social place had remained unchanged
since the 1920s. 
</p><p>
Ultimately, as Anarchist Lily Gair Wilkinson stressed, the <i>"call 
for 'votes' can never be a call to freedom. For what is it to vote? 
To vote is to register assent to being ruled by one legislator or 
another?"</i> [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 102] It does not
get to the heart of the problem, namely hierarchy and the authoritarian
social relationships it creates of which patriarchy is only a subset of. 
Only by getting rid of all bosses, political, economic, social and sexual
can <b>genuine</b> freedom for women be achieved and <i>"make it possible 
for women to be human in the truest sense. Everything within her 
that craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest 
expression; all artificial barriers should be broken, and the road 
towards greater freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of 
submission and slavery."</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 214]</p>

<a name ="seca36"><h2>A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally
regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics"
or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature, 
education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so
forth. 
</p><p>
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately
attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms
to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and
exploitation.  Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be
considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple
"war-is-hell" model and allows the reader to see how militarism is
connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or
methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional
patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism 
implies <i>"the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that 
expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them 
with a system of values based on freedom and community."</i> This <i>"<b>cultural</b> struggle"</i> would be part of a general struggle 
<i>"to combat the material
and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic,
political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional
practice of liberation."</i> In other words, an <i>"expanded conception of
class analysis"</i> and <i>"an amplified practice of class struggle"</i> 
which includes, but is not limited to, <i>"<b>economic</b> actions like strikes,
boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action
groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and 
development of workers' assemblies, collectives and co-operatives"</i>
and <i>"<b>political</b> activity"</i> like the <i>"active interference with 
implementation of repressive governmental policies,"</i> the <i>"non-compliance
and resistance against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society"</i> 
and <i>"participation in movements for increasing direct participation
in decision-making and local control."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 31] 
</p><p>
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with
many aspects besides the political and economic.  Hence those values
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution
if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in
the majority of the population.   For mass acquiescence in the current
system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their
<i>"character structure,"</i> to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is
produced by many forms of conditioning and  socialisation that have
developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five
or six thousand years.  
</p><p>
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place. 
For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give
orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself --
are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable
with.  Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and
indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of
failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals
of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and
ruling class were quickly created.  These failures are generally
attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists,
and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians
only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth
of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary
people. 
</p><p>
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated
or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing
and educational methods.  We will explore this issue more fully in section
B.1.5 (<a HREF="secB1.html#secb15">What is the mass-psychological basis 
for authoritarian civilisation?</a>),  J.6 (<a HREF="secJ6.html">What 
methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?</a>), and J.5.13
(<a HREF="secJ5.html#secj510">What are Modern Schools?</a>)  
</p><p>
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist
movement. For anarchists, its important to <i>"build the new world in the
shell of the old"</i> in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist
culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider
consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist
activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian
alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist movement is one
that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both
activities feeding into and supporting the other.</p>

<a name ="seca37"><h2>A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?</h2></a>

<p>
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other 
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to
Jacques Ellul, <i>"biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and
that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in 
accord with Christian thinkers."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall, 
<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 75] 
</p><p>
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas.
As Peter Marshall notes, the <i>"first clear expression of an anarchist 
sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from 
about the sixth century BC"</i> and <i>"Buddhism, particularly in its Zen 
form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 53
and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk, combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist
influences. However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of 
Christian Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here. 
</p><p>
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers
that <i>"kings and governors have domination over men; let there be 
none like that among you."</i> Similarly, Paul's dictum that there
<i>"is no authority except God"</i> is taken to its obvious conclusion
with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a
true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is
up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that
(to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) <b>The Kingdom of 
God is within you</b>.
</p><p>
 Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the 
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the 
world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all 
been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private 
property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which 
could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although 
one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon  
communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually  
appeared within radical Christian movements inspired, no doubt,
by such comments as <i>"all that believed were together, and had all
things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods, and
parted them all, according as every man has need"</i> and <i>"the multitude
of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, not one of
them said that all of the things which he possessed was his own;
but they had all things in common."</i> (Acts, 2:44,45; 4:32) 
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, the Bible would have been used to express radical 
libertarian aspirations of the oppressed, which, in later times, 
would have taken the form of anarchist or Marxist terminology). 
