This means that anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, all types of anarchists share a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker:
"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 62-3]
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists, although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United States. In this section we indicate the differences between these main trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear, while social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we must not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common, namely a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and capitalist domination and exploitation.
In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree over such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal rights and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, are only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas, the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant state of change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected in a movement that values freedom so highly.
The most obvious thing to note about the different types of anarchism is that "[n]one are named after some Great Thinker; instead, they are invariably named either after some kind of practice, or, most often, organisational principle . . . Anarchists like to distinguish themselves by what they do, and how they organise themselves to go about doing it." [David Graeber, Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology, p. 5] This does not mean that anarchism does not have individuals who have contributed significantly to anarchist theory. Far from it, as can be seen in section A.4 there are many such people. Anarchists simply recognise that to call your theory after an individual is a kind of idolatry. Anarchists know that even the greatest thinker is only human and, consequently, can make mistakes, fail to live up to their ideals or have a partial understanding of certain issues (see section H.2 for more discussion on this). Moreover, we see that the world changes and, obviously, what was a suitable practice or programme in, say, industrialising France of the 1840s may have its limitations in 21st century France!
Consequently, it is to be expected that a social theory like anarchism would have numerous schools of thought and practice associated with it. Anarchism, as we noted in section A.5, has its roots in the struggles of working class people against oppression. Anarchist ideas have developed in many different social situations and, consequently, have reflected those circumstances. Most obviously, individualist anarchism initially developed in pre-industrial America and as a result has a different perspective on many issues than social anarchism. As America changed, going from a predominantly pre-capitalist rural society to an industrialised capitalist one, American anarchism changed:
"Originally the American movement, the native creation which arose with Josiah Warren in 1829, was purely individualistic; the student of economy will easily understand the material and historical causes for such development. But within the last twenty years the communist idea has made great progress, owning primarily to that concentration in capitalist production which has driven the American workingman [and woman] to grasp at the idea of solidarity, and, secondly, to the expulsion of active communist propagandists from Europe." [Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 110]
Thus rather than the numerous types of anarchism being an expression of some sort of "incoherence" within anarchism, it simply shows a movement which has its roots in real life rather than the books of long dead thinkers. It also shows a healthy recognition that people are different and that one person's dream may be another's nightmare and that different tactics and organisations may be required at different social periods and struggles. So while anarchists have their preferences on how they think a free society will, in general, be like and be created they are aware that other forms of anarchism and libertarian tactics may be more suitable for other people and social circumstances. However, just because someone calls themselves or their theory anarchism does not make it so. Any genuine type of anarchism must share the fundamental perspectives of the movement, in other words be anti-state and anti-capitalist.
Moreover, claims of anarchist "incoherence" by its critics are usually overblown. After all, being followers of Marx and/or Lenin has not stopped Marxists from splitting into numerous parties, groups and sects. Nor has it stopped sectarian conflict between them based on whose interpretation of the holy writings are the "correct" ones or who has used the "correct" quotes to bolster attempts to adjust their ideas and practice to a world significantly different from Europe in the 1850s or Russia in the 1900s. At least anarchists are honest about their differences!
Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the
sort of society we would like to live in.
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now
(and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions,
such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support
strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent
strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out
of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists,
not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action
to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being
in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they seek
to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by means
of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual banks
and co-operatives). In this way a general "social liquidation" would
be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by
expropriation.
Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms
by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism.
Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles
as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist).
Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the
state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by
its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit
the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists
and revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within
capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However,
as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is
not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity).
In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is
Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a
free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property). Thus property "will lose a certain
attribute which sanctifies it now. The absolute ownership of it --
'the right to use or abuse' -- will be abolished, and possession,
use, will be the only title. It will be seen how impossible it
would be for one person to 'own' a million acres of land, without
a title deed, backed by a government ready to protect the title
at all hazards." [Lucy Parsons, Freedom, Equality & Solidarity,
p. 33
However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them. Thus "your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people." "Actual use," continues Berkman, "will be
considered
the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The organisation
of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines,
not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession,
co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will
take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
[What is Anarchism?, p. 217]
This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work
and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of
that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
"in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of
industry is untenable." Given this, it is impossible to "estimate
the share of each in the riches which all contribute to amass"
and, moreover, the "common possession of the instruments of labour
must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the
fruits of common labour." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread,
p. 45 and p. 46] By this social anarchists simply mean that the
social product which is produced by all would be available to all
and each individual who has contributed productively to society can
take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is a
moot point, as we discuss in section I.2.2).
