Anarchy No96.compressed

18 Pages·2013·5.36 MB·English

ANARCHY $$ rwo sHrLLrNGs oR rHrRry cENrs
I
ANARCHY e6 (Vol e No 2) FEBRUARY l96e 33
Gontents of ilo. 96 Other issues of "Anarchy":
Please note: Issues 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 14, t5,26,34,35, 36, 37,38, 39,
February 1969 0!.j9, Zt o"t ot prinr __
Vol. 1 1"9.e6 l: 1. Sex-and-Violence; 2.
Workers' control; 3. What does anar-
chism mean today?; 4. Deinstitutioni-
Grass roots or hair roots: sation; 5. Spain; 6. Cinema; 7. Adventure
playground; 8. AnthropoloByi 9. Prison; Grass !"oot$ oP hair root$
reflections on the revolution I 0. lndrrstrial decentralisation. Ir :
game Richq.rd Mabey 33 Vol. 2. 1962: ll. Paul Goodmanj. S.
Neilll 12. Who are the anarchists?; 13.
Direct actionl 14. Disobedience; 15. David Reflectlons on
Wills; 16. Elhics of anarchism; 17. Lum-
What is anarchism and is it a penproletariat; I 8. Comprehensive schools;
19. Theatre; 20. Non-violence;21. Secon- the revolution game
tenable doctrine? dqv=49de1q; f2. Vfarx and Bakunin
John Howkins 38 Vmounl.i t3y .o 1f9 s6c3h:o 2la3rs. ;S 2q5u.a Ctteybrse;r n2e4ti.c Cs;o 2m6_-.
Thoreau; 27. Youth; 28. Future of anar-
chisrn; 29. Spies for peace: 30. Com- HGHABE MABEY
munity workshop; 31. Self-organising
Non-politicalpolitics Munas 46 systems; 32. Crime; 33. AIex Comfort:
14 Science fiction.
Vol. 4. 1964: 35. Houalng; 36:-Fo,ice;
Demythologising Guevarra 3H7o.m I ewr oLna'nt ev;o 4te0:. 3U8n. iNonotst;in 4gh1a. mLa: n3d9;. Wrrerevrn HArrENED, I wonder to that great Winter of Discontent
Iturens Otter 56 42. India: 43. Parents and teachers; 44. which was to have been ushered in by thc October 2Tth dernonstration?
Transport: 45. The Greeks; 46. Anarchism Did the comparative failure of that action set off a general process of
and historians. self-examination amongst direct actionists? I hope so, and in this
All their loving Charlie Gillett 59 LAonardrc hoisf t thouet lfolioeks:; 5419.. BAluuetosm. paotipo,n f;o 5lk0:. bsheonretf iat rotifc lae fIe ww amnot nttoh st rhyi nadnsdig chxt ptlhacin w wahyy t,h aant dd etom oenxsatmraitnioen w siethem tehde
52. Limits of pacifism: 53. After school: to dramatise many of the contradictions inherent in contemporary
Boom Nickl{ilde 63 SM5ta4ute.tu leBasusl baseiodcr:i,e t5iLe6as..n Wdaoumeern, ;M 5u7h. sI-aamw:; 5558.. direct action.
Vol. 6. 1966: 59: White problem; 60. I should, in all honesty, add that I spent the afternoon in question
Drugs; 61. Creative vandalism: 62. Orya- curled up in front of a TV set, unable either to commit myself to
Cover by Rulus Segar nE6Pi9prsoe.a nvEttio oc:yno o6;l o7u6g.t3 hyU. ::VS 67oA5l0;u. n6DLt8aie.b rrCyee lrvatsosaeslrur ivaatiintnoudn d piesas:any tas6icor4chn.hi ;aMi str6miys6.-;, cdaoeftnmevroin nacsentrd ah ttioohunar t ooIr f w rIeaTssiNs it'n ss otmhmeoe n rssigotrrhott u ospfll yav cibeci.aasrieodu sli vpea rctiocviperaatgioen I. Brcumt aeinveend
-of
Vot. Z tS67: Zt. Sociotogv school;
72. Strike City. USA: 73. Street School: Let me say right from the outset that I think the shocked debate
74. Anarchism and reality; 75. Improvised
SSt(i$ouin7nbg.s l0ec(t0r 2icb) o.ei pi sJitueooesi ns"2)iA s 2.an 7(nas3nr.0 cu(ch$a.y)3l. " .s:5Au0nb)ns. ucAariilp rmtsiouanbi sl cw4r7iitpsh-. 7dh89ra1a.n .mL dRabatuo;in so7 skA6i;am .n 7e1 8r9ai.c8n a4La;:ir bc78eh07ir.s. a WttAsoronr rya8k re2ctre.hs ci'B shrctna ooegnlhortoergoauydpt:l Tfamabhvioeloiu tuavtr anavsbito tl eolem nfta codjewoe rawmirtaydos sn o sstfhot r eoaf autuorrs refpsr .ooo pmAfu vnlatihodtielo e annps cohe iina tfvt o eatru s sr phntoooel widbtnie c o atahul lemtem ntoshdsesetl v h aevyssip otothloceer in btmieccao asli.nst
arrenbapledro)e 6r5sr4 "ost,. f 4thadreq. e (an$cn7Ha.v5r c0wh)i.si ltlB wfointehde bkinlvyd ai(swiprmheincashil- S8V4coh. olP.o ol8.ve. rft ys;O 8S5t. AS-n3a. rfc"hnis"tn ctor ntv"ekrs"a toio*nis:: cGurloasrvlye nvoicri.oSuqsu a(ilet wwaassn i'tn) fuarsi abteincgau sneo ti t sw,oa ms uacsh f ebeebclaeu, suen idti gwnaifsia pl aarntid-
95s.-($12.50). Cheques, P.O.s and Money 86. Fishermen: 87. Penal System; 88. ;rointless as kicking little boys in the pants.