As Bookchin notes in
his discussion of Christianity's contributions to <i>"the legacy of freedom,"</i>
<i>"[b]y spawning nonconformity, heretical conventicles, and issues 
of authority over person and belief, Christianity created not
merely a centralised authoritarian Papacy, but also its very
antithesis: a quasi-religious anarchism."</i> Thus 
<i>"Christianity's mixed message can be grouped into two broad 
and highly conflicting systems of belief. On one side there was a 
radical, activistic, communistic, and libertarian vision of the 
Christian life"</i> and <i>"on the other side there was a conservative, 
quietistic, materially unwordly, and hierarchical vision."</i> 
[<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>,
p. 266 and pp. 274-5]  
</p><p>
Thus clergyman's John Ball's 
egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter Marshall [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 89]) 
during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:
</p><p><div align="center">
		<i>"When Adam delved and Eve span,<br>
		 Who was then a gentleman?"</i>
</div></p><p>
The history of Christian anarchism includes the <b><i>Heresy of the 
Free Spirit</i></b> in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the 
<b><i>Anabaptists</i></b> in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within 
Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of 
William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions 
in his <b>Practical Christian Socialism</b> in 1854. However, Christian 
anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement
with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
</p><p>
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of
the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom 
force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would
certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing
to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing
wrong."</i> [<b>The Kingdom of God is Within You</b>, p. 242]
</p><p></blockquote>
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this 
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society 
self-organised from below:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for 
themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for
themselves but for others?"</i> [<b>The Slavery of Our Times</b>, p. 46]
</blockquote></p><p>
This meant that <i>"people can only be freed from slavery by the abolition
of Governments."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 49] Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the <i>"great truth stressed by Tolstoy 
is that the recognition of the power of  the good, of goodness, of 
solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within <b>ourselves</b>, 
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised <b>in our 
own behaviour.</b>"</i> [<b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, pp. 251-2] 
Unsurprisngly, Tolstoy thought 
the <i>"anarchists are right in everything . . . They are mistaken only 
in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a revolution."</i> [quoted 
by Peter Marshall, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 375] 
</p><p>
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. He greatly admired and was heavily influenced by 
Proudhon, considering the latter's <i>"property is theft"</i> as <i>"an 
absolute truth"</i> which would <i>"survive as long as humanity."</i> [quoted 
by Jack Hayward, <b>After the French Revolution</b>, p. 213] Like 
Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon, 
had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land, 
arguing that <i>"were it not for the defence of landed property, and 
its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such 
narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there 
is still so much in the world."</i> Moreover, <i>"in this struggle [for 
landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always 
those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage."</i> 
Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in 
anything beyond use require state violence to protect them as possession
is <i>"always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice 
and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence."</i>
[<b>The Slavery of Our Times</b>, p. 47] Indeed, he argues that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor
-- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection
by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations
of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more
do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one
owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of
famine."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 47-8] 
</blockquote></p><p>
As with other anarchists, Tolstoy recognised that under capitalism,
economic conditions <i>"compel [the worker] to go into temporary or perpetual 
slavery to a capitalist"</i> and so is <i>"obliged to sell his liberty."</i> This
applied to both rural and urban workers, for the <i>"slaves of our times 
are not only all those factory and workshop hands, who must sell themselves 
completely into the power of the factory and foundry owners in order to 
exist; but nearly all the agricultural labourers are slaves, working
as they do unceasingly to grow another's corn on another's field."</i> Such
a system could only be maintained by violence, for <i>"first, the fruit of 
their toil is unjustly and violently taken form the workers, and then 
the law steps in, and these very articles which have been taken from 
the workmen -- unjustly and by violence -- are declared to be the 
absolute property of those who have stolen them."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 34, 
p. 31 and p. 38]
</p><p>
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals 
and that capitalists were <i>"slave-drivers."</i> He considered it impossible 
for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a <i>"manufacturer is a man 
whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose 
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour"</i> and therefore,
<i>"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit."</i> [<b>The 
Kingdom Of God is Within You</b>, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy
argued that co-operatives were the <i>"only social activity which a moral,
self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can
take part in."</i> [quoted by Peter Marshall, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 378]
</p><p>
So, for Tolstoy, <i>"taxes, or land-owning or property in articles of use or 
in the means of production"</i> produces <i>"the slavery of our times."</i> However, 
he rejected the state socialist solution to the social problem as political 
power would create a new form of slavery on the ruins of the old. This was 
because <i>"the fundamental cause of slavery is legislation: the fact that 
there are people who have the power to make laws."</i> This requires <i>"organised 
violence used by people who have power, in order to compel others to obey 
the laws they (the powerful) have made -- in other words, to do their will."</i>
Handing over economic life to the state would simply mean <i>"there will be
people to whom power will be given to regulate all these matters. Some
people will decide these questions, and others will obey them."</i> [Tolstoy,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 40, p. 41, p. 43 and p. 25] He correctly prophetised that
<i>"the only thing that will happen"</i> with the victory of Marxism would be
<i>"that despotism will be passed on. Now the capitalists are ruling, but 
then the directors of the working class will rule."</i> [quoted by Marshall,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 379]
</p><p>
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within
society and create a just society. For Tolstoy, government could 
only be destroyed by a mass refusal to obey, by non-participation 
in govermmental violence and by exposing fraud of statism to the 
world. He rejected the idea that force should be used to resist 
or end the force of the state. In Nettlau's words, he <i>"asserted 
. . . <b>resistance to evil</b>; and to one of the ways of resistance - 
by active force - he added another way: <b>resistance through 
disobedience, the passive force.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 251] In his 
ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural Russian life and aimed for a 
society based on peasant farming of communal land, artisans and small-scale co-operatives. 
He rejected industrialisation as the product of state
violence, arguing that <i>"such division of labour as now exists will
. . . be impossible in a free society."</i> [Tolstoy, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26]
</p><p>
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain 
out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation
of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a
free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). 
The <b>Catholic Worker Group</i></b> in the United States was also heavily 
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence 
of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in 
general can also be found in <b>Liberation Theology</i></b> movements in Latin 
and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism 
amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that
Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by state socialist
ideas rather than anarchist ones).