Some social anarchists,
like mutualists for example, are against such a system of libertarian
(or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social
anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying
and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will see "Capitalistic
and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere" and "the wage system
abolished" whether by "equal and just exchange" (like Proudhon) or
by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, The General Idea of
the Revolution, p. 281]
In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies that
this system of use-rights should include the product of the workers labour. Instead of
social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a more market based
system in which workers would possess their own means of production and
exchange the product of their labour freely with other workers. They
argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. Rather, by
means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the market to create
and protect their economic and social power (market discipline for the
working class, state aid for the ruling class in other words). These state
created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs and patents) and state
enforcement of capitalist property rights are the source of economic
inequality and exploitation. With the abolition of government, real
free competition would result and ensure the end of capitalism and
capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker's essay State Socialism
and Anarchism for an excellent summary of this argument).
The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land)
are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire.
However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an
"occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say land, is not
in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others
for use. They think this system, called mutualism, will result in
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation
and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a regime of
"occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a workplace
needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the group who use
it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in fact, used by more
than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and use" is violated. Equally,
if an owner employs others to use the workplace then the boss can
appropriate the product of the workers' labour, so violating the maxim
that labour should receive its full product. Thus the principles of
individualist anarchism point to anti-capitalist conclusions (see
section G.3).
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still
more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257] Proudhon also
argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the
proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are
based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics
of communism and of property" in What is Property?). Thus the
Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the
individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well
as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced
with that of "society."
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that
Stirner's and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but
only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before
and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such
a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's distrust as to its
effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of
monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men
of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty
and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever
had to go through such a communism." [Act for Yourselves, p. 98]
Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a new
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's
and Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed
against it as they could not be familiar with it.
Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects
of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish all individual
"property," communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of
individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin
arguing against forms of communism that "desire to manage the
community after the model of a family . . . [to live] all in
the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet the
same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary,
to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual."
[Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, pp. 8-9] The aim
of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."
[The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought,
p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and
so individuality -- both in consumption and in production, as
social anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.
Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition
to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather
use community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society"
control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social
anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual
expression:
In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves,
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's The Conquest of
Bread, p. 61 and Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5 as well as Malatesta's
Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 99 and p. 103). This, social
anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their principles
or the communist nature of their desired society as such exceptions
are rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see
section I.6.2 for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists
an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their
common needs. Therefore, all anarchists emphasise the importance
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all
anarchists agree with Bakunin:
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods
with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments
that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individuals not to join a commune
while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to
pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic
associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual
wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others,
social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism
in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to
be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As
Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious
as those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
affected.
Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist
anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into
capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are
forced into unemployment they may have
to sell their labour to the "successful" in order to survive. This would
create authoritarian social relationships and the domination of the few
over the many via "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts
(and others like them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of
the State." [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 297]
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and
free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all
schools of abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance
of authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty."
This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker
argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and
"the assumption of authority over a given area and all within
it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete
oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."
[Instead of a Book, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also
has authority over a given area (the property in question) and
all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the
actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the
same social relationships as that created by the state, as it
comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given
area and those who use it).
Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance
of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation
of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in
nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [The Anarchist
Revolution, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the
worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places
the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection.
Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.
Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects
of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because "the school of Benjamin Tucker -- by
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to
break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this
school of so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of
the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition
of anarchism is no government." [Anarchism: Arguments For and
Against, p. 8] It is partly for this reason social anarchists
support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual
liberty.
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round"
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of many of Tucker's
economic ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that
require more than one worker. This naturally complements their support
for "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish
landlords. Without co-operatives, workers will be exploited for
"it is well enough to talk of [the worker] buying hand tools, or
small machinery which can be moved about; but what about the gigantic
machinery necessary to the operation of a mine, or a mill? It requires
many to work it. If one owns it, will he not make the others pay
tribute for using it?" This is because "no man would employ another
to work for him unless he could get more for his product than he had
to pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course of
exchange and re-exchange would be that the man having received
less than the full amount." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Why I am
an Anarchist", Exquisite Rebel, p. 61 and p. 60] Only when the
people who use a resource own it can individual ownership not result
in hierarchical authority or exploitation (i.e. statism/capitalism).
Only when an industry is co-operatively owned, can the workers ensure
that they govern themselves during work and can get the full value
of the goods they make once they are sold.
This solution is the one Individualist Anarchists do seem to accept
and the only one consistent with all their declared principles (as
well as anarchism). This can be seen when French individualist E.