Ordeis should be made out to FREE- Waste'land culturel 89. France; 90. Stu-
DStrOeeMt, LPoRndEoSnS, ,E 8.14,a E nWghlaintedc.haPel High dReandtsio; : 9914.. AMraticshtsin; e9ry2 . oTfw coo nsfcohrmooitlys.: 93 nroraIli stmicu ksti ncdon. fTeshse yt hcaont cmernye dm insogtiv sino gms uwche rteh eo ffe raonci tya ltoofg tehteh earc tlieosns
trlnhd lrv Erorc[ ?rlnten. L.!d.n. E-l AS its function. What wan this ritual we were bcing asked to join?
A revolutionary prelude, a sort of mass shaking of the fist? A vast
't
34 36
syrnbolic nlorality play, starring the Metropolitan Police as Satan, and then the question of the quality of demonstrations becornes crucial-
TaLiq Ali as L,veryman? Or a mini-coup, an acrual attempt. to take For their nature and style, their contribution towards the sharpening
over the control of certain key institutions? of revolutionary awareness, will become the nature and style of poli-
tical change itself.
'['he fact that nor.vhcre to my knowledge were these questions even
discussed, le[ alone answered, seems to nre a sad reflection on orrr lack To me this means thal. any viable demonstration shoulcl be
of any theory of demoustrations. I suspect that we may be drawn Ir possessed of some or all of the following characteristics (thoug! I doubt
towards l.hcnt for no better reason than a mountaineer is drawn towards if lohn Berger would want to be associated with this conclusion). They
unc<>nr;uercd pcaks: because they're there-and, God help us, because should have a dignity, of a sort, 'Ihe old Aldermastons, for all their
there seems prccious little else that we can do. But if our actions are shortcomings, had this. (And coming at the time of the spring festivals
Lo be ellective, and to be nrolc than static self-indulgent political trips, they had additional gifts of strcngth and rcncwai for the players.) Tbey
we must rcpeatedly ask the question: why t/ru sort of action at lftrs should show the potentiality for-*if not the exercise of-self-discipline
tinre in this place? and restraint. (Let's have no ntore talk of "revealing the lion's fangs"':
contemporary demonstrators can bc provoked as quickly as any lacley
Is lhcrc arry lclati<ln bctweeir paracling lhrough the streets and the into showing their "basic violenrc".) T'lrcy slror-rld be as abundani 1vii"h
pattern of political chanl.tc in this country" ict alone the course of a war wit and intelligent as the Provo's happcnings or that magnificently
6,0(X) rnilcs rrway'/ What is it thal, in tnonrcnts of crisis, draws us l"o ingenuous "laugh-in" at Govertlor Wallacr,. 'f,hey should try .lo be
mrrl,e liris lthtt,sicrtl cornlrrilrncnt, 1o show orrr faccs, lo gather together, soaiable. Above all tlrey should demonstlatc a close and unambiguous
[o enter tlre arcur, to bc counted? connection between their style ancl purposc.
No one can belicvc any longer thal. rlcnronstrirtiurs influence public A number of these qualities were dotrbtlesri appalent in- the main
opinion, do -ccriorrs rlanragc to llrc systcnl <tr';rcrsuadc the authoritieq body of lhe October 27th March. BUt othcrs were so expllc.l-tty coll-
lraving once n.radc rrlt tlrcir rrrincls. 1o chulrgc lhcnr. Why then do we tradictecl that one wonclers if in any scnse it was a rneaningful action"
sbeorilohLcrsl tcoo rsrstaicglccr athtioclrr rrto'/ It hbisc licclvucc stthiount, uann]dcs sto w lc.h bec rgeinla ttioon g ibveetw veeerny Iatt whaosm, ef owr eare s ptarirvt,il eag deids ctoor dsaenet ,s ofrmacettiohtinrsg aprfofabiarb. lyT hdoesnci eodf tuhse wnaratcjohrinitgy
proicst action ancl political changc, we arc in danger of mistaking the of participants-: the unedifying spectaclo of rival groups mauling for
synrbol for tlre rcv<llrrtion, to l"hc lastilrg clctriment of botlt. I l<now of the lead banner.
only one writcr who lras itttcmptcd an criaminal.ion of this question.
Writing on "The naturc of Mass Demonstrations" in New Society just But it was the pointlessness and lack of objectives that were the
after the Paris uprisings, John Rerger said: march's most damaging qualities, and tho onos most relevant to what
we are discussing hEre. It was, you lnay rctnember, a protest about
"The truth is that mass demonstrations are rehearsals for revolu- the Vietnam war] Yet I doubt if ihis was in the nrincls of many people
tion: not strategic or even tactical ones, but rehearsals of revolutionary that Sunday afternoon, in or out of the demonstration. The announce-
awareness. . . . A dcmonstration, however much spontaneity it ntay ment of t[re action six months in advauce, and the bloodletting it
contain, is a creuted event which arbitrarily separates itself from suffered at the hands of the media drrring thxt period, both servcd Lo
ordinary life. Its value is the result of its artificiality, for therein lie sap its energy and reduce its symbolic nrcaning to-the trite and vacant
its prophetic, r'ehearsing possibilities. . . . The more people there are, level of the aims stated on the briefing leaflct: to fill the street, to sweep
the more forcibly they represent to each other and to themselves those avaay obstntctions, etc. It's difficult to cotrccive of intentions more
who are absent. In this way a mass demonstration simultaneously indirect.
extends and gives body to an abstraction. Those who take part beconre
more positively aware of how they belong to a class. Belonging to that But by then the objectives of the tlenmnstration, zts a result r:f I
class ceases to imply a common fate, and implies a common opportunity. combination of pressures, were two slages adrift from their original
They begin to recognise that the function of their class need no long6r mooring. Cut loose from Vietnam, t}ev floatcd quickly and-:rpolo-
be limited: that it, too, like the demonstration itself, can create its own getically past the question of what tbe hell is the cf direc,t
function." action,-and came to rest fair and squllre on a VSC-p uSruppopsoer tcrs Club
helmet. From its noble beginnings the rnarch had deterioratert into
If John Berger is right in suggesting that the real importance of a cut-price tournament. Could the visitors lick the home tcaur and
a demonstration is in its effect upon the demonstrators and that action occupli the streets, or would the tight-lippcd defenders grrind the
is a rehsarsal for revolutionary activity rather than the real thing, frnternal gathering into the gutters? '['lrc action was to ";:ehoarse"
l
36 3t
nothing more politically meaningful than bravura and patchy back to E. P. Thompson's essay "Revolution" in that sadly neglected
solidarity. book Out of Apathy. His remarks, made ten years ago, are profoundly
relevant today:
The media, of course, were largely to blame for this distortion.
