File: secA3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: woody
  • size: 12,192 kB
  • ctags: 493
  • sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (1491 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 94,867 bytes parent folder | download
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
<html>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>A.3 What types of anarchism are there? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<p>
<a name="secA3"><H1>A.3 What types of anarchism are there?</H1>
<p>
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> <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. 17-18]  
</blockquote><p> 
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main  
differences are between <i><b>"individualist"</i></b> and 
<i><b>"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>
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> 
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> 
<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> 
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>
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> 
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).
<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 (<i>"your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>The ABC of Anarchism</b>, p. 68]).
<i>"Actual use,"</i> argues 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>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 69] 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). 
Some social anarchists, like mutualists, 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.
<p>
In contrast, the individualist anarchist 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>
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. 
<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>
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>
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>
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><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 alter 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>
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>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 99 and p. 103). 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><blockquote> 
<i>"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> 
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 individual's <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><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> 
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. If
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>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, 
p. 297]
<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>
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>
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> 
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round" 
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source 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 <i>"occupancy and use"</i> for land, which would effectively abolish 
landlords. Only when the people who use a resource own it can 
individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority (i.e.
statism/capitalism). This solution, as we argue in <a href="secGcon.html">section G</a>, is 
the one Individualist Anarchists <b>do</b> seem to accept. For example,
we find Joseph Labadie writing to his son urging him to get away
from wage earning and <i>"the dominion of others."</i> [quoted by Carlotta
Abderson, <b>All American Anarchist</b>, p. 222] 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 ensures that their ideas 
are truly anarchist.
<p>
Moreover, while the individualists attack <i>"usury,"</i> they usually
ignore the problem of capital accumulation, which results in 
<b>natural</b> barriers of entry into markets and so recreates usury 
in new forms (see section C.4 <a href="secC4.html">"Why does the market become dominated 
by big business?"</a>). Hence a "free market" in banks, as advocated by 
Tucker and other Individualist Anarchists, could result in a few big 
banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in supporting 
capitalist rather than co-operative investment (as they would ensure
higher returns than co-operatives). The only real solution to this 
problem would be to ensure community ownership and management of 
banks, as originally desired by Proudhon. 
<p> 
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. (For more discussion on  
the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, 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> 
<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> [Charles A. Dana, <b>Proudhon and his <i>"Bank of the People"</i></b>,  
pp. 44-45] 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>  
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 45] 
<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 gives their liberty
more security and force."</i> [<b>The Principle of Federation</b>, p. 70, p. 67
and p. 72]
<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>
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>
[<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>
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> 
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 of labour,
communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself."</i> 
[<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</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. 
<p>
For anarcho-communists, they think that <i>"communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established that 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>The ABC of Anarchism</b>, p. 80] 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>
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> 
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> 
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> 
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. They 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> 
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. 
<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>
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 work's 
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand 
anarcho-syndicalism. For an excellent 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>
<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
Peter Kropotkin who 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>
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>
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. 72, p. 78]
<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. 76, 
p. 65] 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.
<p>
So what kinds of green anarchism is there? The eco-anarchist thread within 
anarchism has two main focal points, <i><b>Social Ecology</i></b> and 
<i><b>"primitivist"</i></b> 
anarchism. In addition, some anarchists are influenced by <i><b>Deep Ecology</i></b>,
although not many. Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential
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>
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><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 nature
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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 63] 
<p><i>
"The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by
the plundering of the earth by capital."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 65]
</blockquote><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 
"the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms of technology
and large scale organisation. 
<p>
At its most extreme, "Primitivist" anarchists argue in favour of a 
return to "Hunter-Gatherer" forms of human society, opposing 
technology as being hierarchical by its very nature. The British 
based <I>"Green Anarchist"</i> magazine is a vocal supporter of this idea.
<p>
However, very few anarchists go this far. Indeed, most anarchists actually
argue that such "Primitivism" is not anarchist at all, as the return to 
a "Hunter-Gatherer" society would result in mass starvation in almost all
countries as the social infrastructure collapses. Due to the inherent 
unattractiveness of such "Primitivist" ideas 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 leads to "Green Anarchist" developing a form of eco-vanguardism in 
order, to use Rousseau's expression, to "force people to be free" (as can 
be seen from articles published in it in 1998 celebrating terrorist acts).
