eBook - ePub
Anarchism
From Theory to Practice
Daniel Guerin, Mary Klopper
This is a test
Buch teilen
- 166 Seiten
- English
- ePUB (handyfreundlich)
- Ăber iOS und Android verfĂŒgbar
eBook - ePub
Anarchism
From Theory to Practice
Daniel Guerin, Mary Klopper
Angaben zum Buch
Buchvorschau
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Quellenangaben
HĂ€ufig gestellte Fragen
Wie kann ich mein Abo kĂŒndigen?
Gehe einfach zum Kontobereich in den Einstellungen und klicke auf âAbo kĂŒndigenâ â ganz einfach. Nachdem du gekĂŒndigt hast, bleibt deine Mitgliedschaft fĂŒr den verbleibenden Abozeitraum, den du bereits bezahlt hast, aktiv. Mehr Informationen hier.
(Wie) Kann ich BĂŒcher herunterladen?
Derzeit stehen all unsere auf MobilgerĂ€te reagierenden ePub-BĂŒcher zum Download ĂŒber die App zur VerfĂŒgung. Die meisten unserer PDFs stehen ebenfalls zum Download bereit; wir arbeiten daran, auch die ĂŒbrigen PDFs zum Download anzubieten, bei denen dies aktuell noch nicht möglich ist. Weitere Informationen hier.
Welcher Unterschied besteht bei den Preisen zwischen den AboplÀnen?
Mit beiden AboplÀnen erhÀltst du vollen Zugang zur Bibliothek und allen Funktionen von Perlego. Die einzigen Unterschiede bestehen im Preis und dem Abozeitraum: Mit dem Jahresabo sparst du auf 12 Monate gerechnet im Vergleich zum Monatsabo rund 30 %.
Was ist Perlego?
Wir sind ein Online-Abodienst fĂŒr LehrbĂŒcher, bei dem du fĂŒr weniger als den Preis eines einzelnen Buches pro Monat Zugang zu einer ganzen Online-Bibliothek erhĂ€ltst. Mit ĂŒber 1 Million BĂŒchern zu ĂŒber 1.000 verschiedenen Themen haben wir bestimmt alles, was du brauchst! Weitere Informationen hier.
UnterstĂŒtzt Perlego Text-zu-Sprache?
Achte auf das Symbol zum Vorlesen in deinem nÀchsten Buch, um zu sehen, ob du es dir auch anhören kannst. Bei diesem Tool wird dir Text laut vorgelesen, wobei der Text beim Vorlesen auch grafisch hervorgehoben wird. Du kannst das Vorlesen jederzeit anhalten, beschleunigen und verlangsamen. Weitere Informationen hier.
Ist Anarchism als Online-PDF/ePub verfĂŒgbar?
Ja, du hast Zugang zu Anarchism von Daniel Guerin, Mary Klopper im PDF- und/oder ePub-Format sowie zu anderen beliebten BĂŒchern aus Politics & International Relations & Anarchism. Aus unserem Katalog stehen dir ĂŒber 1Â Million BĂŒcher zur VerfĂŒgung.
Information
1
The Basic Ideas of Anarchism
A MATTER OF WORDS
The word anarchy is as old as the world. It is derived from two ancient Greek words, αv (an), αÏÏη (arkhĂȘ), and means something like the absence of authority or government. However, for millennia the presumption has been accepted that man cannot dispense with one or the other, and anarchy has been understood in a pejorative sense, as a synonym for disorder, chaos, and disorganization.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was famous for his quips (such as âproperty is theftâ) and took to himself the word anarchy. As if his purpose were to shock as much as possible, in 1840 he engaged in the following dialogue with the âPhilistine.â
âYou are a republican.â
âRepublican, yes; but that means nothing. Res publica is âthe State.â Kings, too, are republicans.â
âAh well! You are a democrat?â
âNo.â
âWhat! Perhaps you are a monarchist?â
âNo.â
âConstitutionalist then?â
âGod forbid.â
âThen you are an aristocrat?â
âNot at all!â
âYou want a mixed form of government?â
âEven less.â
âThen what are you?â
âAn anarchist.â
He sometimes made the concession of spelling anarchy âanarchyâ to put the packs of adversaries off the scent. By this term he understood anything but disorder. Appearances notwithstanding, he was more constructive than destructive, as we shall see. He held government responsible for disorder and believed that only a society without government could restore the natural order and re-create social harmony. He argued that the language could furnish no other term and chose to restore to the. old word anarchy its strict etymological meaning. In the heat of his polemics, however, he obstinately and paradoxically also used the word anarchy in its pejorative sense of disorder, thus making confusion worse confounded. His disciple Mikhail Bakunin followed him in this respect.