They reported the preparations for thc rnarch as if they were the "'fhe class struggle tends to be thought of as a scries of brutal,
preliminaries for some elaborate Terttonic duel. "London is ready" f' head-on encounters (which it sometimes is); not as a conflict of force,
boomed the Evening News headline on the preceding Friday. But interests, values, priorities, ideas, taking place ceaselessly in evcry area
the organisers must share the blanre for not challenging this inter- of life. Its culmination is seen as being a moment when the opposed
pretation, and for failing to examine. in all their talk about the right classes stand wholly disengaged from each other, confronting each
[o demonstrations, why precisely they werc <'xercising that right. It other in naked antagonism; not as the climax to ever closer engagement
takes two to play a game, and the dentonsl rators wete huppy to oblige. within existing institutions demanding the most constructive deploy-
The most complimentary thing that can be saicl about the melee in ment of skills as well as of force. . . . But this point cannot be defined
Grosvenor Square is that it resemblerl nothing so much as a rugby in narrow political (least of all parlianrentary) terms; nor can we be
scrum. And apparently, at the end of thc clay, police and demon- certain, in advance, in what context the breakthrough will be made.
strators joined in a hearty rendering of Auld t ang Syne. Dicl some- What is more important to insist upon is that it is necessary to find out
body mention revolution? the breaking point, not by theoretical spcculation alone" but in practice
by unrelenting reforming pressurcs in nrany fields, which are designed
Now the reason why the October 27th action cxhibited so many to reach a revolutionary culmination. And this will entail a confron-
questionable aspects is, I suggest, prccircly that confttsit-rn I ntentioned tation, throughout society, between two systcms, two ways of life. In
earlier between "symbolic" and "real" trxllitical rctivity. T'he declara- this confrontation, political consciousncss will become heightened;
tions of the leaders, indeed. and the whole crtrotional kev of the ntarclt every direct and devious influence will bc brought to the defence of
suggest that it was thought of by malry its direcl Lrction Let's be property rights; the people will be forcccl by events to exert their whole
quite straight abollt this. If we bcliovc that lvc citn carry ottt real political and industrial strength. A confrontation of this order
political activity in the streets, we are rncrcly rcplacing one set of shan't involves the making of revolution sinrultancously in many fields of life."
institutions by another. and are conniving irt nrost of the practices we
despise in liberal democratic systems: thi: ccrrlralisation of decision- There wili always of coursc be a place for demonstrations- -but
making. the supremacy of the maris ovcl thc indivicltral, and the only whilst they fulfil their rolc as synrLrolic rehearsals. If they become
abstraction of "politics" as some procgs:i liopui'rttc from thc decisions regarded as the focus of rcal political activity then the dangers are
ancl concerns of our everyday life. acute. At best, we might sec the impersonality of the polling booth
replaced by the gross simplifications of thc mass meeting; at worst, the
I have always felt that direct action w;tri onc of the less ambigLtous development of a totalitarianism of the streets. Either way the energy
phrases in the radical's vocabulary. ll. nrcans. sttrelv, precisely that: that is needed for the sort of revolutionary transformations that
action taken in a specific, lived-in situation. to elirectly change the E. P. Thompson is discussing, will be drained away.
strLlcture of that situation. So, sitting-in at a riegrcgated lunch counter
is direct action: the occupation and runnins of Hclrnscv Colle-ce of Art
was direct action: and if demonstrations &rc evcr banned in this
country, so will be marches throu-qh [.ondon. I]ut they are not at the
moment.
It is surely by constant confront;rqion and transl'ornltrtion in the
institutions in which p'eople really livc, r'ather than by apocalyptic
encounters in the political superstructure tlta[ netl and lasting changc
will come about. "Student", "consumer" are actual, exgrerienced, roles:
"pclitics" is an abstract sphere of activity which has been grafted un-
comfortably on top of these. To fight even to win- 'in its arena. is
no guarantee that people's real lives will bc changed one iota.
Thinking about these matters before the demonstration, I went
30 39
it.
no more validity than we can evolve In part, this paper attempts to
discover whether the challenge contains, in effect, the roots of a
prohibition on our understanding of anarchism and perhaps other
political theories: which is a problem of methodology. The paper
What is aprarehism and also discusses an idea based on the liberty/equality paradox that
is at the heart of the anarchist ethos: a problem of content.
ita {.
ls ttt
Men have suggested that the answer should be contained in the
tenable doctrine question. I have suggested that the question-"What is anarchism?"
P not so meaningful.
-is
Again, I have said that there are two main meanings of anarchism:
dOTIN HOWKIN$ the thing-in-itself, which is; and the thing-in-relation, which exists.
Anarchism can reasonably be described as a desire for personal freedom
and a complementary belief in the natLrml goodwill of man, and as a
Wsnr, pRmrsnly, Do wE INTEND To MIIAN by the concept of n'anarch- historical influence on the l9th and 20th centuries.
lsm"?l Two meanings present themselves: one ontological, one The anarchisl's desire for personal freedom has produced as
historical Neither me.tning is exclusive of the other. r-nany interpretations of anarchism as thcre are anarchists. L,iterally,
for it could not be otherwisc. The anarchist sees men as a unity. He
Moreorner, no one can evolve a concept of his own authority. It will reject the holistic collectivity. Flowevcr. most of the collectivity
is given to him or it occurs to him, and it will be hacked up by his of political theorists and historians treat anarchism as only a collective
ewn research to a greater or lesser extent. The enquirer can, [rovement and ignore the inclividual fecling except in a historical
however, choose to mainiain the proposition as an explicitly heuristic context.
device or he can refashion it into a further unit of conceptualisation.