Armand argued that the key difference between his school of anarchism
and communist-anarchism is that as well as seeing "ownership of the
consumer goods representing an extension of [the worker's] personality"
it also "regards ownership of the means of production and free disposal
of his produce as the quintessential guarantee of the autonomy of the
individual. The understanding is that such ownership boils down to the
chance to deploy (as individuals, couples, family groups, etc.) the
requisite plot of soil or machinery of production to meet the
requirements of the social unit, provided that the proprietor does
not transfer it to someone else or reply upon the services of someone
else in operating it." Thus the individualist anarchist could "defend
himself against . . . the exploitation of anyone by one of his
neighbours who will set him to work in his employ and for his
benefit" and "greed, which is to say the opportunity for an
individual, couple or family group to own more than strictly
required for their normal upkeep." ["Mini-Manual of the Anarchist
Individualist", pp. 145-9, Anarchism, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 147
and pp. 147-8]
The ideas of the American individualist anarchists logically flow to
the same conclusions. "Occupancy and Use" automatically excludes wage
labour and so exploitation and oppression. As Wm. Gary Kline correctly points out, the US
Individualist anarchists "expected a society of largely self-employed
workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between any of them."
[The Individualist Anarchists, p. 104] It is
this vision of a self-employed society that logically flows from their
principles which ensures that their ideas are truly anarchist. As it is,
their belief that their system would ensure the elimination of profit,
rent and interest place them squarely in the anti-capitalist camp alongside
social anarchists.
Needless to say, social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism,
arguing that there are undesirable features of even non-capitalist markets
which would undermine freedom and equality. Moreover, the development of
industry has resulted in natural barriers of entry into markets and this
not only makes it almost impossible to abolish capitalism by competing against it, it also makes the possibility of recreating usury in
new forms likely. Combine this with the difficulty in determining the exact
contribution of each worker to a product in a modern economy and you see
why social anarchists argue that the only real solution to capitalism is to
ensure community ownership and management of the economy. It is this
recognition of the developments within the capitalist economy which make
social anarchists reject individualist anarchism in favour of communalising,
and so decentralising, production by freely associated and co-operative
labour on a large-scale rather than just in the workplace.
For more discussion on the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, and why
social anarchists reject them, see section G -- "Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?"
The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist
form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune)
instead of being independent co-operatives. This would ensure that they
provided investment funds to co-operatives rather than to capitalistic
enterprises. Another difference is that some social anarchist mutualists
support the creation of what Proudhon termed an "agro-industrial federation"
to complement the federation of libertarian communities (called communes
by Proudhon). This is a "confederation . . . intended to provide
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and large scale developments
such as roads, railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal arrangements
is to protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] from capitalist
and financial feudalism, both within them and from the outside." This is
because "political right requires to be buttressed by economic right." Thus
the agro-industrial federation would be required to ensure the anarchist
nature of society from the destabilising effects of market exchanges (which
can generate increasing inequalities in wealth and so power). Such a
system would be a practical example of solidarity, as "industries are
sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the
others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate, not
to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to guarantee mutually
the conditions of common prosperity . . . Making such an agreement
will not detract from their liberty; it will simply give their liberty
more security and force." [The Principle of Federation, p. 70, p. 67
and p. 72]
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products
freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social
anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of
producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of
individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the "future social organisation
must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or
federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and
universal" and "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
may become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and
industrial associations." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206
and p. 174] Only by extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual
workplaces can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see section
I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial confederations
would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are
the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal
contract become the collective property of the whole . . . federation.
In this way, the federation of groups will be able to . . . regulate
the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society."
[James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 376]
These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management
of production within co-operatives but see confederations of these
associations as being the focal point for expressing mutual aid, not
a market. Workplace autonomy and self-management would be the basis
of any federation, for "the workers in the various factories have not
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"
[Guillaume, Op. Cit., p. 364] In addition to this industry-wide federation, there
would also be cross-industry and community confederations to look after
tasks which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity of any
particular industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, this
has similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.
Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution.
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider
the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key.
As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things
in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour
groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e.
distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself."
[Anarchism, p. 295] Thus, while communism
and collectivism both organise production in common via producers'
associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed.
Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is
more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the
labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that,
over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes
stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society
would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each
according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They
just disagree on how quickly this will come about (see
section I.2.2).
For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established than collectivism" after a revolution.
[Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism are essential
as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system
of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction
of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 230] The
quicker the move to communism, the less chances of new inequalities
developing. Needless to say, these positions are not that different
and, in practice, the necessities of a social revolution and the level
of political awareness of those introducing anarchism will determine which
system will be applied in each area.
Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists,
like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on
anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralised, federated unions that
use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong
enough to overthrow it. In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered
as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the
importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating
unions which prefigure the future free society.
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free
associations of free producers." They think that these associations would
serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very seriously
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create "not only
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary
period.