Proudhon and Bakunin carried this even further, taking malicious pleasure in playing with the confusion created by the use of the two opposite meanings of the word: for them, anarchy was both the most colossal disorder, the most complete disorganization of society and, beyond this gigantic revolutionary change, the construction of a new, stable, and rational order based on freedom and solidarity.
The immediate followers of the two fathers of anarchy hesitated to use a word so deplorably elastic, conveying only a negative idea to the uninitiated, and lending itself to ambiguities which could be annoying to say the least. Even Proudhon became more cautious toward the end of his brief career and was happy to call himself a âfederalist.â His petty-bourgeois descendants preferred the term mutuellisme to anarchisme and the socialist line adopted collectivisme, soon to be displaced by communisme. At the end of the century in France, SĂ©bastien Faure took up a word originated in 1858 by one Joseph DĂ©jacque to make it the title of a journal, Le Libertaire. Today the terms âanarchistâ and âlibertarianâ have become interchangeable.
Most of these terms have a major disadvantage: they fail to express the basic characteristics of the doctrines they are supposed to describe. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs,* claimed that âevery anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist.â
Some anarchists consider themselves to be the best and most logical socialists, but they have adopted a label also attached to the terrorists, or have allowed others to hang it around their necks. This has often caused them to be mistaken for a sort of âforeign bodyâ in the socialist family and has led to a long string of misunderstandings and verbal battlesâusually quite purposeless. Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism.
A VISCERAL REVOLT
Anarchism can be described first and foremost as a visceral revolt. The anarchist is above all a man in revolt. He rejects society as a whole along with its guardians. Max Stirner declared that the anarchist frees himself of all that is sacred, and carries out a vast operation of deconsecration. These âvagabonds of the intellect,â these âbad characters,â ârefuse to treat as intangible truths things that give respite and consolation to thousands and instead leap over the barriers of tradition to indulge without restraint the fantasies of their impudent critique.â *
Proudhon rejected all and any âofficial personsââphilosophers, priests, magistrates, academicians, journalists, parliamentarians, etc.âfor whom âthe people is always a monster to be fought, muzzled, and chained down; which must be led by trickery like the elephant or the rhinoceros; or cowed by famine; and which is bled by colonization and war.â ElisĂ©e Reclusâ explained why society seems, to these well-heeled gentlemen, worth preserving: âSince there are rich and poor, rulers and subjects, masters and servants, Caesars who give orders for combat and gladiators who go and die, the prudent need only place themselves on the side of the rich and the masters, and make themselves into courtiers to the emperors.â
His permanent state of revolt makes the anarchist sympathetic to nonconformists and outlaws, and leads him to embrace the cause of the convict and the outcast. Bakunin thought that Marx and Engels spoke most unfairly of the lumpenproletariat, of the âproletariat in ragsâ: âFor the spirit and force of the future social revolution is with it and it alone, and not with the stratum of the working class which has become like the bourgeoisie.â
Explosive statements which an anarchist would not disavow were voiced by Balzac through the character of Vautrin, a powerful incarnation of social protestâhalf rebel, half criminal.
HORROR OF THE STATE
The anarchist regards the State as the most deadly of the preconceptions which have blinded men through the ages. Stirner denounced him who âthroughout eternity ⊠is obsessed by the State.â
Proudhon was especially fierce against âthis fantasy of our minds that the first duty of a free and rational being is to refer to museums and libraries,â and he laid bare the mechanism whereby âthis mental predisposition has been maintained and its fascination made to seem invincible: government has always presented itself to menâs minds as the natural organ of justice and the protector of the weak.â He mocked the inveterate authoritarians who âbow before power like church wardens before the sacramentâ and reproached âall parties without exceptionâ for turning their gaze âunceasingly toward authority as if to the polestar.â He longed for the day when ârenunciation of authority shall have replaced faith in authority and the political catechism.â
Kropotkin jeered at the bourgeois who âregarded the people as a horde of savages who would be useless as soon as government ceased to function.â Malatesta anticipated psychoanalysis when he uncovered the fear of freedom in the subconscious of authoritarians.
What is wrong with the State in the eyes of the anarchists?