The two images of anarchism continually interact. The argument
Modern historiography favours the latter in its stress on concepts ovcr the truth of the state of affairs is often confused with the
which are simultaneously concretizable and imaginatively holistic. Thus parallel argurr{ent over the presentation of the state of affiairs. We
in a fonnal sense the historical image contains the historical image: in can separate them, but they are alike. Yct our attempts to understand
{his sense, they restrict each other and are mutually antagonistic. anarchisrn rvithout making such a separation are no more than a
A pricrt, we cannot regard "an&rchism" in the sarne way as we play-.-in this vray. a theorist mieht compare anarchisna to such ideologies
can "ihis book". And so we return to our starting point. The as societal Hinduism, Taoisrn, or Btrddhism. I'Xe would find many
characteristics of anarchism mean that it is the one concept which similarities. For instance, in l.ao Tze, who said "Let a rnan seriously
rnost vividly challenges the tendency towards imaginative holism in set to vrork to reform himself and he will have little time to fuss
both our understanding of the concept and in our method of its discovery. about reforming the world" and in Buddha's statement, "Overcome
self by Self". Man must come first. When man is ful{illed in himself,
Generally, it does so unsuccessfully. We can deny a concept with social conventions, political institutions, and economic systerns will be
easily and popr"rlarly established-or merely successful. On the other
BDffOR.IAI- NOTE: The author tells us that this afticle was written as a hand, the theorist rnight say that the govemments of the Occident
rcaction against the complacency aad laziness of most academic enquiries into (rvhich have most strongly resisted the anarchist movement and are
the rreaning of anarchism. Wc found it provocative but diIficuit. To sale the matter of this paper) have regarded the State, not man, as the
6re reader having to raach continually for his dictionary, ours gives tho necessary premise for fulfilment. Man will olrtain the Kingdom of
following dofinitions:
oNTor-ooy: department of metaphysics concerned with the essence of things or Heaven, of the Good Life, or what he fancies, only through a period
being in the aktract. of enforced co-oper-ation rvithin a State. But this encl is so far erway
HEURTSnC: serving to discover. that it is seldom articulated. It is not, in fact, expected. Oscar
HoLrsM: tcndency in naturs to form wl'loles that arc more than the sum of the Wilde summed the difference: "The true perfection of man lies, not
pISaortNso bMyy :c roeqautiavelit ye voof luptoiolinti.cal rights. in what man has, but in what man is" and rejected socialisnn for
{
& ,tl
adneanrccehsi-samre. AfaIsIc tihneastien gci.r cTuhmesyt ahnacvees -tnheea tta rret lagtliaomnsohuipf so, f-gmloebtaapl hcyosiinccair- arenparordc-huicsets" .i nA a ty pchea irsa cdteerfiisnteicd waas yo t'Ahe s pcehcaimraecnte ro ro fe xaa msp'pleec wiehsi cohr
gewgawsj Bu_t the interpretations they suppbrt can overwhelm ttre general class" (Jung).a
evenTth. eIt ei-vs e tnhte i se vmenirtr owrheidc hi nis tcheen trc-aol.ncept it can only be realised sacrif{nice a o fm aannanrecrh isomf . s-p Feaokri nbgy, sdniscshe cati nrge dthuect iaonna mrchuisstt itnov odlivsceo vtheer
through the concept. The public and private events of-the anarchist his philosophy, we must invade with all th6 mockery of public opinioo
movement are themselves created by a vital and interesting picture his vital, almost sacred, individualism. But, stim6r miltrr ,eseit my
eof4 .r trgerqa loityf -r RItr rioso hua, rdsalyid a r edceefnintlayb lt6h aotn "eh.a vJionhgn r eRaedt yt,h roonu6g h^ omf tohset Wmehtahot dis, bthnet aenveanrc hhies t wtyopueld? probably have agreed with rty conciusiori.
of Bakunin and Kropotkin I could find few words I agreed with".
Bakunin and Kropotkin themselves had little in commori apart from 1. Authority... "The anarchist"s is commonly suspected of holding
a distrust of authority. They never met. The disparity ii general. that the "only true and valid authori[y stims from direci
The lasting conflict between mutualism and collectivism, the history individual decisions" (Woodcock); and therefore of being in
of the First International (1864-1877), the coalitions and splits and some way against the state. But consider s,.tifr ner, an anu.dhist
splits and coalitions of the anarchists and socialists, and, Iater, the generally classified as extremely selfish: do not demand
atrnaagrecdhyo -swyhnidcicha slisutrsr,o uthned eindt rtihgeu inFgre mncixht uarses aosfs inpsra oisfe tahned e daisrlgyu s1t8 9a0nsd" af ncya nri gghet;t bthye rfeofrocree II gneeet db yn ofot rrccec.o Ig n.is e. aOnwyn e withilel ra.n Wd hthaet
the dilemma of the Spanish anarchists between the wars, the Haymarket state are powers in deadly hostility between which no external
affair and the Central Labour Union, the English reaction- to the peace is possible."