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is,
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers
themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches
of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products
in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."
[Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 55]
Again, like all social
anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists see the collective struggle and
organisation implied in unions as the school for anarchism. As Eugene
Varlin (an anarchist active in the First International who was murdered
at the end of the Paris Commune) put it, unions have "the enormous advantage of making people
accustomed to group life and thus preparing them for a more extended
social organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with
one another and to understand one another, but also to organise
themselves, to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective."
Moreover, as well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression
in the here and now, the unions also "form the natural elements of the
social edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed
into producers associations; it is they who can make the social ingredients
and the organisation of production work." [quoted by Julian P. W. Archer,
The First International in France, 1864-1872, p. 196]
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that
building libertarian unions is important and that work within the
labour movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge
the importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle,
and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more important than
creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them (of course,
anarcho-syndicalists support such autonomous struggle and organisation,
so the differences are not great). Communist-anarchists also
do not place as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles
within it to be equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy
and domination outside the workplace (most anarcho-syndicalists would
agree with this, however, and often it is just a question of emphasis).
A few communist-anarchists reject the labour movement as hopelessly
reformist in nature and so refuse to work within it, but these are
a small minority.
Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations.
They think it is essential that anarchists work together as
anarchists to clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists
often deny the importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing
that revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion
of anarchism and unionism a source of potential confusion that would
result in the two movements failing to do their respective work correctly.
For more details on anarcho-syndicalism see section J.3.8 (and section
J.3.9 on why many anarchists reject aspects of it). It should be stressed that non-syndicalist anarchists
do not reject the need for collective struggle and organisation by
workers (see section H.2.8 on that particular Marxist myth).
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist.
For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas.
For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the
works of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's, Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat different,
as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than the work of a
"famous" name (although this does not stop academics calling George Sorel
the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote about a syndicalist movement
that already existed. The idea that working class people can develop their
own ideas, by themselves, is usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker
is often considered a leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the works
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand
anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social
anarchism and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's excellent
anthology No Gods No Masters cannot be bettered.
With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be based
on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and brain
work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and agriculture
(see his classic work Fields, Factories, and Workshops). This idea of an
economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title of E.F. Schumacher's
Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before it was taken up by what
was to become the green movement. In addition, in Mutual Aid Kropotkin
documented how co-operation within species and between them and their
environment is usually of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's
work, combined with that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of
whom, like Kropotkin, were world-renowned geographers), and many others
laid the foundations for the current anarchist interest in ecological issues.
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within classical
anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the similarities between ecological
thought and anarchism has come to the fore (essentially from the publication
of Murray Bookchin's classic essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought"
in 1965). Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to state that it is the ideas and
work of Murray Bookchin that has placed ecology and ecological issues at
the heart of anarchism and anarchist ideals and analysis into many aspects
of the green movement.
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called eco-anarchism)
it would be worthwhile to explain exactly what anarchism and ecology
have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the ecologist and the
anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and "to both the ecologist
and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is achieved by growing differentiation.
An expanding whole is created by the diversification and enrichment of its
parts." Moreover, "[j]ust as the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an
eco-system and promote free interplay between species, so the anarchist
seeks to expand the range of social experiments and remove all fetters to
its development." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 36]
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation, diversity
and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and concerns. Hierarchy,
centralisation, the state and concentrations of wealth reduce diversity and
the free development of individuals and their communities by their very
nature, and so weakens the social eco-system as well as the actual
eco-systems human societies are part of. As Bookchin argues, "the
reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is that] we must conserve and
promote variety" but within modern capitalist society "[a]ll
that is spontaneous, creative and individuated is circumscribed by the
standardised, the regulated and the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 35
and p. 26] So, in many ways, anarchism can be considered the application
of ecological ideas to society, as anarchism aims to empower individuals
and communities, decentralise political, social and economic power so
ensuring that individuals and social life develops freely and so becomes
increasingly diverse in nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris
argues that "the only political tradition that complements and, as
it were, integrally connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic
way -- is that of anarchism." [Ecology and Anarchism, p. 132]
So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of
modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main
focal points, Social Ecology and "primitivist".
In addition, some anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology, although not many. Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray
Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the 1950's
and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with revolutionary
social anarchism. His works include Post-Scarcity Anarchism,
Toward
an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a host of others.
