What Is Anarchism? An Introduction Donald Rooum and Freedom Press (ed.) 1995 Contents Publisher’sIntroduction 5 Anarchism,anIntroduction(byDonaldRooum) 7 WhatAnarchistsBelieve 8 Anarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 “Anarchy”intheSenseofSocialDisorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 AnarchismandTerrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SomeArgumentsforGovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 GovernmentsasStepstowardsAnarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 TheOriginofGovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 MakingProgressTowardsAnarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 HowAnarchistsDiffer 15 MisapplicationsoftheTerm“Anarchist” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 DifferencesamongRealAnarchists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IntellectualistsandWorkerists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IndividualAnarchismISClass-StruggleAnarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 RevolutionaryViolenceandPacifistAnarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Workers’ControlandAnarcho-Syndicalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 AnarchismandReligion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Communism,Collectivism,Mutualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 OptimistsandPessimists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 WhatAnarchistsDo 21 HowManyAnarchistsAreThere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 HowOldAreAnarchists? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 HowAnarchistsAreOrganized? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 AnarchistLiterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 MeetingsandDemonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 DirectAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 AnarchistApproachestoAnarchism 27 TheWord“Anarchy”(ErricoMalatesta) 28 2 TheIdealofAnarchy(PeterKropotkin) 29 Anarchist-Communism(ErricoMalatesta) 31 SelfishnessandBenevolence(DonaldRooum) 32 DifferentViewsonOrganisation(ErricoMalatesta) 33 TheAnarchistRevolution(ErricoMalatesta) 35 TheOriginofSociety(PeterKropotkin) 37 TheSimplicityofAnarchism(GeorgeNicholson) 38 AnarchismandViolence 40 AnarchismandHomicidalOutrage(CharlotteWilson) 41 I.IshomicidaloutragethelogicaloutcomeofAnarchistconvictions? . . . . . . . . . 41 II.ThoughAnarchistprinciplesdonotinthemselveslogicallyleadtothecommission of homicidal outrages, do they practically drive the active Anarchist into this coursebyclosingothermeansofaction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 III.WhilehomicidaloutragesareneitheralogicaloutcomeofAnarchistprinciplesnor a practical necessity of Anarchist action, they are a social phenomenon which AnarchistsandallSocialRevolutionariesmustbepreparedtoface. . . . . . . . 44 GovernmentandHomicidalOutrage(MarieLouiseBerneri) 47 AnarchismandViolence(VernonRichards) 49 ArgumentsforGovernmentAnswered 51 TheIdeaofGoodGovernment(ErricoMalatesta) 52 PowerCorruptstheBest(MichaelBakunin) 53 SocialismandFreedom(RudolfRocker) 55 Anarchism,AuthoritarianSocialismandCommunism(ErricoMalatesta) 57 AnarchismandProperty(ErricoMalatesta) 59 TheAuthorityofGovernment(WilliamGodwin) 61 3 TheRelevanceofAnarchism 62 IsAnarchyPossible?(AlexanderBerkman) 63 CrimeinAnAnarchy(WilliamMorris) 65 SmallStepsintheDirectionofAnarchy(ColinWard) 67 TheRelevanceofAnarchism(BillChristopher,JackRobinson,PhilipSansom,and PeterTurner) 69 4 Publisher’s Introduction Weareoftenaskedtoexplainwhatanarchismisallabout,andhopetopublisharevisedand expandedversionofNicolasWalter’spopularAboutAnarchismwhenitisready.Meanwhilewe suggestedtoDonaldRooum,creatoroftheanarchistWildcatcartoons,thatheshouldproducea pamphletonAnarchism.Thefirstpartofthiscompilation(pages1to28)ishisresponse. He writes, “My contribution is intended to describe anarchism as it appears to anarchists in general, in Britain at the end of the twentieth century. The three headings, ‘What anarchists believe, How anarchists differ, What anarchists do,’ are taken from Nicolas Walter’s 1969 pam- phlet About Anarchism, and ways of putting points are lifted from many other contemporary anarchists.”Headdsthathe“takespersonalresponsibilityfortheopinionsanderrors”. FreedomPressareresponsibleforthesecondpart,consistingofexcerptsfromFreedomPress titles(exceptforthoseofCharlotteWilsonandGeorgeNicholson,whichwereneverthelesspub- lished in Freedom). Few of these were written “at the end of the twentieth century”, but we are confident that politically informed readers of the left will recognise their relevance to today’s situation. TheMarxists,whountilyesterdaypaidhomageattheLeninMausoleum,andarenoweither disillusioned or wise after the collapse of communist dictatorship in Soviet Russia, are referred topage58,toMalatesta’spropheticwords,writtenin1920: to achieve communism before anarchy, that