Stirner expressed it thus: âWe two are enemies, the State and I.â âEvery State is a tyranny, be it the tyranny of a single man or a group.â Every State is necessarily what we now call totalitarian: âThe State has always one purpose: to limit, control, subordinate the individual and subject him to the general purpose . ⊠Through its censorship, its supervision, and its police the State tries to obstruct all free activity and sees this repression as its duty, because the instinct of self-preservation demands it.â âThe State does not permit me to use my thoughts to their full value and communicate them to other men ⊠unless they are its own.⊠Otherwise it shuts me up.â
Proudhon wrote in the same vein: âThe government of man by man is servitude.â âWhoever lays a hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. I declare him to be my enemy.â He launched into a tirade worthy of a MoliĂšre or a Beaumarchais:
To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue.⊠To be governed means that at every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed, set right, corrected. Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good. Then, at the first sign of resistance or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged, sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap it all, ridiculed, mocked, outraged, and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and its morality! ⊠O human personality! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for sixty centuries?â
Bakunin sees the State as an âabstraction devouring the life of the people,â an âimmense cemetery where all the real aspirations and living forces of a country generously and blissfully allow themselves to be buried in the name of that abstraction.â
According to Malatesta, âfar from creating energy, government by its methods wastes, paralyzes, and destroys enormous potential.â
As the powers of the State and its bureaucracy widen, the danger grows more acute. Proudhon foresaw the greatest evil of the twentieth century: âFonctionnairisme [legalistic rule by civil servants] ⊠leads toward state communism, the absorption of all local and individual life into the administrative machinery, and the destruction of all free thought. Everyone wants to take refuge under the wing of power, to live in common.â It is high time to call a halt: âCentralization has grown stronger and stronger ⊠, things have reached ⊠the point where society and government can no longer coexist.â âFrom the top of the hierarchy to the bottom there is nothing in the State which is not an abuse to be reformed, a form of parasitism to be suppressed, or an instrument of tyranny to be destroyed. And you speak to us of preserving the State, and increasing the power of the State! Away with youâyou are no revolutionary!â
Bakunin had an equally clear and painful vision of an increasingly totalitarian State. He saw the forces of world counter-revolution, âbased on enormous budgets, permanent armies, and a formidable bureaucracyâ and endowed âwith all the terrible means of action given to them by modern centralization,â as becoming âan immense, crushing, threatening reality.â
HOSTILITY TO BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY
The anarchist denounces the deception of bourgeois democracy even more bitterly than does the authoritarian socialist. The bourgeois democratic State, christened âthe nation,â does not seem to Stirner any less to be feared than the old absolutist State. âThe monarch ⊠was a very poor man compared with the new one, the âsovereign nation.â In liberalism we have only the continuation of the ancient contempt for the Self.â âCertainly many privileges have been eliminated through time but only for the benefit of the State ⊠and not at all to strengthen my Self.â
In Proudhonâs view âdemocracy is nothing but a constitutional tyrant.â The people were declared sovereign by a âtrickâ of our forefathers. In reality they are a monkey king which has kept only the title of sovereign without the magnificence and grandeur. The people rule but do not govern, and delegate their sovereignty through the periodic exercise of universal suffrage, abdicating their power anew every three or five years. The dynasts have been driven from the throne but the royal prerogative has been preserved intact. In the hands of a people whose education has been willfully neglected the ballot is a cunning swindle benefiting only the united barons of industry, trade, and property.
The very theory of the sovereignty of the people contains its own negation. If the entire people were truly sovereign there would no longer be either government or governed; the sovereign would be reduced to nothing; the State would have no raison dâĂȘtre, would be identical with society and disappear into industrial organization.
Bakunin saw that the ârepresentative system, far from being a guarantee for the people, on the contrary, creates and safeguards the continued existence of a governmental aristocracy against the people.â Universal suffrage is a sleight of hand, a bait, a safety valve, and a mask behind which âhides the really despotic power of the State based on the police, the banks, and the army,â âan excellent way of oppressing and ruining a people in the name of the so-called popular will which serves to camouflage it.â
The anarchist does not believe in emancipation by the ballot. Proudhon was an abstentionist, at least in theory, thinking that âthe social revolution is seriously compromised if it comes about through the political revolution.â To vote would be a contradiction, an act of weakness and complicity with the corrupt regime: âWe must make war on all the old parties together, using parliament as a legal battlefield, but staying outside it.â âUniversal suffrage is the counter-revolution,â and to constitute itself a class the proletariat must first âsecede fromâ bourgeois democracy.
