We have been studying political philosophies that support or advance toward bottom-up democracy through top-down structures of authority. Anarchism also aims at bottom-up democracy, but more radically does not propose any top-down authority for support. Just as Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience, “That government is best which governs the least”, Anarchists believe in getting rid of government as much as possible. This may or may not leave room for a diminished government that leans towards capitalism or socialism, but it is at odds with communism imposing a dictatorship even though it also ultimately aims at direct governance by the people. Hard capitalism could be similar if not identical to anarchism (remember that communists consider capitalism to be anarchism already but anarchism for the wealthy rather than for the common people), however capitalism traditionally relies on the state for money and military support. Socialism is not compatible with complete anarchism because it presupposes a state structure, but a more libertarian socialism would aim at anarchism as much as it is possible and feasible, just like communism.
How feasible is anarchy? Some say it is impossible. Others say it is entirely possible and we can figure it out and live it now. Others say we cannot figure it out, but we should dream the impossible and strive to achieve what may only be a dream for now. To many anarchism is no different than Hobbes’ state of nature: nasty, brutish and short-lived. Without government, the police and military for example, how would the powerless and marginalized be defended from the powerful and dominant? Anarchists would side with Saint-Simon, the socialist, and argue that technology and culture have advanced to a point where power can be held by the people without the necessary abuses of the state. Government and structures of power, they would argue, are already inherently abusive, and anarchism would be less abusive than the current structures of power. For instance, while the powerful could still hire private armies to do what they want without fear of the state police, international wars would become virtually impossible.
One can find the idea that power is inherently abusive in ancient Chinese and Greek thought (Daoism and Stoicism specifically), in the thought of Rousseau and Thoreau, as well as libertarianism of 1800s France and America today. The term ‘anarchism’ was used as a negative term by the Royalists against the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War (involving Hobbes and Locke). During the French Revolution, progressives who began opposing the dictatorship of Robespierre began using the term in a positive way. This prefigured the split between communists and anarchists. The question is, is centralized authority more or less abusive than decentralized authority? All the political philosophies theoretically aim at decentralized authority, but none trusts decentralized authority like anarchism. One could equally say that none trusts dictatorship like communism that we have studied so far, but fascism (which we study next week) believes in dictatorship like communism but does not believe in evolving toward direct democracy.
Proudhon
The first to call himself an anarchist by name was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865). He is best known for the quote, “Property is theft”, from his work, “What is Property?”. He is also quoted famously for saying, “Anarchy is order”, the possible origin of the A surrounded by an O which is the symbol of anarchism. Marx and Proudhon were friends for awhile in Paris before splitting over differences. Proudhon argued for a collectivism of co-ops and communes without the need for a centralized state. Unlike Marx and communism, Proudhon did not believe in the nationalization of property under state ownership. Through free association, individuals labor in collectives and reap the fruit of their efforts without individual or collective ownership of the kind Locke felt the state must protect. Rather than property, Proudhon argued for possession through mutual and voluntary use.
While communists such as Marx argued that dictatorship was necessary to transform society, Proudhon and his followers recalled the French Revolution and argued that this would be a step backwards that would take power from the people rather than giving power to the people. Proudhon repeatedly spoke of “the people”, and regarded all government as tyranny. This goes beyond Rousseau, who believes in central government that has the support of the general will. Proudhon argued that property was the cause of all wars, including religious wars and the French Revolution, and so if possession through use made property rights unnecessary war would become a thing of the past. Towards the end of his life, Proudhon began to compromise with the idea of a balance of central authority as a socialist, but retained his belief that mutualism was superior and more trustworthy than authority.
Bakunin
Socialists in Europe became polarized at this time between the communists who followed Marx and the Anarchists who followed Proudhon and the Russian Mikhail Bakunin (1814 – 1876). A Hegelian like Marx, Bakunin had met both Marx and Proudhon in Paris and translated Hegel and the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels into Russian. Like Lenin and Trotsky, Bakunin was exiled from Russia for his criticism of the tyrannical power of the Tsar. Unlike Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky however, Bakunin had come to distrust authority even under the guise of socialism and communism. At meetings of the First International socialist congress, Marx argued that they should participate in European national elections while Bakunin argued that they should abstain from voting and complying with state held power. Bakunin argued for rising up against the state in acts of open rebellion, what he called “the propaganda of the deed” (actions speak louder than words). Later anarchists would use this phrase to describe bombings and assassinations against those they believe oppress the common people. The Marxists, who dominated the congress, expelled Bakunin and his followers. Bakunin continued to argue that no one should be given political power, not even the workers, as this power would come to exploit the workers themselves. All dictatorship is self-perpetuating, and a communist dictatorship would merely claim to be the voice of the people. Marcuse and Chomsky have both been influenced by Bakunin in their criticism of communist dictatorship.
Spanish Civil War
During the Spanish Civil War (1936 – 1939), the fascist general Francisco Franco fought for control of a divided Spain with the support of the fascist governments of Italy and Germany and American corporations such as General Motors, Ford and Texaco. Those on the left, the communists, socialists and anarchists, saw the war as a struggle for freedom, while those on the right saw the war as a struggle for Christian civilization. On the left were peasants, workers and intellectuals. On the right were the clergy, the military, land owners and business interests. Anarchism had gained more influence in Spain than elsewhere in Europe, and for a brief time, especially in Andalusia and Catalonia, land and industries were collectivized and run as mutualist co-ops. Unfortunately, this success frightened the communists as well as the fascists, and infighting between communists and anarchists weakened the left side of the war. With the victory of Franco in 1939, these communities were crushed and thousands of anarchists and communists shot. I personally saw walls in Barcelona that were riddled with pockmarks from this period. This is known as a brief period where anarchism did flourish and work as a political form, but because it was so brief and crushed by fascism its feasibility remains controversial. Would it have survived and flourished had Franco and the powers that backed him not been victorious, or would it have been swallowed up by communism or another form of power?
Squatter’s Rights
One concept of anarchism that still has a following today is squatter’s rights. Do the poor have the right to seize unused property such as houses and factories and use them as they see fit, gaining possession of these lands and facilities through use? Capitalism and communism would say no, because property is the right of the individual or the state, not to be seized voluntarily. Anarchists argue that people should take possession of buildings that are not used and put them to good use for the good of any who wish to contribute to the effort. There are countless squatter’s communities around the world, especially in impoverished areas (consider homeless camps visible underneath freeway overpasses here in the East Bay). In Detroit there have been activists for decades who help poor families break into unused homes and repair them so that they can be used, resulting in continuous struggles with local police. Some of these activists even call the police and let them know what homes they are “liberating” to wear down police already busy with other matters.
Free Love & Women’s Rights
Anarchism is often in solidarity with free love and women’s rights movements. Just as anarchism wants an end to the domination of the wealthy over the poor, it also seeks an end to other forms of oppression such as the tyranny of the male over the female. Anarchists often are champions of free love, the voluntary sexual association of individuals rather than the prescribed and state sanctified sexual union of marriage, as well as women’s rights such as equal treatment, suffrage, contraception, and abortion. While this is much more accepted today under state systems, sexual relations outside of marriage were considered criminal in the past and remain so in many places today. Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940) was a feminist and anarchist who argued the real anarchist and social revolution should be concerned with ridding society of gender inequality. Critical of both American capitalism and Soviet communism, she is considered one of the first revolutionary feminists who hoped that one day women would be recognized as full individuals who are able to get married or not and have children or not without the coercion of the state or culture.