</p><p>
So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws 
anarchist conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in 
<a href="secA2.html#seca220">section A.2.20</a>, most anarchists 
disagree, arguing that anarchism implies 
atheism and it is no coincidence that the biblical thought has,
historically, been associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly
rulers. Thus the vast majority of anarchists have been and are atheists,
for <i>"to worship or revere any being, natural or supernatural, will
always be a form of self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise
to social domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human
beings fall on their knees before anything that is 'higher' than 
themselves, hierarchy will have made its first triumph over freedom.'"</i> 
[Brian Morris, <b>Ecology and Anarchism</b>, p. 137] This means that most
anarchists agree with Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary, 
for human freedom and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible
says, few anarchists think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas 
rather than support authoritarian ones and are not surprised that the
hierarchical side of Christianity has predominated in its long (and
generally oppressive) history.
</p><p>
Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for 
advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist reconcile 
this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality, or adherence
to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at all. If the Bible
is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the more extreme positions
it takes while claiming to believe in God, his authority and his laws?
</p><p>
For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working 
on the Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have 
been happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in 
spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death (<i>"Six days shall work 
be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath 
of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."</i>
Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such a punishment for
breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a woman to be stoned 
to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night would, rightly, be 
considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate specified in the "good
book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital sex by women be considered 
a capital crime by a Christian anarchist? Or, for that matter, should <i>"a 
stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, 
or the voice of his mother"</i> also suffer the fate of having <i>"all the men of 
his city . . . stone him with stones, that he die"</i>? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) 
Or what of the Bible's treatment of women: <i>"Wives, submit yourselves unto 
your own husbands."</i> (Colossians 3:18) They are also ordered to <i>"keep 
silence in the churches."</i> (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly 
stated: <i>"I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the 
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."</i> (I Corinthians 
11:3)  
</p><p>
Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as 
non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the 
Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for 
themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty 
a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy 
to ignore Jesus' admonition that <i>"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell 
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in 
heaven: and come and follow me."</i> (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the 
Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for 
that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to <i>"Give to every 
man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them 
not again."</i> (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they hold <i>"all 
things common"</i> as practised by the first Christian believers. (Acts 4:32)
So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as ignoring the 
teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be said of them 
by those they attack.
</p><p>
Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to reconcile 
with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice far more 
than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches hold <b>de facto</b> 
political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South America, in 
nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth, typically 
anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has the power 
to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role of the 
Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.
</p><p>
In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as 
dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to 
resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with 
Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as
a key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance 
of non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that 
few anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence, 
when no other option is available).</p> 

<a name ="seca38"><h2>A.3.8 What is <i>"anarchism without adjectives"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, <i>"anarchism without 
adjectives"</i> in its broadest sense <i>"referred to an unhyphenated form
of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such
as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,
. . . [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the
coexistence of different anarchist schools."</i> [<b>Anarchist Ideology and
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898</b>, p. 135]
</p><p>
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain
who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of
their two theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt 
to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be
clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic
plan on anyone -- even in theory. Thus the economic preferences 
of anarchists should be of <i>"secondary importance"</i> to abolishing 
capitalism and the state, with free experimentation the one rule
of a free society.
</p><p>
Thus the theoretical perspective known as <i>"anarquismo sin adjetives"</i>
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work <i>"On Building the
New Social Order"</i> within <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, the collectivists did
see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin 
had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism
was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero, 
Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin. 
</p><p>
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the
main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue
was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played
a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied
by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists
stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed
trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the
importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat 
anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy
and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists
who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle. 
</p><p>
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its
way into the pages of <b>La Revolte</b> in Paris. This provoked many anarchists
to agree with Malatesta's argument that <i>"[i]t is not right for us, to say 
the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses."</i> [quoted by Max 
Nettlau, <b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, pp. 198-9] Over time, most 
anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that <i>"we cannot foresee the 
economic development of the future"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 201] and so started to 
stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state) 
rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate.
As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the
labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working
class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to
communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after
a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as
there was <i>"no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our
eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in
time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote 
from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible
combinations."</i> Moreover, in a free society <i>"the methods and the 
individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation
of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at
this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them."</i>
[Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 173]
</p><p>
Thus, Malatesta continued, <i>"[e]ven the question as between 
anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of 
qualification, of method and agreement"</i> as the key is that, no
matter the system, <i>"a new moral conscience will come into being,
which will make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just
as legal slavery and compulsion are now repugnant to them."</i> If this
happens then, <i>"whatever the specific forms of society may turn out
to be, the basis of social organisation will be communist."</i> As long
as we <i>"hold to fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to
instil them in the masses"</i> we need not <i>"quarrel over mere words or
trifles but give post-revolutionary society a direction towards 
justice, equality and liberty."</i> [quoted by Nettlau, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 173 and p. 174]
</p><p>
Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There Benjamin 
Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not anarchists while 
John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Just as people 
like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist
groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre <i>"came to label herself
simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without
Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different 
experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order
to determine the most appropriate form."</i> [Peter Marshall, <b>Demanding
the Impossible</b>, p. 393] In her own words, a whole range of economic
systems would be <i>"advantageously tried in different localities. I 
would see the instincts and habits of the people express themselves 
in a free choice in every community; and I am sure that distinct 
environments would call out distinct adaptations."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>,
<b>Exquisite Rebel</b>, p. 79] Consequently, individualist and communist 
anarchist <i>"forms of society, as well as many intermediations, would, 
in the absence of government, be tried in various localities, according 
to the instincts and material condition of the people . . . Liberty 
and experiment alone can determine the best forms of society. Therefore 
I no longer label myself otherwise than 'Anarchist' simply."</i> [<i>"The 
Making of An Anarchist"</i>, <b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, pp. 107-8] 
</p><p>
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without
adjectives" (see Nettlau's <b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, pages 195 to
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant 
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists 
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist" 
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types 
of anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are
flawed. However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism (communism, syndicalism, religious etc) are not mutually exclusive and 
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance
is reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives."
