Miller Enciclopedia Blackwell a gandirii politice

Anarchism

The core of anarchism is the doctrine that society can and should be organized without the coercive authority of the state.

Although it is possible to find anarchist tendencies in the thought of many individuals stretching back to antiquity, the first political theorist to argue unequivocally for a stateless society was G O !"# in a book published in $%&'( the first to call himself an anarchist was ) *O+ ,O#. Anarchism as an ideology had its greatest influence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when revolutionary movements of this persuasion emerged in a number of western countries. -ore recently its impact has weakened, although numbers of individuals continue to think of themselves as anarchists, and sporadically impinge on the political scene.

Anarchist thinkers by no means form a homogeneous group, and at times they may seem to be held together only by their recognition of a common enemy, the state. They differ most overtly about the economic arrangements that should prevail in a stateless society. on this question anarchists form a spectrum, ranging from defenders of private property and free competition in the market, to advocates of complete common ownership, co/operative labour and distribution according to need. These differences, which will be analysed in greater depth below, reflect divergences of view on more fundamental questions, such as the meaning of 0+1T"23 and 4*33 O-, and the possibilities of ,+-A# #AT+*3.

All anarchists agree, however, on the need to dispense with compulsory forms of A+T,O*"T5, of which the state is merely the highest development. They do not necessarily ob6ect to authority of every kind. most anarchists would recognize the authority of e7perts8scientists or doctors, for instance8in their own fields, and many would recognize the moral authority of collective decisions taken in a genuinely democratic manner. Their criticisms are directed at authority assumed by people with no special claim to it( at authority that stretches beyond particular areas of e7pertise to embrace the whole of human e7istence( and, above all, at authority that enforces its commands coercively. The state is plainly guilty on all three counts( the anarchist critique e7tends, however, to other hierarchical forms of authority8to churches, to armies, to enterprises run by capitalist bosses, and, in more recent times, to impersonal bureaucracies. All these institutions are denounced for coercing their victims, and for e7ploiting them by e7tracting money or services by threat and indoctrination.

Anarchists re6ect two popular 6ustifications of the state. that it performs useful social functions, and that its authority is legitimized by the 2O#13#T of its sub6ects. 4or anarchists, many of the tasks carried out by the state are necessary only for the state9s own benefit. it undertakes national defence, for instance, but what it is really doing is defending its own sovereignty against other states. Other functions, such as personal protection, would in the absence of the state be carried out privately or by local communities. As for the idea of consent, anarchists ask when consent is supposed to have been given, and what happens to individuals who now try to withdraw it. They re6ect the view that elections are a genuine means of agreeing to be governed, seeing them instead as occasions when the populace is tricked into supporting one or other member of the ruling class.

Anarchism looks forward to a society in which personal freedom is at a ma7imum( in which material goods are fairly distributed( and in which common tasks are carried out by voluntary agreement. :ut there are ma6or differences of opinion as to how these desirable aims may be achieved. 4our main currents in anarchist thought may be distinguished. individualism, mutualism, collectivism and communism.

Individualis m

"ndividualists take the sovereign individual as their starting point. 3ach person has an inviolable sphere of action upon which no one else must intrude, and social relationships are formed primarily through e7change and contract. The German nihilist -a7 1tirner ;see 5O+#G ,3G3<"A#1= is often regarded as the originator of this school, but 1tirner9s uncompromising egoism8the individual, he believed, should always act e7actly as he pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules8left little room for any constructive proposals. -ore typical of individualism were the nineteenth8century American anarchists 0osiah !arren, <ysander 1pooner and :en6amin Tucker.

!arren advocated a system of 9equitable commerce9 whereby each producer, working either alone or in association, would e7change goods on the basis of the labour time embodied in them, using a system of labour notes. ,e set up 9Time 1tores9 to demonstrate the viability of his system, and also founded several e7perimental communities based on individual proprietorship and e7changes of labour. Tucker developed the theory of individualism more fully in a series of magazine articles collected as Instead of a Book ;$>&'=. ,is basic principle was that each person should en6oy the ma7imum liberty compatible with an equal liberty for others, implying in particular unlimited rights to acquire and dispose of goods in the market. Tucker attacked all state/ created monopolies, especially monopolies in land and money. !ithout the state, he argued, each person could e7ercise his right to protect his own freedom, if necessary using the services of a private protective association. 1pooner was located more firmly in the tradition of natural law, and is celebrated mainly for his withering attack on the +1 constitution, in the course of which he e7posed the weaknesses of the contractual theory of the state.