Spanish Civil War and the writings of .lohn Corvper Powys and
Hpaegretse rlli kRee gaude--rtrhilela fatrcotosp os fm aonvairncghi sthnrr osutgrahg gjulen agclero.s sT htheere hiisst onryo fTohrmis iodfe aca cteagno rbicea el-ximtepnedreadti vicn, tiwno r vwhaiihy sc.a sFeir tsirtelyre. aiss aar .cbliatrsasriyc
apparent order. freedom, and therefore thc pcx;sibirity of the state. secondry,
Stirner may claim uniqucncis, as in fact he does claim in t6e
An enquiry into the anarchist idca (as a picture of reality) may form of "one-ness", ald say nothing about the other. ..My
provicie a reasonable mcthod of discovcring au order, or lack of one. justice is mine," says prorrcih'n. Wt m"y conclude tlrat the
But what is the conception of an idca? How far can it be extended? same freedoms are obtainable. There arb only two conclu-
Consider the iriea of "justicc" . In De la .ltr,stice dem,y lo R.evolution sions: either the type contains no typically anarchic atiitude
et dans L'Eglise (1858) Proudhon, wrote that "Nothing takes placc towards authority, or it contains thi chiracteristic attitude
between men save in the name of right; nothing without the invocation towards authority of not being typicary anarchic. The idea
of justice". Forty-two years later" in the Cetncluest ot' Rread,I(ropotkin cannot be extended \vona- itselr hha still retain the necessary
suggests that there is no good reason why "agrccments of voluntary matching of the- ontoldgical and historicar images. Thus thl
co-operation should not embrace all the functions of a complicated idea is meaningful .onlylor the person who expiesses it. This
society under the common notion of justice". The two statements restriction undermines'what bofh woodcock ind Joll regard
(one positive, one nomative) are irreconcilable. They are each as the touchstone of "the anarchist". of course, the charac-
aontained in an exclusive category. teristic can serve to describe anarchism as a general movement.
the paradox is only a local restalement of the truism that ideas 2. Revolution. Many anarchists have fought for revolution. The
do not exist. They occur to us; or, rnore properly, we discover them popular-image of the anarchist is of a thin ascetic figure
mirrorcel in cc)r1oepts. Ti:t picture trf irn ldea (i.e. the concept) can shrouded in a blaclc cloak, with a leer and a beard anrt a bo-mb.
be maintained throtrgh tirne and space.,I I can relate the picture (it Yet few modern anarchists would advocate such positive
is perhaps the only rational act) to whatever rny rescarch supports resistance even in the more modified form of a c<illective
as reasonable. rebellion.
Eut if for the purposes of argument I want to say that somthing 3. Violence. "The anarchist" is neither violent nor pacifist.
is a philosophical illusion f cannot treat it as a (false) hypothesis. The Tolstoy, 9odyir, and Proudhon were all pacifists. Krbpotkin
irnpasse is resolved by testing the concept of the local type "the (reluctantly), Bakunin, and Stimer were not.
42 43
4. Dogma. "The anarchist" may be dogmatic. He is often freedom to, which is real frecdom and therefore arbitrary (Fromm).
arrogant. For instance, in Modern Science and Anarchism A primary definition of liberty is "the greatest amount of self-deter-
Kropotkin describes two "currents of thought and action which mination which is feasible, reasonable, and possible". Equality can
Fmhaiarvsnetilfy eb,s etKeerndo piinno t ktcrionibn amfllie ccnt utiisontno stmh "e ta hmned idt ecsnotd noevnfe cnayt ilotlo nhw,u ammrdeasdn ime svuoactlui egatuile iasld"ids. bfC elae mraer plnyreo, stie ncno tesnodc mearens e wed agwyasliit thwa retiha aenr iessom a-c-lial. elele.q,d ua an lan, etuwcrehasels teharqeilury a wluitenie nksa ntsouinwrac eli t ist hooenryo mnaoyrte..
and syndics and all other institutions developed and worked necessarily restricted to being either autonornous or merely potential.
out, not by legislature, but by the creative spirit of the masses".
Secondly, Kropotkin mentions the "authoritarian current". The two concepts are involved in complex inter-relations, perhaps
He concludes by saying that "anarchism represents the first of because of the chronically holistic imagination of the anarchist in his
these two currents". From this reading I could reasonably continual search for a synthesis of practice (praxis) and belief. The
describe anarchism as the dictatorship of custom. And custom, inarticulate but frenetic cry, "Libert6! Egalit6! Fraternit6!", repre-
given voice through public opinion, is more intolerant, more sented three compatible aspects of one whole. The idea of liberalism,
gtnpid, and more frightening than any system of law. Kropot- concerned not with the source of authority as are democracy and
kin would have us regard the man who clefies this dictatorahip dictatorship, but with its manner and form, broke up this unity at
' of custom as a "ghost of bourgeois society" (Conquest ol exactly the same time as European socialism gained that special type
Breod). It is ironic, and immensely disheartening, that the of momentum which led irrevocably to the State interventionism and
epithet Kropotkin assigns to the "socially nseless man" social democratic welfare systems of moclern Enropo. The anarchist,
(Conquest gf Brea{ is the very same one tlrat is often applied th-en, deals in an equality ternpered by nalure and in a particular kind
to the modern anarchist. For he, too, is commonly reg-arded of liberalism.
aSst aat eg.h Aosnta orcfh tihsem miso ndeort nf rseoec fiarol mde dmorgcrmataic. Tahnedr ein tise rnveon rteioansiosnt As I have said above. until thc lirst half of the 19th century
why it should be. liberty and equality were popularly thorrght to be sirnilar, or at leas-t
reconcilable. The Frenchman could shoit, "Libert6! Egalit6! Frater-
nit6! ", and mean everything or nothiirg. I{e chose tlie equality of
adeAfouinstrhasgmoleliWescrst .ie.ia jc o" t OtiIihoahnenfne rsaSet h.fr atoecFirnrshnueaeire s rtacfrhmo'rhserri. irmsv UtNea"sn ce,atr iyoxoStps tnmt seit m ooytdh e foeer hea Eismsrmgp linaeeo orcriiks sttcr st usoe Wr noxnocn iillswrueli tase .leci mocIxantat d r,nG em bmosoeLenderreteew fwlt ryihono ieti.mfsn c,w P ohairhlnlio esod uc vi dfitawfnihevrdooiirtoeiuinveunl'idsss-t ttsfThooihner ec tgweh pu ehtoiahl llmotieetti vicon1eare8rel , 8 if0wcta soihil,nsu icac rethrnhe datioest -pf n dnetoerhreh meena aq papnusnrda aas liriisftcnyochc, r icas a tcsnt c hmdloieb once vao lerBlmtlmey4idec 8w n iatart e snilvs idbfo o sleupricrmtoietoylpdint.l i syctB, oa eut lx hgtpe eiavlqa etudi na eiewelsiadtaiyrs:ye.t
of Bakunin, who believed that "association is no Ionger merely a means the anarchist chose liberty when Eurogrc was beginning to tum socialist.