</p><p>
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue 
that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist
movement. After all, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a
use of <i>"anarchism without adjectives"</i> is bogus as it was commonly
agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being 
discussed were <b>anti-capitalist</b> (i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta,
for example, there were <i>"anarchists who foresee and propose other
solution, other future forms of social organisation"</i> than communist
anarchism, but they <i>"desire, just as we do, to destroy political 
power and private property."</i> <i>"Let us do away,"</i> he argued, <i>"with
all exclusivism of schools of thinking"</i> and let us <i>"come to an understanding
on ways and means, and go forwards."</i> [quoted by Nettlau, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 175] In other 
words, it was agreed that capitalism had to be abolished along 
with the state and once this was the case free experimentation 
would develop. Thus the struggle against the state was
just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and exploitation
and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As "anarcho"-capitalists 
do not seek the abolition of capitalism along with the state they are not 
anarchists and so "anarchism without adjectives" does not apply to the
so-called "anarchist" capitalists (see <a href="secFcon.html">section F</a> 
on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist). 
</p><p>
This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist communities 
would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted to form such a 
system then they could, just as we would expect a community which supported 
state socialism or theocracy to live under that regime. Such enclaves of 
hierarchy would exist simply because it is unlikely that everyone on the
planet, or even in a given geographical area, will become anarchists all
at the same time. The key thing to remember is that no such system would be 
anarchist and, consequently, is not <i>"anarchism without adjectives."</i></p> 

<a name="seca39"><h2>A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?</h2></a>

<p>
As discussed in <a href="secA3.html#seca33">section A.3.3</a>, most 
anarchists would agree with 
Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that <i>"in a liberated world 
computers and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate 
dangerous or boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more 
interesting activities."</i> Obviously <i>"[c]ertain technologies -- nuclear 
power is the most obvious example -- are indeed so insanely dangerous 
that they will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other 
industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities 
will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance of their 
commercial rationales. But many technologies . . ., however they may 
presently be misused, have few if any <b>inherent</b> drawbacks. It's 
simply a matter of using them more sensibly, bringing them under 
popular control, introducing a few ecological improvements, and 
redesigning them for human rather than capitalistic ends."</i> [<b>Public 
Secrets</b>, p. 79 and p. 80] Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of 
appropriate technology as the means of creating a society which 
lives in balance with nature.
</p><p>
However, a small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green anarchists 
disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and David Watson have 
expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, aims to critique every 
form of power and oppression. This is often called <i>"anarcho-primitivism,"</i>  
which according to Moore, is simply <i>"a shorthand term for a radical current 
that critiques the totality of civilisation from an anarchist perspective, 
and seeks to initiate a comprehensive transformation of human life."</i> 
[<b>Primitivist Primer</b>] 
</p><p>
How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme elements 
seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of labour, domestication, 
"Progress", industrialism, what they call <i>"mass society"</i> and, for some, 
even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, language, time and art). They tend to call 
any system which includes these features <i>"civilisation"</i> and, consequently, 
aim for <i>"the destruction of civilisation"</i>. How far back they wish to go 
is a moot point. Some see the technological level that existed before the 
Industrial Revolution as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture 
and all forms of technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the 
wild, to a hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist 
and dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used to 
create an anarchist society based on industrial production which minimises 
its impact on ecosystems.
</p><p>
Thus we find the primitivist magazine <b>"Green Anarchy"</b> arguing that those, 
like themselves, <i>"who prioritise the values of personal autonomy or wild 
existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale organisations 
and societies on the grounds that they necessitate imperialism, slavery 
and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may be designed for."</i> They 
oppose capitalism as it is <i>"civilisation's current dominant manifestation."</i> 
However, they stress that it is <i>"Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was 
the genesis of systemic authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social 
isolation. Hence, an attack upon capitalism that fails to target 
civilisation can never abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels 
society. To attempt to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising 
it is to fail to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a 
direction and form that is independent of its members' intentions."</i> Thus, 
they argue, genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for 
<i>"[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the mechanisation 
of life are all required for the administration and process of mass 
production to occur."</i> For primitivists, <i>"[o]nly small communities of 
self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other beings, human or not, 
without imposing their authority upon them."</i> Such communities would share 
essential features with tribal societies, <i>"[f]or over 99% of human history, 
humans lived within small and egalitarian extended family arrangements, 
while drawing their subsistence directly from the land."</i> [<b>Against Mass 
Society</b>]
</p><p>
While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and had 
little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists look (to 
use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the <i>"Future Primitive."</i> 
As John Moore puts it, <i>"the future envisioned by anarcho-primitivism . . . 