is before having conquered complete politicalandeconomicliberty,wouldmean(asithasmeantinRussia)stabilisingthe mosthatefultyranny,tothepointwherepeoplelongforthebourgeoisregime,and toreturnlater(aswillhappeninRussia)toacapitalistsystem…” AshashappenedinRussia! As democratic socialism aspires to the votes that would secure office and power, it moves to conformtopopularprejudice,andintheprocessbecomesmoreandmoreremotefromsocialism. More and more genuine socialists are recognising that there is nothing left of socialism in the LabourParty.Whatcantheydo?Reformtheparty?Goforproportionalrepresentation(another electoral gimmick) and end up with the Liberals? Start another party? Remember the Gang of Fourwhoweregoingtobreakthemould,andhaveendedupintheHouseofLords,andShirley WilliamslecturingatHarvard! The“roadtopower”isnotthe“roadtosocialism”.Forlibertariansocialists,thereisonlyone “road”, and that is in the “political wilderness” with the anarchists, knowing where we want to go! 6 Anarchism, an Introduction (by Donald Rooum) What Anarchists Believe Anarchists believe that the point of society is to widen the choices of individuals. This is the axiomuponwhichtheanarchistcaseisfounded. Ifyouwereisolatedyouwouldstillhavethehumanabilitytomakedecisions,buttherangeof viabledecisionswouldbeseverelyrestrictedbytheenvironment.Society,howeveritisorganised, givesindividualsmoreopportunities,andanarchiststhinkthisiswhatsocietyisfor.Theydonot think society originated in some kind of conscious “social contract”, but see the widening of individualchoicesasthefunctionofsocialinstincts. Anarchistsstriveforasocietywhichisasefficientaspossible,thatisasocietywhichprovides individualswiththewidestpossiblerangeofindividualchoices. Any social relationship in which one party dominates another by the use of threats (explicit or tacit, real or delusory) restricts the choices of the dominated party. Occasional, temporary instancesofcoercionmaybeinevitable;butintheopinionofanarchists,established,institution- alised,coerciverelationshipsarebynomeansinevitable.Theyareasocialblightwhicheveryone shouldtrytoeliminate. Anarchismisopposedtostates,armies,slavery,thewagessystem,thelandlordsystem,prisons, monopolycapitalism,oligopolycapitalism,statecapitalism,bureaucracy,meritocracy,theocracy, revolutionarygovernments,patriarchy,matriarchy,monarchy,oligarchy,protectionrackets,in- timidationbygangsters,andeveryotherkindofcoerciveinstitution.Inotherwords,anarchism opposesgovernmentinallitsforms. Inagovernmentsociety,anarchistsmayinpracticeapplytoonecoerciveinstitutionforprotec- tionfromanother.Theymay,forinstance,callonthelegalestablishmentforprotectionagainst rival governments like violent criminals, brutal bosses, cruel parents, or fraudulent police. “Do as I say or I’ll smash your face in” is often a more frightening threat than “Persons guilty of non-compliance are liable to a term of imprisonment”, because the perpetrator of the threat is less predictable. But the differences between different levels and forms of coercive institutions arelesssignificantthanthesimilarities. For dictionary purposes, anarchism may be correctly defined as opposition to government in all its forms. But it would be a mistake to think of anarchism as essentially negative. The oppositiontogovernmentarisesoutofabeliefaboutsocietywhichispositive. Anarchy Theidealofanarchismisasocietyinwhichallindividualscandowhatevertheychoose,except interferewiththeabilityofotherindividualstodowhattheychoose.Thisidealiscalledanarchy, fromtheGreekanarchia,meaningabsenceofgovernment. Anarchists do not suppose that all people are altruistic, or wise, or good, or identical, or per- fectible, or any romantic nonsense of that kind. They believe that a society without coercive institutionsisfeasible,withintherepertoireofnatural,imperfect,humanbehaviour. 8 Anarchistsdonot“laydownblueprintsforthefreesociety”.Therearescience-fictionstories and other fantasies in which anarchies are imagined, but they are not prescribed. Any society whichdoesnotincludecoerciveinstitutionswillmeettheanarchistobjective. Itseemsclear,however,thateveryconceivableanarchywouldneedsocialpressuretodissuade people from acting coercively; and to prevent a person from acting coercively is to limit that person’s choices. Every society imposes limits, and there are those who argue, with the air of havinganunanswerableargument,thatthismakesanarchismimpossible. Butanarchyisnotperfectfreedom.Itisonlytheabsenceofgovernment,orcoerciveestablish- ments.Toshowthatperfectfreedomisimpossibleisnottoargueagainstanarchism,butsimply toprovideaninstanceofthegeneraltruththatnothingisperfect. Ofcourse,thefeasibilityofanarchycannotbecertainlyproved.