of controlling large-scale industry but a nalnral principle"; the
afrnoamrc hSict-icrnoemrm isun tishtes: paancdifi stht ea nadn ahruchmica-nsiytanrdiaicna laisntsa.r cAhits mth eo fo tThoelrs teonyd, antrrcEhqisutasl itoyf, tohfe c ol9urtshe ,c iennhtiubirtys wthaen tneodt io"fnre oefc lloibme rftyro (smee" :a bfroovme) .i raTrhshe
Gandhi, Herbert Read. and Schweitzer. scnofcoiracle adn cdo ellecoctnivoimtyi,c frinoemqu baloitniedsa, gfero. n"lr} cth eid ecaa -p oitfa lliisbteicr tSy tawtaes, foronmly
-was
a gloss on the fact of inequality. But the idea of Iiberty always
The anarchist is concemed with liberty and equality. It is difficult present as title, and as hope. When Kropotkin was forced to draft
to make a clear distinction between liberty and ecluality. llhe con- a statement of defence for the Lyons Police Correctional Court in
fusion largely stems from the emotional yearning to regard them both 1883, he and his 67 fellows demancled "equality as a primordial
as categorical imperatives. If we accept the idea of equality, we condition of freedom. Scoundrels as we are, we demand bread for
almost invariably lose the concept of liberty; and if we maintain the each and everyone of us". Kropotkin's picture of freedom was not.
idea of liberty, we lose the concept of equality. We can only make I think, articulate.
a definite choice one way or the other. Too often we are forced to
find satisfaction in such slogans as "Libert6! Egalit€! Fraternit6! ". The confusion was and still is a dominant feature of anarchisrn.
But deflnitions are necessary for analysis.d For example, Proudhon wanted "equality of property"l for him,
"imminent justice was no more, and no less, tlran equality". This equality
Liberty is the more complex concept. It contains two notions: was to be attained through some kind of mutual association. Later,
freedom from, which is similar to a striving for more equality; and inhis Appeal to the S/avs, Bakunin wrote. "The whole world underslood
#
45
(after 1848) that liberty was only a lie when the great majority of really knows about human nature is that it changes. The systems
the population is condemned to lead a poverty-stricken existence and that fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature,
where, deprived of education, of leisure, and of bread, it is destined and not on its growth and development" (Oscar Wilde). fn a sense,
to serve as a stepping stone for the powerful and the rich". Bakunin realism looks at the facts of the present and idealism looks at the
does not want liberty, but equality. Two years later he is in the Peter facts of the future. That is the difference, and to hear someone say
and Paul fortress, corrupted by scurvy and worn out by five years that the future is impractical provokes a weird and uncomfortable
of unnatural solitude. In a secret letter to his sister Tatiana, he feeling. My task is not to forecast the imminence of an anarchist
calls out for "Liberty! "-but again he means equality. After evading society-to prove the efficacy of a particular programme-but to
exile he joins the l-and and Liberty Society, and continues to fight justify the validity of believing in the possibility of either of its
for equality. Later, in 1867, he is elected to the executive committee meanings and in its usefulness. The central criteria for this judgment
of the Congress for Peace and Freedom, held in Geneva to discuss have been shown to be necessarily private. I cannot convey the idea.
"the maintenance of liberty, justice, and peace". It is the time of No one can. My publia criteria are listed above; but the histories of
the First International (see above). In his Letter to a Frenchman the two words, "liberty" and "equality". show only the dangers of
Bakunin declares that "France must save its own freedom" and his such publication.
manner is almost Stirnerian. There is no talk of equality, But later
it was equality that Kropotkin made the basis of his notions of Bakunin is describing his discovery of anarchism: "A new
mutual aid. world, into which I plunged with all the ardour of a delicious thirst".
Is it a tenable doctrine? The question fades away. It is not a
The bewildering puzzle is open to at least two solutions. One "tenable doctrine". It is a "new world". And unless we are serious
interpretation suggests that as the idea of isonomic eLluality became about thqt, the history of ideas can be no more than a delightful
more manageable and more explicit, its accompanying gloss of liberty pastime.
"-hardened into a distinct concept olf true (i.e. anarchic)
-"Libert6!
freedorn. Sur:lr interpreters rcgard thc anarchisl.s'initial stress on
equality as only an extreme reaction to 19th century social and
and economic exigencies. 0,ther theot'ists postulatc two kinds of
equality: authoritarian, Marxian, equality, and mutual, Froudhonian,
equality. They suggest that during the First Tnternationnl the two parts
split. The anarchisfs desirc for iome kind of authoritarian. socialist"
equality became wedded to doctrinaire Marxism. thus leaving nnarchism
itself with very little revolutionary impetus. The lives of Lenin and
Trotsky were perhaps shapcd more by the circumstarlces that sur-
rounded them at the tum of the <rntury than by any particular ideology.
frnin's description of Trotsky as an annrchist was not meaningless. NOTES
It is thus possible to abstract complex linguistic scenarios aroilnd afquullay cino ntcheep ste. cEonadc.h of the points raised in thc flrst part is answered more
the words, "liberty", '"equirlity", "libertarian", "egalitarian", "liberal- 2lgnorance forces us to regard anarchism, an individualistic movement, mainly
C
ism", etc. The temptation is strongest for a historian of the period rIin terms of a few famous rnen. The selection is invidious but unavoidable.
s1t8a6rt0e-d1 9t1o4 .m Souvfefi cteo wita rtdos stehye tahuatth aosri ttahreia na c[trofrts, ina nEaurcrohpiseman w paosli tIiecsft tthreaeamotre ytd,h ew"rnheaficotuhre rh afelr e liaenwv teo"r, t etwrdeh atoots aesn hsaoerwcnhs teish mhate it nhc Eomrmeu pcclahen ttc hblyee csnhaoam nleigm ewdita,s y a oannsd ,t htsheae ys , ocHvoeonrbterbaigecnst
without her claim for an audience. power.