is without precedent. Although primitive cultures provide intimations of 
the future, and that future may well incorporate elements derived from 
those cultures, an anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite 
different from previous forms of anarchy."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>]
</p><p>
For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed 
alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure. Hence 
Moore's comment that <i>"classical anarchism"</i> wants <i>"to take over 
civilisation, rework its structures to some degree, and remove its worst 
abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in civilisation remains 
unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely because the aspects of 
civilisation they question are minimal . . . overall life patterns wouldn't 
change too much."</i> Thus <i>"[f]rom the perspective of anarcho-primitivism, 
all other forms of radicalism appear as reformist, whether or not they regard 
themselves as revolutionary."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] 
</p><p>
In reply, "classical anarchists" point out three things. Firstly, to 
claim that the <i>"worst abuses and oppressions"</i> account for 1% of capitalist 
society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an apologist of that 
system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is obvious from reading any 
"classical" anarchist text that Moore's assertions are nonsense. "Classical" 
anarchism aims to transform society radically from top to bottom, not tinker 
with minor aspects of it. Do primitivists really think that people who went 
to the effort to abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the 
same things they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not 
enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!
Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore's argument ensures that his new society 
would be impossible to reach.
</p><p>
So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the traditional
anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are simply incompatible, 
with the ideas of the latter dismissed as authoritarian by the former and
anarchists questioning whether primitivism is practical in the short term 
or even desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray 
it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism, others are less convinced. 
They consider it as a confused ideology which draws its followers into absurd 
positions and, moreover, is utterly impractical. They would agree with Ken 
Knabb that primitivism is rooted in <i>"fantasies [which] contain so many 
obvious self-contradictions that it is hardly necessary to criticise them in 
any detail. They have questionable relevance to actual past societies and 
virtually no relevance to present possibilities. Even supposing that life was 
better in one or another previous era, <b>we have to begin from where we are 
now.</b> Modern technology is so interwoven with all aspects of our life that 
it could not be abruptly discontinued without causing a global chaos that would 
wipe out billions of people."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 79]
</p><p>
The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised and 
interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills required 
to live in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society. Moreover, it 
is extremely doubtful that six billion people <b>could</b> survive as 
hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As Brian Morris notes, 
<i>"[t]he future we are told is 'primitive.' How this is to be achieved 
in a world that presently sustains almost six billion people (for evidence
suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is only able to support 1
or 2 people per sq. mile)"</i> primitivists like Zerzan do not tell us. 
[<i>"Anthropology and Anarchism,"</i> pp. 35-41, <b>Anarchy: A Journal of Desire 
Armed</b>, no. 45, p. 38] Most anarchists, therefore, agree with Chomsky's
summation that <i>"I do not think that they are realising that what they
are calling for is the mass genocide of millions of people because of
the way society is now structured and organised . . . If you eliminate
these structures everybody dies . . . And, unless one thinks through 
these things, it's not really serious."</i> [<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 226]
</p><p>
Somewhat ironically, many proponents of primitivsm agree with its critics that 
the earth would be unable to support six billion living as a hunter-gatherers. 
This, critics argue, gives primitivism a key problem in that population levels 
will take time to fall and so any "primitivist" rebellion faces two options. 
Either it comes about via some kind of collapse of "civilisation" or it involves 
a lengthy transition period during which "civilisation" and its industrial 
legacies are decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to an 
appropriate level and people gain the necessary skills required for their 
new existence.
</p><p>
The problems with the first option should be obvious but, sadly, it is implied 
by many primitivist writers. Moore, for example, talks about <i>"when 
civilisation collapses"</i> (<i>"through its own volition, through our efforts, 
or a combination of the two"</i>). This implies an extremely speedy process which 
is confirmed when he talks about the need for <i>"positive alternatives"</i> to be 
built now as <i>"the social disruption caused by collapse could easily create the 
psychological insecurity and social vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian 
dictatorships could flourish."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] Social change based on 
<i>"collapse,"</i> <i>"insecurity"</i> and <i>"social disruption"</i> does not 
sound like a recipe for a successful revolution.  
</p><p>
Then there are the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism. Moore 
is typical, asserting that <i>"[o]rganisations, for anarcho-primitivists, 
are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power"</i> and 
reiterates the point by saying primitivists stand for <i>"the abolition of 
all power relations, including the State . . . and any kind of party or 
organisation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] Yet without organisation, no modern society 
could function. There would be a total and instant collapse which would 
see not only mass starvation but also ecological destruction as nuclear 
power stations meltdown, industrial waste seeps into the surrounding 
environment, cities and towns decay and hordes of starving people fighting 
over what vegetables, fruits and animals they could find in the countryside.
Clearly an anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea
of a near overnight <i>"collapse"</i> of civilisation, not with a steady progress
towards a long term goal. Equally, how many <i>"positive alternatives"</i> could
exist without organisation? 
</p><p>
Moore dismissed any critique that points out that a collapse would cause 
mass destruction as <i>"just smear tactics,"</i> <i>"weird fantasies spread
by some commentators hostile to anarcho-primitivism who suggest that the 
population levels envisaged by anarcho-primitivists would have to be achieved 
by mass die-offs or nazi-style death camps."</i> The <i>"commitment of 
anarcho-primitivists to the abolition of all power relations . . . means 
that such orchestrated slaughter remains an impossibility as well as just 
plain horrendous."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] Yet no critic is suggesting that 
primitivists desire such a die-off or seek to organise it. They simply 
point out that the collapse of civilisation would result in a mass die-off due 
to the fact that most people do not have the skills necessary to survive it nor 
could the Earth provide enough food for six billion people trying to live in a 
primitivist manner. Other primitivists have asserted that it can, stating <i>"[i]t 
is not possible for all six billion of the planet's current inhabitants to survive 
as hunter-gatherers, but it is possible for those who can't to grow their own food 
in significantly smaller spaces . . . as has been demonstrated by permaculture, 
organic gardening, and indigenous horticulture techniques."</i> [<b>Against Mass 
Society</b>] Unfortunately no evidence was provided to show the truth of this 
assertion nor that people could develop the necessary skills in time even if it 
were. It seems a slim hope to place the fate of billions on, so that humanity 
can be "wild" and free from such tyrannies as hospitals, books and electricity.