“Isanarchypracticable?”,isa hypotheticalquestion,whichcannotbeansweredforcertain,unlessanduntilanarchyexists.But thequestion,“Isanarchyworthstrivingfor?”,isanethicalquestion,andtothiseveryanarchist willcertainlyansweryes. “Anarchy” in the Sense of Social Disorder BesidesbeingusedinthesenseimpliedbyitsGreekorigin,theword“anarchy”isalsousedto meanunsettledgovernment,disorderlygovernment,orgovernmentatitscrudestintheformof intimidationbymaraudinggangs(“militaryanarchy”). This usage is etymologically improper, but as a matter of historical fact it is older than the properone.ThepoetShelleyheldopinionswhicharenowcalledanarchistic,butinhispoem“A MaskofAnarchy,writtenontheOccasionoftheMassacreatManchester”,heusestheallegorical figureof“Anarchy”tomeantyranny.(Thepoemwaspublishedseveralyearsafteritwaswritten, andbythattimeanarchistswerebeginningtocallthemselvesanarchists.) Boththeproperandimpropermeaningsoftheterm“anarchy”arenowcurrent,andthiscauses confusion.Apersonwhohearsgovernmentbymaraudinggangsdescribedas“anarchy”ontelevi- sionnews,andthenhearsananarchistadvocating“anarchy”,isliabletoconcludethatanarchists wantgovernmentbymaraudinggangs. Someanarchistshavetriedtoovercometheconfusionbycallingthemselvessomethingdiffer- ent, such as autonomists or libertarians, but the effect has been to replace one ambiguity with another. “Autonomy” (which means making one’s own laws) commonly refers to “autonomous regions”, secondary governments to which some powers are devolved from the principal gov- ernment. “Libertarian” is used in America to mean one who opposes minimum wages, on the groundsthattheyreducetheprofitsofemployers. The simplest way to avoid confusion would be to reserve the term “anarchy” for its etymo- logicallycorrectmeaning,andcallsocialdisorderbysomeotherterm,suchas“socialdisorder”. Enlightenedjournalistsarealreadyfollowingthispractice. Anarchism and Terrorism The word “terrorism” means planting bombs and shooting people for political ends, without legal authority. Wars use much bigger bombs, kill many more people, and cause much more terror,butwarsdonotcountasterrorismbecausetheyareperpetratedwithlegalauthority. 9 Terrorismhasbeenusedbyanarchists.IthasalsobeenusedbyCatholicChristians,Protestant Christians,Mohammedans,Hindus,Sikhs,Marxists,fascists,nationalists,patriots,royalistsand republicans. The vast majority of anarchists, at all times and places, have opposed terrorism as morally repugnant and counter-productive. So have the vast majority of Christians and so on, but in theircasesitisnotnecessarytosayso.Inthecaseofanarchistsitneedstobeemphasisedthat theyabhorterrorism,becausemaliciousandill-informedpersonssometimesportrayanarchists aswild-eyedbomberswithnoopinionsatall,justaninsaneurgetodestroy. The“anarchistbomb-thrower”isafolk-myth,mostlyderivedfromliterature.Itwasoriginated inthe“pennybloods”ofthenineteenthcentury,andrevivedwithgustobythewritersof“boys’ stories”intheearly1920s,whenwarwasoutoffashionbutfictitiousheroesstillneededenemies. Letitbeemphasised.Onlyasmallminorityofterroristshaveeverbeenanarchists,andonly asmallminorityofanarchistshaveeverbeenterrorists.Theanarchistmovementasawholehas alwaysrecognisedthatsocialrelationshipscannotbeassassinatedorbombedoutofexistence. Some Arguments for Government The difficulty of arguing the anarchist case today has been compared with the difficulty of arguingtheatheistcaseinmedievalEurope. In the middle ages people never wondered whether God existed; they just assumed, without everconsideringthematter,thattheexistenceofGodwasself-evident.Inourtimepeoplenever ask themselves whether government is necessary; they just assume that the necessity is self- evident.Andwhenanarchistsquestiontheneedforgovernment,manypeoplefailtounderstand thequestion. Itwasonceputtomeasanargumentagainstanarchism,that“ifeveryonecouldchoosewhatto do,no-onewouldelecttojointhearmy,andthecountrywouldbeundefended”.Myinterlocutor was not an idiot, but could just not imagine a world without “countries” that needed armies to defendthemagainstforeigners. Bemused people ask how anyone could be induced to work if there were no coercion (“who will clean the sewers?”). Yet everybody knows that being forced to do things is not the only reasonfordoingthings.Richpeoplewhocanaffordtodonothing,workersintheir“own”time, peoplewhoenjoytheirjobs,evenpeoplewhoaskhowanyonecouldbeinducedtoworkifthere werenocoercion,dothingsforotherreasons. Peoplewhoworkinsewershavetoldmetheyareproudoftheimportanceoftheirjob.People do things because they enjoy doing them, or are proud of their skill, or feel empathy with the suffering,orareadmiredforwhattheydo,orgetboreddoingnothing. Fearofthelash,orpenury,orhellfire,isnotneededforinducingpeopletodousefulthings.It isneededtomakepeopleendurethestressfulindignitywhichworking-classpeoplecall“work”: responsibility without power, pointless drudgery, being talked down to by morons. Anarchists believethateverythingworthdoingcanbedonewithout“work”. Many people confuse government with organisation, which makes them suppose that anar- chists are against band leaders and architects. But organisers and leaders are not the same as bosses. Anarchists have no objection to people following instructions, provided they do so vol- untarily. 10