However, the militant Proudhon frequently departed from this position of principle. In June 1848 he let himself be elected to parliament and was briefly stuck in the parliamentary glue. On two occasions, during the partial elections of September 1848 and the presidental elections of December 10 of the same year, he supported the candidacy of Raspail, a spokesman of the extreme Left. He even went so far as to allow himself to be blinded by the tactic of the âthe lesser evil,â expressing a preference for General Cavaignac, persecutor of the Paris proletariat, over the apprentice dictator Louis Napoleon. Much later, in 1863 and 1864, he did advocate returning blank ballot papers, but as a demonstration against the imperial dictatorship, not in opposition to universal suffrage, which he now christened âthe democratic principle par excellence.â
Bakunin and his supporters in the First International objected to the epithet âabstentionistâ hurled at them by the Marxists. For them, boycotting the ballot box was a simple tactical question and not an article of faith. Although they gave priority to the class struggle in the economic field, they would not agree that they ignored âpolitics.â They were not rejecting âpolitics,â but only bourgeois politics. They did not disapprove of a political revolution unless it was to come before the social revolution. They steered clear of other movements only if these were not directed to the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers. What they feared and denounced were ambiguous electoral alliances with radical bourgeois parties of the 1848 type, or âpopular fronts,â as they would be called today. They also feared that when workers were elected to parliament and translated into bourgeois living conditions, they would cease to be workers and turn into Statesmen, becoming bourgeois, perhaps even more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie itself.
However, the anarchist attitude toward universal suffrage is far from logical or consistent. Some considered the ballot as a last expedient. Others, more uncompromising, regarded its use as damnable in any circumstances and made it a matter of doctrinal purity. Thus, at the time of the Cartel des Gauches (Alliance of the Left) elections in May 1924, Malatesta refused to make any concession. He admitted that in certain circumstances the outcome of an election might have âgoodâ or âbadâ consequences and that the result would sometimes depend on anarchist votes, especially if the forces of the opposing political groupings were fairly evenly balanced. âBut no matter! Even if some minimal progress were to be the direct result of an electoral victory, the anarchist should not rush to the polling stations.â He concluded: âAnarchists have always kept themselves pure, and remain the revolutionary party par excellence, the party of the future, because they have been able to resist the siren song of elections.â
The inconsistency of anarchist doctrine on this matter was to be especially well illustrated in Spain. In 1930 the anarchists joined in a common front with bourgeois democrats to overthrow the dictator, Primo de Rivera. The following year, despite their official abstention, many went to the polls in the municipal elections which led to the overthrow of the monarchy. In the general election of November 1933 they strongly recommended abstention from voting, and this returned a violently anti-labor Right to power for more than two years. The anarchists had taken care to announce in advance that if their abstention led to a victory for reaction they would launch the social revolution. They soon attempted to do so but in vain and at the cost of heavy losses (dead, wounded, and imprisoned).
When the parties of the Left came together in the Popular Front in 1936, the central anarcho-syndicalist organization was hard pressed to know what attitude to adopt. Finally it declared itself, very halfheartedly, for abstention, but its campaign was so tepid as to go unheard by the masses who were in any case already committed to participation in the elections. By going to the polls the mass of voters insured the triumph of the Popular Front (263 left-wing deputies, as against 181 others).
It should be noted that in spite of their savage attacks on bourgeois democracy, the anarchists admitted that it is relatively progressive. Even Stirner, the most intransigent, occasionally let slip the word âprogress.â Proudhon conceded: âWhen a people passes from the monarchical to the democratic State, some progress is made.â And Bakunin said: âIt should not be thought that we want ⊠to criticize the bourgeois government in favor of monarchy.⊠The most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most enlightened monarchy.⊠The democratic system gradually educates the masses to public life.â This disproves Leninâs view that âsome anarchistsâ proclaim âthat the form of oppression is a matter of indifference to the proletariat.â This also dispels the fear expressed by Henri Arvon in his little book LâAnarchisme that anarchist opposition to democracy could be confused with counter-revolutionary opposition.
CRITIQUE OF AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM
The anarchists were unanimous in subjecting authoritarian socialism to a barrage of severe criticism. At the time when they made violent and satirical attacks these were not entirely well founded, for those to whom they were addressed were either primitive or âvulgarâ communists, whose thought had not yet been fertilized by Marxist humanism, or else, in the case of Marx and Engels themselves, were not as set on authority and state control as the anarchists made out.
Although in the nineteenth century authoritarian tendencies in socialist thought were still embryonic and undeveloped, they have proliferated in our time. In the face of these excrescences, the anarchist critique seems less tendentious, less unjust; sometimes it even seems to have a prophetic ring.
S...