</p><p>
Faced with the horrors that such a <i>"collapse"</i> would entail, those primitivists 
who have thought the issue through end up accepting the need for a transition period. 
John Zerzan, for example, argues that it <i>"seems evident that industrialisation and 
the factories could not be gotten rid of instantly, but equally clear that their 
liquidation must be pursued with all the vigour behind the rush of break-out."</i> 
Even the existence of cities is accepted, for <i>"[c]ultivation within the cities 
is another aspect of practical transition."</i> [<b>On the Transition: Postscript 
to Future Primitive</b>] 
</p><p>
However, to accept the necessity of a transition period does little more
than expose the contradictions within primitivism. Zerzan notes that 
<i>"the means of reproducing the prevailing Death Ship (e.g. its technology) 
cannot be used to fashion a liberated world."</i> He ponders: <i>"What 
would we keep? 'Labour-saving devices?' Unless they involve no division 
of labour (e.g. a lever or incline), this concept is a fiction; behind 
the 'saving' is hidden the congealed drudgery of many and the despoliation 
of the natural world."</i> How this is compatible with maintaining 
<i>"industrialisation and the factories"</i> for a (non-specified) 
period is unclear. Similarly, he argues that <i>"[i]nstead of the coercion 
of work -- and how much of the present could continue without precisely 
that coercion? -- an existence without constraints is an immediate, 
central objective."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] How that is compatible with the 
arguing that industry would be maintained for a time is left unasked, never 
mind unanswered. And if "work" continues, how is this compatible with the 
typical primitivist dismissal of "traditional" anarchism, namely that 
self-management is managing your own alienation and that no one will 
want to work in a factory or in a mine and, therefore, coercion will 
have to be used to make them do so? Does working in a self-managed workplace 
somehow become less alienating and authoritarian during a primitivist 
transition? 
</p><p>
It is an obvious fact that the human population size cannot be reduced 
significantly by voluntary means in a short period of time. For primitivism 
to be viable, world population levels need to drop by something like 90%. 
This implies a drastic reduction of population will take decades, if not 
centuries, to achieve voluntarily. Given that it is unlikely that (almost) 
everyone on the planet will decide not to have children, this time scale 
will almost certainly be centuries and so agriculture and most industries 
will have to continue (and an exodus from the cities would be impossible 
immediately). Likewise, reliable contraceptives are a product of modern 
technology and, consequently, the means of producing them would have to 
maintained over that time -- unless primitivists argue that along with 
refusing to have children, people will also refuse to have sex. 
</p><p>
Then there is the legacy of industrial society, which simply cannot be
left to decay on its own. To take just one obvious example, leaving 
nuclear power plants to melt down would hardly be eco-friendly. Moreover, 
it is doubtful that the ruling elite will just surrender its power 
without resistance and, consequently, any social revolution would need 
to defend itself against attempts to reintroduce hierarchy. Needless 
to say, a revolution which shunned all organisation and industry as 
inherently authoritarian would not be able to do this (it would have
been impossible to produce the necessary military supplies to fight 
Franco's fascist forces during the Spanish Revolution if the workers 
had not converted and used their workplaces to do so, to note another
obvious example). 
</p><p>
Then there is another, key, contradiction. For if you accept that 
there is a need for a transition from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism 
automatically excludes itself from the anarchist tradition. The reason 
is simple. Moore asserts that <i>"mass society"</i> involves <i>"people 
working, living in artificial, technologised environments, and [being] 
subject to forms of coercion and control."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] So if 
what primitivists argue about technology, industry and mass society are 
all true, then any primitivist transition would, by definition, not be 
libertarian. This is because <i>"mass society"</i> will have to remain for 
some time (at the very least decades, more likely centuries) after a 
successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective, 
be based on <i>"forms of coercion and control."</i> There is an ideology 
which proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based 
on coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into 
a stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry 
and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and authority. 
That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to "classical" anarchists 
to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating Engels arguments against 
Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy" (see <a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a> 
for a discussion of Engels claims that industry excludes autonomy).
</p><p>
So if, as seems likely, any transition will take centuries to achieve 
then the primivitist critique of "traditional" anarchism becomes little 
more than a joke -- and a hindrance to meaningful anarchist practice 
and social change. It shows the contradiction at the heart of primitivism. 
While its advocates attack other anarchists for supporting technology, 
organisation, self-management of work, industrialisation and so on, 
they are themselves are dependent on the things they oppose as part of 
any humane transition to a primitivist society. And given the passion 
with which they attack other anarchists on these matters, unsurprisingly 
the whole notion of a primitivist transition period seems impossible
to other anarchists. To denounce technology and industrialism as 
inherently authoritarian and then turn round and advocate their use 
after a revolution simply does not make sense from a logical or 
libertarian perspective.