eOne immediate and final interpretation is found in Camus' "two certainties
+t+ -thmisy w aopllpde ttiote afo rra tthioen aabl saonludt er eaansdo nfaobrl eu npitryin, caipnld,e t"h.e Iitm ipso dsisfifbiciluitlyt otof rdeidscuocvinegr
what, say, Godwin really believed and *hat he really believed he did; and
the discovery when found (and I do not think it ever can be found) is only
Some people say that anarchism is impractical and goes against of doubtful'worth. It follows that Camus' man is he "who does nothing
shcuhmeamne nwahtiuchre f.i tsT heexyis tainrge croignhdtit.i oBnust. :Ar npdr aict tiicsa el xsacchtelym eth ies eoxnisltyin ga cfTohre tqhueo etatetironna l"m.arks distinguish him from his "real-life" brother. I assume
conditions that one objecLs to; and any scheme which would accept ooAsn l-yb ethfoarte ,a nm "aannya prcohinistts" asorec ietiteya cteodn tatwinisc eo:n lfyir s"at,n ainrc hthisets "a.bstract, and thcn in
those conditions is "wrong and foolish. The only thing that one a historical context" This division leads to some repetition.
47
46
and listened to for a searching intelligence that people of widely varying
opinions have come to respect.
His article, "The Black Flag of Anarchism", in the New York Times
Magazine for July 14th, 1968, illustrates these qualities. Purists in the
anarchist tradition may not admit Goodman to their fraternity, but
then, they usually find things wrong with Thoreau, also. It may some
llon-political lI1 day be agreed that anarchism is basically an attitude for dealing with
imperfect situations rather than a counsel of perfection that will never
politics rl get applied except by perfect men.
The point of this article by Goodman is that the revolt of the
young, all over the world, is anarchist in the best sense of the term,
ilAilA8 although many of the participants hardly realize it, and they often
make sounds and motions having an opposite significance. His positive
identification is as follows:
"The protesting students are Anarchist because they are in a
historical Htuation to which Anarchism is their only possible
dPoacutrri nca,oiOreor rqalArNa rrtse rAs. sHuRispR wrSorNrkG Lisy gAoCoCdEP eTAviBdLeEn cuea txh aint tahellr eb ucto urilgdid blye response. During all their lifetime the Great Powers have been in
far morc dialogue among people of opposing viewpoints. if they would the deadlock of the Cold War, stockpiling nuclear weapons. Vast
military-industrial complexes have developed, technology has been
simply realize, as Goodman does, thai uncondemning reason and good-
humoured common sense are effective instrumcnts in reaching even atibouns ehda,s s ctuiernnceed ainndto t hpero ucensivseinrgsi,t iefos rh laovneg ebre eyne acros rraunpdt eadt . aE dfausctae-r
those who have benighted opinions. Thsre is a fundamental radicalism pace. Centralized engineering is creating the world forecast in
about everything that Goodman thinks and does, but he doesn't really -Orwell's
f.rightgn anybody. He seems never to have been subject to the .1984. Manipulated for national goals they cannot believe
jtuhvreeantielen indge lupseioonp leth wati tyho uu ttaerr€ rnuoint rteoa lalyl l "trhaadti cthael"y -u*nrlneisssta ykoeun lgyo o arb nooutt iunr,b attnreiz ayotiuonng a anrde tahleie wnaotreldd .i sO hne acdveinrgy fcoorn teinceonlot gtihcaelr ed iissa setxecre.ssive
dear.
-hold "Under thesc conclil.ions, the young rejcct authority, for it is
Goodman may annoy some poople, and occasionally humiliate not only immoral but functionally incompetent, which is unfor'
others, but he is really a temperate man and his specches are grained givable. They think they can do better themselves. They want to
--for the most part*with an cssential good tastc and a consideration abolish national frontiers. They do not believe in Great Power.
for the sensibilities of ordinary folk. When hc says particularly Since they are willing to let the Systems fall apart, they are not
delastating things to an audience, he mildly apologizes by explaining moved by appeals to law and order. They be'lieve in local power,
why he feels driven to extrernes. Paul Gooclman is manifestly not out community developntent, rural reconstruction, dccentralist organi-
to hurt anybodyl his policies as a citizen are eminently constructive; zation, so they can have a say. They prefer a simpler standard of
but these considerations do not prevent him from spcaking the trLrth living. Though their protests generate violence, they themselves
exactly as he sees it. He has a talent for clarity, which makes him tend to nonviolence and are internationally pacifist. But they do
persuasive. He is not, however, anybody's pet radical. He is invited not trust the due process of administrators and are quich to resort
to direct action and civil disobedience. All this adds up to the
MANAS is an Anterican " journal of independent inquirf' (five dollars cMoamlamteusntiaty, Athnea rcahgiistamt ioonfa Kl rAopnoatrkcihni,s mth eo ref siBstaa-knucen iAn,n athrceh isGmu ilodf
a90 y0e3a2r) frruohmic hP .fOre. qBtrocxn t3ly2 1c1a2r,r iEesl Smearetenroia Sl taotfio na,n aI-rocsh iAstn ginetleesr,e sCta. liIfn., Socialism of William Morris, the personalist politics of Thoreau."