In addition, such a position of "turning back the clock" is deeply flawed,
for while aboriginal societies are generally very anarchistic, certain of
these societies did develop into statist, propertarian ones implying that
such "primitive anarchist" systems are not the answer. 
<p>
However, few eco-anarchists 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 these eco-anarchists, 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, pp. 66-67]
<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,
such eco-anarchists 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> [David
Watson, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 127-8]
<p>
 For this reason "Primitivist" anarchists 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. As Watson argues:
<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> [<b>Ibid.</b>,
p. 124] 
<p></blockquote>
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>
Finally, "Primitivist" anarchists, like most other anarchists, 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>
For more on "Primitivist" Anarchism see John Zerzan's <b>Future
Primitive</b> and the excellent <b>Elements of Refusal</b> as well as
David Watson's <b>Beyond Bookchin</b> and 
<b>Against the Mega-Machine</b>.
<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><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>
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.
<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 <i><b>Industrial Workers of the World</b></i> (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>
<p>
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy 
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called <i><b>"anarcho-pacifism"</i></b> 
(the term <i><b>"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>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 53]
<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>
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, 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>
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 
libertarian 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>
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>
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>ABC of 
Anarchism</b>, p. 40] 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>
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 where both 
arrested and deported from America for organising a <i><b>"No-Conscription League"</i></b> 
in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe where 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 war (including, in Italy, helping to
organise strikes in protest against it). And it was during this last conflict 
when many anarchists raised the slogan <b><i>"No war but the class war"</b></i> 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 fit for their own interests rather than those 
of their masters:
<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>
(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])
<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 way 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>
[<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>
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>
<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>
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, Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion 
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays <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. In 
addition, all the major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were supporters 
of women's equality. The <i><b>"Free Women"</i></b> 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).
<p>
Anarchism and feminism have shared 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> [quoted by Clifford Harper, <b>Anarchy: A Graphic Guide</b>, p. 182]
<p>
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>
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to the 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> [<b>Ibid.</b>] Similarly, the
Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism <i>"consists in recognising
the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it."</i> [<b>The Raven</b>,
no. 21, p. 6]
<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 <i>"feminisation of society."</i> 
<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><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>
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies or 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 Mujures 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>. 
p.2] -- also see section <a href="secB1.html#secb14">B.1.4</a> for a further discussion on patriarchy
and hierarchy).
<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 <i>"only 
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to 
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege"</i> 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>,  pp. 90-91, p. 91]
<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. 91] 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. 
<p>
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism
as a denial of liberty. 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><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 preserver individual
existential freedom, for both men and women."</i> [<b>The Politics of
Individualism</b>, p. 144]
</blockquote><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, Carline 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>
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>
<a name ="seca36"><h2>A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?</h2>
<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>
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
<i>"implies 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> [<b>The Anarchist
Moment:  Reflections on Culture, Nature and Power</b>] 
<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>
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>
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>
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 anarchists 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>
<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>
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, 
p. 65] Some 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>
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>
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 (indeed, 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). Thus clergyman's John Ball's 
egalitarian comments during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:
<p><center>
		<i>"When Adam delved and Eve span,<br>
		 Who was then a gentleman?"</i>
</center><p>
The history of Christian anarchism includes the <i><b>Heresy of the 
Free Spirit</b></i> in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the 
<i><b>Anabaptists</b></i> 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>
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><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></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><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 Anarchist Reader</b>, p. 306]
</blockquote><p>
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] 
<p>
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and
capitalism. 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> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in 
anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (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>Ibid.</b>]). Indeed, he argues that:
<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>Ibid.</b>]
</blockquote><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, 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>
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. 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 <b>and</b> the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as <b>Fields,
Factories and Workshops</b>), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry
George.
<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</b></i> in the United States was also heavily 
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded the paper the <b>Catholic 
Worker</b> in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in 
general can also be found in <b>Liberation Theology</b></i> 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>
In countries where Churches hold <i>de facto</i> political power, such as in 
Ireland, in parts of South America, in nineteenth and early twentith 
century Spain and so forth, typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious 
because the Church has the power to suppress dissent and class struggle. 
So, while most anarchists are atheists (and so agree with Bakunin that 
if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom and dignity,
to abolish it) there is a minority tradition within anarchism which
draws anarchist conclusions from religion. 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>
<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>
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>
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>
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>
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.
<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]
<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>
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. Afterall, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a
use of "anarchism without adjectives" 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). 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. In other words, 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>
</BODY>
</HTML>