</p><p>
Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no practical 
means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As Knabb summarises, 
<i>"[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive faith in science and 
technology ends up as a desperate and even less justified faith in the 
return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a failure to engage the 
present system in any but an abstract, apocalyptical way."</i> To avoid this, 
it is necessary to take into account where we are now and, consequently, 
we will have to <i>"seriously consider how we will deal with all the practical 
problems that will be posed in the interim."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 80
and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist ideology excludes this possibility by 
dismissing the starting point any real revolution would begin from as 
being inherently authoritarian. Moreover, they are blocking genuine social 
change by ensuring that no mass movement would ever be revolutionary enough 
to satisfy their criteria:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Those who proudly proclaim their 'total opposition' to all compromise, 
all authority, all organisation, all theory, all technology, etc., usually 
turn out to have no <b>revolutionary</b> perspective whatsoever -- no 
practical conception of how the present system might be overthrown or how a 
post-revolutionary society might work. Some even attempt to justify this 
lack by declaring that a mere revolution could never be radical enough to 
satisfy their eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing 
bombast may temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect 
is simply to make people blas."</i> [Knabb, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 31-32] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving primitivism.
Moore argues that the <i>"kind of world envisaged by anarcho-primitivism is one 
unprecedented in human experience in terms of the degree and types of freedom 
anticipated ... so there can't be any limits on the forms of resistance and 
insurgency that might develop."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>] Non-primitivists reply 
by saying that this implies primitivists don't know what they want nor how 
to get there. Equally, they stress that there <b>must be</b> limits on what 
are considered acceptable forms of resistance. This is because means shape 
the ends created and so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian 
ends. Tactics are not neutral and support for certain tactics betray an 
authoritarian perspective.
</p><p>
This can be seen from the UK magazine <b>"Green Anarchist,"</b> part of 
the extreme end of "Primitivism." Due to its inherent unattractiveness 
for most people, it could never come about by libertarian means (i.e. by 
the free choice of individuals who create it by their own acts) and so 
cannot be anarchist as very few people would actually voluntarily embrace 
such a situation. This led to <b>"Green Anarchist"</b> developing a form of 
eco-vanguardism in order, to use Rousseau's expression, to "force people to 
be free." This was expressed when the magazine supported the actions 
and ideas of the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and published an article 
(<i>"The Irrationalists"</i>) by one its editors stating that <i>"the 
Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did 
not blast any more government offices . . . The Tokyo sarin cult had 
the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to 
the attack they gave themselves away."</i> [<b>Green Anarchist</b>, 
no. 51, p. 11] A defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a 
subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based <b>Anarchy: A Journal of 
Desire Armed</b> magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other editor justify 
this sick, authoritarian nonsense as simply examples of <i>"unmediated 
resistance"</i> conducted <i>"under conditions of extreme repression."</i> 
Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that means shape the ends? This 
means there <b>are</b> <i>"limits"</i> on tactics, as some tactics are not 
and can never be libertarian.
</p><p>
However, few primitivists take such an extreme position. Most "primitivist" 
anarchists rather than being anti-technology and anti-civilisation as such 
instead (to use David Watson's expression) believe it is a case of the 
<i>"affirmation of aboriginal lifeways"</i> and of taking a far more critical 
approach to issues such as technology, rationality and progress than that 
associated with Social Ecology. These eco-anarchists reject <i>"a dogmatic 
primitivism which claims we can return in some linear way to our primordial 
roots"</i> just as much as the idea of "progress," <i>"<b>superseding</b> 
both Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment"</i> ideas and traditions. For 
them, Primitivism <i>"reflects not only a glimpse at life before the rise of 
the state, but also a legitimate response to real conditions of life under 
civilisation"</i> and so we should respect and learn from <i>"palaeolithic and 
neolithic wisdom traditions"</i> (such as those associated with Native American 
tribes and other aboriginal peoples). While we <i>"cannot, and would not want 
to abandon secular modes of thinking and experiencing the world. . . we 
cannot reduce the experience of life, and the fundamental, inescapable 
questions <b>why</b> we live, and <b>how</b> we live, to secular terms. . . 
Moreover, the boundary between the spiritual and the secular is not so clear. 
A dialectical understanding that we are our history would affirm an 
inspirited reason that honours not only atheistic Spanish revolutionaries 
who died for <b>el ideal,</b> but also religious pacifist prisoners of 
conscience, Lakota ghost dancers, taoist hermits and executed sufi 
mystics."</i> [David Watson, <b>Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a future 
social ecology</b>, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240 and pp. 66-67] 
</p><p> 
Such "primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly  
US-based, like <b>Fifth Estate</b>. For example, on the question of technology, 
they argue that <i>"[w]hile market capitalism was a spark that set the fire, 
and  remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part of something larger: 
the forced adaptation of organic human societies to an economic-instrumental 
civilisation and its mass technics, which are not only hierarchical and external 
but increasingly 'cellular' and internal. It makes no sense to layer the various 
elements of this process in a mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary 
effects."</i> [Watson, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 127-8] For this reason primitivists 
are more critical of all aspects of technology, including calls by social ecologists 
for the use of <b>appropriate</b> technology essential in order to liberate 
humanity and the planet: 
</p><p><blockquote><i> 
"To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to <b>the technics 
generated within capitalism,</b> which in turn generate new forms of capital. 