the two comments run together here it discusses two recent articles
on the nev, wqve of anarchism among the young in America, one by There is a sense in which the great anarchist thinkers of history
Pattl Goodman in the New York Times Magazine wtd one by George have given a political title to the deepest of httman longings, and then,
Woodcock ln Commentary. through the violence once associated with the anarchist movement--
48
49
oyMflatleltan t epus"nt"ajpu sldgtol yw ,n. hobotu hrte aasvoleizr nene eitsivm eterh ser e wwaidat hrmm ce, ansu ersliefk--segakacrvroeifip iiirotg t tair" r,bu a*mdu o"niutavam iioinei ,.i t aBenusdut ythihaa-vlic eph a,o wicnoe mmr moy-ofo npy iosntuiyotlneh,, atcacactnLini cbgse ainanctdeh riecnvuaelttdiuo rnoear.ll ylyy .eb -yt C ttheheerrt aeim inamlryee, n vasitesa lpi ogtofeiarnsls-t
pwmaaeisnn ,,f ranonemdv etahrge ao fnu ivnzuedldag maimre np-satate^l.li f^l-eoinnntcgeeirn-e-gEs utin.t aAtnhn eidmir pvidaioetileaennlscc.e ei ,v sitpn ueitinrr,e tdihn-i6"yiy r-,eL-r uenmde,ua enitt onoturhdceelerrwa iors efb ,bo utmhsebinyse swosf,i lltF hnreaoynt c oleiuv, geCh oth iutnota t"bh Reeu iras scliitvaine 1sg. n"ind ctohnec Uerni ittoed b Santa ttehse;
P"caT" the systcmatic,^calculating programme of slaughter and destruc-
tron.the war colleges of conventionar siates have madJout of it. Therc Goodman pursues this analysis in specific terms in relation to the
itsh.isb.i tftaerr iurognlieyr inso trht eo ffa vcito ltehnacte t,h oe nolyb ebdeiecnatu smea ists eiss ascacnedpito aoso lje-Esivti m,tautte" fi trhecaet nhl eprroet.e sHt ias t gCeonleurmalb siata Utenrniveenrtssi tiyra, vbeu Ita wstein agr ev anlouet ,c oanncde rsnheodw w hitihs
authority,. -whilc acts embodying ';anarchism of the deed,,, sirch as talent for getting rid of labels or going behind-them. He has this to
bro.ught Alexander Berkrnan twenty-two years in prison, irc rigarded say about the meaning of "participatory democracy"-
with horror and [ear. But we make no-dcfence bf tho]esser-8f two
eusvcilfsu lh teor ele. aNrno wohnye 'sit voioclceunrcse. needs justification, although it is often a.ga.l n"sItt tiosp a-d_ocrwyn f odrir eac tsiaoyn ,i ns otchiea l deencgisiinoenesr itnhga. tc oshrpa-poera oteu ra nlivde sp,o alis-
tical centralization, absentee owners, brainwalhing-by mass m6dia,
Today's younger generation of radicals is sometimes accused of . . ._pnltigipatory democracy is grounded in the following social-
ignorance of past social history and radical movements. paul Goodman psychological hypotheses: People who actually perform a function
repeats the charge, zuggesting that this is a peculiar weakness of Ameri- usually best know how it should be done. By and large, their free
can youth, who now practice an uncoiscious anarchism_from a decision will be efficient, inventive, graceful, and forceful. Being
questioning mood rather than by doctrinc or revolutionary credo. As active and self-confident, they will co-operate with other groups
Goodman says: with a minimum of envy, anxiety, irrational violence or the need
to dominate.
"The American young are unusually ignorant of their political
hprisotfoouryn.d ththea tg tehneeyra ctiaonnn o[at p-r,e mtheemirb aelri etnhacti ocno rfr'eocmt ntaramdeit iofolnr, wish saot socie"tAy nisd s, ealsf- iJmepfterorsvoinng ;p owinet eleda ronu tb, yo dnolyin sgu, cahn adn t hoerg oannliysa wtioany otof
they in fact do. educate co-operative citizens is to give power to people as they are."
Commonsense ideas about froedom and responsibility are now
"This ignorance has unfortunate consequences for their move- quite "radical", as anyonc can see.
ment and lands them in wild contradictions. In the United SLates,
the New Left has agreed._tq regard itself as Marxist and speaks oi
'seizing- power' and 'building socialism', although it is ^strongly
e'otssbhtpvooeuepnuldeor,re sg:fenesoe tddosdr i ietstwaoof er-h c sncoioodve cfinbin li etiNgrtltati yebeCl ,ierzwahlreynta i4 ledi,rp es mprt't.oeo'attcw nehN senMotr o tbaelaoeosngi,d'nys gh ill taii ttksrthele aega s oot renenudoder s lebsi.kc ooeIoo t fnk aIoiB;s rma M panicas d c it nthCaoferuad olrss rlpy,i oD enwa aehkvvhei edlaort_--rf WnaWeaxth rkpanaelaNltdl i n ewbAslse,i el tMlwb ctAueoaetNn nb,s heiptme hru epednsl ydosw ee?ocdrr sr ilWbetdosy oo o rodsdf.uo s mrt F,ch eaoha lrevif tieih nei esasf a list aire lyneaxid dntmr g.et ah mTnteohi t wy ews, h oaconrry lyo dc e a ivslonoe fntrfh iygnsetehyd rsmi n noagbuop no paddlesi ts a.ot oalfsTnn chhcoeieesr.
space he once used for resonating meaning has cotrlapsed, so he shrieks
"[n the Communist bloc, unlike the Latin countries, the tradi- wanit hu nthtuet ovroeidc eb ouft tphrea chtoisrinnsg tmhaagt ibciraonu.ght dor,vn Jericho. He turns into
tion is also wiped out. For instance, in Czechoslovakia, poland
and Yugoslavia, students who want civil liberties and more econo- There is no nrorc obsccne horroi: in hurnan life than the fact that
mic freedom are called bourgeois, although in fact they are dis- such cries can be ignored. And no bittercr irony than that they can
gusted by the materialisrn of their own regimes and thev asoire to also tre imitated---even "progranrmed". So society easily finds excuses
workers' management, rural reconstruction, the withcring away of for creating sound-barriers equipped with filters to transmit only what
the state, the very Anarchism that Marx promised as pie in the sky. people want to hear. We have to shut out the noise, they say. The
men who remain unheard must now find champions who devise
"Worst of all, not recognizing what they are, the students do amplifiers, and sometimes thcse chanrpions are heroii and great, while
not find one another as an international movement though they there are others who make capital out of fcar and desperation. Telling