"ndividualist anarchism has recently been revived, and now forms part of the broader movement known as <":3*TA*"A#"1-. :ut while the earlier individualists thought that a society of equal freedom would radically modify capitalism ;Tucker, for instance, regarded himself as a socialist=, their modern descendants celebrate
2

that system, and often describe themselves as 9anarcho/capitalists9, a phrase that attracts vitriolic condemnation from anarchists of other persuasions.

Mutualis m

-utualism can be seen as a mid/point between individualist and collectivist versions of anarchy. The term was adopted by )*O+ ,O# and his followers for their economic system, which in )roudhon9s eyes reconciled property and communism. ,is principle was that each person might possess his means of production ;tools, land, etc.= either singly or collectively, but should only be rewarded for his labour, thus eliminating profit and rent and ensuring a high degree of equality. 37change was to occur through an ethical form of bargaining in which each party sought only an equivalent for what they were offering. "ntegral to this scheme was the establishment of a mutual credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal rate of interest, covering only its costs of administration. espite the practical failures of )roudhon9s e7periments along these lines, his 4rench disciples played an influential role in the early years of the 4irst "nternational, before being outflanked by the collectivists.

Collectivis m

2ollectivism became the dominant strand in the anarchist movement under the influence of : A?+#"#. Abandoning )roudhon9s tenderness towards the smallholding peasant and the artisan, the collectivists looked forward to a future in which organized labour had e7propriated capital, each group of workers managing their own means of production. The distribution of the proceeds would be a matter for collective decision, but it was generally assumed that rewards would be proportional to labour, at least for the foreseeable future. The collectivists opposed what they saw as the authoritarian 2O--+#"1- of -A*@ and his followers.

Communis
3

The assumption that communism could only be imposed by an authoritarian state was challenged by the ne7t generation of anarchists, particularly -alatesta, 3lisAe *eclus and ?*O)OT?"#. They argued instead that natural human solidarity would lead to the obliteration of all property distinctions. "n an anarchist society each person would make use of common resources according to need. )roductive work would be organized on the supply side by voluntary associations of workers and on the demand side by local communes, whose task it would be to identify the needs of the people living in their area. 2ommunes would federate to co/ordinate pro6ects such as road and railway systems that crossed their boundaries.

2ommunist anarchism rests on a view of human nature that is diametrically opposed to the egoism of 1tirner and the individualists. "t presupposes that people will work without material incentives and that, in the absence of private property, the problem of crime will so far diminish that offenders can be dealt with informally, without recourse to the coercive apparatus of law. -any would therefore see it as a form of +TO)"A#"1-. Anarchists of this persuasion would say in their defence that no human society could survive unless people were already co/operative and altruistic to a substantial degree.

1ince the $>>Bs most anarchists have regarded communism as the highest form of social organization. They have attacked private ownership along with political authority as an inherently e7ploitative practice. At the same time they have been aware of the need to reconcile communal property with the basic anarchist commitment to freedom. They have stressed, therefore, that a communist system must be adopted voluntarily rather than imposed by force, and many have accepted collectivism as a viable transitional arrangment until people feel sufficient solidarity to dispense with property distinctions entirely. "ndividualists, on the other hand, use the issue of freedom as their springboard from which to assault communist proposals.

Anarchism and Marxism

The mainstream anarchist vision of future society closely resembles that of -ar7 and -A*@"1-, yet anarchists and -ar7ists have been at war in the socialist movement ever since -ar7 delivered his attack on )roudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy ;$>CD=. This rivalry reached its peak during the short/lived 4irst "nternational, when -ar79s supporters fought with :akunin9s for control of that organization, a conflict which ended in the break/up of the "nternational in $>%E.

The immediate issue was whether the path forward to socialism ;and eventually communism= lay through the destruction of the state, as the anarchists believed, or through the creation of a workers9 state ;or proletarian dictatorship=, as the -ar7ists believed. 4or the anarchists, any political body, even one staffed e7clusively by proletarians, would
4

take on the universal characteristics of the state and inevitably become a new source of privilege and oppression. A socialist state, whose powers would e7tend to the organization of economic life, was likely to be the most oppressive of all( it would, in :akunin9s words, 9be nothing but a barracks. a regime, where regimented working men and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum( where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges . . .9 ;Bakunin on Anarchy, p. E>C=.

:ehind this political division lay differences in general outlook. The anarchists found -ar79s idea of a social science, in which historical epochs succeeded one another according to economic laws, e7cessively deterministic. "t underestimated the power of revolutionary ideas and the 9spirit of revolt9. -oreover, although the anarchists acknowledged that a dominant economic class would always strongly influence the activities of the state, they saw political power as having independent roots, and its own internal dynamics. 4inally, they did not share the -ar7ists9 faith in the revolutionary potential of the urban working class( when they appealed for support to the 9proletariat9, they had in mind a more heterogeneous mass comprising peasants, artisans and down/and/outs, as well as urban workers. They placed their trust primarily in those who had nothing to lose by a revolutionary upheaval.