The notion of a distinct realm of social relations that determine this technology 
is not only ahistorical and undialectical, it reflects a kind of simplistic 
base/superstructure schema."</i> [Watson, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 124]  
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus it is not a case of who <b>uses</b> technology which determines its effects, 
rather the effects of technology are determined to a large degree by the society 
that creates it. In other words, technology is selected which tends to re-enforce 
hierarchical power as it is those in power who generally select which technology 
is introduced within society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent 
habit of  turning technology against the powerful and technological change  
and social struggle are inter-related -- see <a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>). 
Thus even the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from  
the range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have certain 
effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of critically 
evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and rejecting it as required 
to maximise individual freedom, empowerment and happiness. Few Social Ecologists 
would disagree with this approach, though, and differences are usually a question 
of emphasis rather than a deep political point.  
</p><p>
However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian Morris 
notes, dismisses the <i>"last eight thousand years or so of human history"</i> as 
little more than a source <i>"of tyranny, hierarchical control, mechanised 
routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those products of the human creative 
imagination -- farming, art, philosophy, technology, science, urban living, 
symbolic culture -- are viewed negatively by Zerzan -- in a monolithic sense."</i> 
While there is no reason to worship progress, there is just as little need
to dismiss all change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are 
they convinced by Zerzan's <i>"selective culling of the anthropological 
literature."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 38] Most anarchists would concurr with 
Murray Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The ecology movement will never gain any real influence or have any 
significant impact on society if it advances a message of despair rather 
than hope, of a regressive and impossible return to primordial human 
cultures, rather than a commitment to human progress and to a unique 
<b>human</b> empathy for life as a whole . . . We must recover the utopian 
impulses, the hopefulness, the appreciation of what is good, what is 
worth rescuing in yumn civilisation, as well as what must be rejected,
if the ecology movement is to play a transformative and creative role
in human affairs. For without changing society, we will not change the
diastrous ecological direction in which capitalism is moving."</i> [<b>The 
Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 63]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, a position of "turning back the clock" is deeply flawed, for
while some aboriginal societies are very anarchistic, not all are. As 
anarchist anthropologist David Graeber points out, <i>"we know almost 
nothing about like in Palaeolithic, other than the sort of thing that 
can be gleaned from studying very old skulls . . . But what we see in 
the more recent ethnographic records is endless variety. There were 
hunter-gatherer societies with nobles and slaves, there are agrarian 
societies that are fiercely egalitarian. Even in . . . Amazonia, one 
finds some groups who can justly be described as anarchists, like the 
Piaroa, living alongside others (say, the warlike Sherentre, who are 
clearly anything but."</i> [<b>Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology</b>, 
pp. 53-4] Even if we speculate, like Zerzan, that if we go back far enough 
we would find all of humanity in anarchistic tribes, the fact remains that 
certain of these societies did develop into statist, propertarian ones 
implying that a future anarchist society that is predominantly inspired 
by and seek to reproduce key elements of prehistoric forms of anarchy is 
not the answer as "civilisation" may develop again due to the same social 
or environmental factors.
</p><p>
Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support 
for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from 
primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would disagree
with the second position as they recognise that current does not equal better 
and, consequently, past cultures and societies can have positive (as well as 
negative) aspects to them which can shed light on what a genuinely human 
society can be like. Similarly if "primitivism" simply involved questioning 
technology along with authority, few would disagree. However, this sensible 
position is, in the main, subsumed within the first one, the idea that an 
anarchist society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer society. 
That this is the case can be seen from primitivist writings (some 
primitivists say that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model 
for their desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they 
seem to exclude any other options by their critique).
</p><p>
So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of 
<i>"anarchist speculation"</i> (to use John Moore's term) seems incredulous. 
If you demonise technology, organisation, "mass society" and "civilisation" 
as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and advocate their use 
in a transition period or even in a free society. As such, the critique 
points to a mode of action and a vision of a free society and to suggest 
otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you praise foraging bands and 
shifting horticultural communities of past and present as examples of 
anarchy then critics are entitled to conclude that primitivists desire 
a similar system for the future. This is reinforced by the critiques of 
industry, technology, "mass society" and agriculture.
</p><p>
Until such time as "primitivists" clearly state which of the two forms of
primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their ideas 
that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic questions of how 
they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass starvation without 
the workers' control, international links and federal organisation they 
habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms of "governance," other 
anarchists do not hold much hope that it will happen soon. Ultimately,
we are faced with the fact that a revolution will start in society as 
it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests a means of transforming it. 
Primitivism shies away from such minor problems and, consequently, has
little to recommend it in most anarchists' eyes. 
</p><p>
This is not to suggest, of course, that non-primitivist anarchists think
that everyone in a free society must have the same level of technology.
Far from it. An anarchist society would be based on free experimentation.
Different individuals and groups will pick the way of life that best suits
them. Those who seek less technological ways of living will be free to do
so as will those who want to apply the benefits of (appropriate) technologies.
Similarly, all anarchists support the struggles of those in the developing
world against the onslaught of (capitalist) civilisation and the demands of
(capitalist) progress.
</p><p>
For more on "primitivist" anarchism see John Zerzan's <b>Future Primitive</b> 
as well as David Watson's <b>Beyond Bookchin</b> and <b>Against the Mega-Machine</b>. 
Ken Knabb's essay <b>The Poverty of Primitivism</b> is an excellent critique of 
primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's <b>Anarchism vs. Primitivism</b>.</p>

</body>
</html>