Revolutionary Change

Given their general attitude to the state, the anarchists were naturally opposed to all attempts to reform society by parliamentary means, as well as to attempts to overthrow the e7isting regime and replace it with a new political body. They studiously abstained from participating in elections or conventional politics of any sort. -ost of them continued nonetheless to think in terms of a revolutionary transformation of society. 4or men like :akunin, -alatesta and ?ropotkin this meant a mass revolt against e7isting forms of authority and economic institutions, leading to the spontaneous construction, on a local basis, of new forms of organization. There was no room here for political leadership in the usual sense. The role of anarchist intellectuals was to be primarily an educative one. they had to stir up the spirit of revolt by pointing out in6ustices, and implant anti/authoritarian ideals in the masses. 3ducation by the written and spoken word proved, however, to be a frustratingly slow business, and so there was born the idea of 9propaganda by the deed9. As first interpreted by -alatesta ;who attempted to put it into practice= this meant displaying anarchism in action, through fostering local rebellions which would serve as a model and a stimulus to the masses elsewhere. <ater, in the $>>Bs and $>&Bs, it came to mean individual acts of terror, for e7ample the assassination of political leaders or prominent industrialists. This was the period in which the popular image. of anarchists as ruthless men with bombs under their coats became fi7ed in the public mind. #either version of propaganda by the deed bore any fruits. local insurrections were invariably suppressed by the police or the army, and terrorist activities merely created a climate of opinion in which perfectly innocent anarchists would be thrown into gaol.
5

The most hopeful revolutionary strategy sprang from an alliance between anarchism and 15# "2A<"1-. Anarcho/ syndicalists looked to the trade union movement both as a means of organizing the proletariat for revolution, and as a scaffold around which the new society could be built. Anarchists played a prominent role in the 4rench syndicalist organization, the 2GT ;2onfAdAration GAnArale du Travail=, before $&$C, and after the war in its 1panish equivalent, the 2#T ;2onfederaciFn #acional de Traba6o=. "t was in 1pain that the anarcho/syndicalist idea had its greatest opportunity, on the outbreak of the civil war in $&'D. The anarchists proved to be an effective revolutionary force, and many factories and villages were collectivized, generally with some success. "t was not, however, possible to implement libertarian communist ideals on a full scale under the conditions prevailing in 1pain. 3ventually the anarchists succumbed to pressure from their republican allies and abandoned many of their revolutionary gains in the interests of winning the war.

The idea of revolution has not been endorsed by all anarchists. "ndividualists have been suspicious of the threat to freedom that revolutionary organization poses, and other anarchists have argued that the transformation of human relationships that anarchy requires can only come about through a long period of education( revolutions can destroy, but they cannot of themselves rebuild the society of future. The Significance of Anarchism

Anarchism can be assessed from two points of view. as a self/contained ideology, and as a fertilizer of other political traditions. 1een in the first way, it can only be written off as a failure. "t has never attracted large numbers of adherents, and its influence on the course of world history has usually been nugatory. #or is this surprising. The anarchist idea of a society organized without central authority seems to run directly counter to the e7perience of all advanced societies, where industrialization has gone hand in hand with an enhancement of the state9s role. Anarchism as a complete package requires a massive leap of faith.

As a source of critical ideas for other ideologies and movements, however, it can claim greater success. "t has been a constant presence in the socialist tradition, helping to counterbalance the centralist and statist outlook of many socialists. "t has encouraged liberals to overcome their inconsistencies and hypocrisies over matters such as freedom of speech. "t has contributed to the growth of 43-"#"1-( the anarchist ideal of human relationships free from coercion and e7ploitation has been e7tended to the relationship between men and women ;for instance by 3mma Goldman, a *ussian/born anarchist prominent in the +1 early in this century=. The strand in anarchist thought ;deriving particularly from TO<1TO5= that opposes all violence on principle has often underlain )A2"4"1-. -ore recently the radical wing of the environmental movement has absorbed anarchist ideas, and anarchists have even been prominent in the campaign for A#"-A< *"G,T1. These apparently disparate influences are connected by two main ideas. opposition to all relations of power, no matter how persuasively camouflaged, and belief in direct action, instead of conventional political methods, as a means of combating them. These ideas, rather than elaborate blueprints for social reconstruction, seem likely to form the lasting contribution of anarchism to political thought.
6