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is seen
as a product of domination within society, but this domination only reaches
crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"Only insofar," Bookchin stresses, "as the ecology consciously cultivates
an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility, structure, and
strategy for social change can it retain its very identity as the voice
for a new balance between humanity and nature and its goal for a truly
ecological society." Social ecologists contrast this to what Bookchin
labels "environmentalism" for while social ecology "seeks to eliminate
the concept of the domination of nature by humanity by eliminating
domination of human by human, environmentalism reflects an 'instrumentalist'
or technical sensibility in which nature is viewed merely as a passive
habit, an agglomeration of external objects and forces, that must be
made more 'serviceable' for human use, irrespective of what these uses
may be. Environmentalism . . . does not bring into question the underlying
notions of the present society, notably that man must dominate nature.
On the contrary, it seeks to facilitate that domination by developing
techniques for diminishing the hazards caused by domination."
[Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological Society, p. 77]
Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
one which "involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
-- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
beings." Such an ecotopia "establish entirely new eco-communities that
are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."
Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that "[s]uch an eco-community . . .
would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by
fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
rotation or diversification of vocational tasks." This society would
be based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a "new kind of
technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . . .
Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities of
nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature
differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
wastes that could be recycled." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 68-9]
However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society "is
more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium that
exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple technical
or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's function
degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads them to
purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological problems.
Social ecology is, first of all, a sensibility that includes not only
a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive outlook . . .
guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without structuring differences
into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts for such an ethics . . .
[are] participation and differentiation." [The Modern Crisis,
pp. 24-5]
Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of ecological
problems. This is one of the key areas in which they disagree with
"Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more critical of
all aspects of modern life, with some going so far as calling for
"the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms of technology
and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in
section A.3.9.
We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing
with its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social
Ecologists see this as a means of
creating popular self-managing assemblies and creating a counter
power to the state, few anarchists agree. Rather they see it as inherently
reformist as well as being hopelessly naive about the possibilities of
using elections to bring about social change
(see section J.5.14 for
a fuller discussion of this). Instead they propose direct action as the
means to forward anarchist and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering
as a dead-end which ends up watering down radical ideas and corrupting
the people involved (see section J.2 -- What is Direct Action?).
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature,
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think
that people, as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which
many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has
been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the
anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see Which Way for
the Ecology Movement?, for example). David Watson has also argued
against Deep Ecology (see his How Deep is Deep Ecology? written
under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue that
it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and that
only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin:
Thus, as Morris stresses, "by focusing entirely on the category of 'humanity' the Deep
Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social origins of
ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are essentially
social problems." To submerge ecological critique and analysis into a
simplistic protest against the human race ignores the real causes and
dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore, ensures an end to
this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is hardly "people"
who are to blame when the vast majority have no real say in the
decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries and
eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that places
profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on "Humanity"
(and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men and women,
whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and
oppressed) the system we live under is effectively ignored, and so
are the institutional causes of ecological problems. This can be
"both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications, and
substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study of
real social issues and concerns." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 135]
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their spokes-persons
ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the anti-human ideas
associated with their movement. Deep ecology, particularly the organisation
Earth First! (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a
close working relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it
shares many ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects
its few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book Defending the Earth).
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism,
the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed
all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being
against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are
important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the
violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has
always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine
and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising
armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist
army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White
armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists
during the Spanish Revolution -- see sections
A.5.4 and A.5.6,
respectively).
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists
support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists.
However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support
the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists,
on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that
physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to
resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist,
Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence).
As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable
only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" and
that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently,
his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally
justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use
the words of Bakunin, since social oppression "stems far less from individuals
than from the organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim
to "ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the aim of
an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes "not as individuals,
but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought
of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, as
they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum during any
social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with the Dutch pacifist
anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that "the violence and warfare
which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the
liberation of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited
classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where
violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." [The
Conquest of Violence, p. 75]
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one
of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism." For de Ligt,
and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any attempt
to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, on the one
hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other means. Nations
often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they cannot gain in
economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other hand, "violence
is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it the ruling class would
be completely unable to maintain its privileged position with regard to the
exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and foremost to hold
down the workers. . . when they become discontented." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit.,
p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is inevitable and so,
for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an anarchist just as the
consistent anarchist must be a pacifist.
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an unavoidable
and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as well as the only means
by which the privileged classes will renounce their power and wealth. Those
in authority rarely give up their power and so must be forced. Hence
the need for "transitional" violence "to put an end to the far greater, and
permanent, violence which keeps the majority of mankind in servitude."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To concentrate on the issue of violence versus
non-violence is to ignore the real issue, namely how do we change society
for the better. As Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists
who are pacifists confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same
as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered the work
itself." To the contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely
rolling up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [What is
Anarchism?, p. 183] And, indeed, most social struggle and revolutions
start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations and so on) and
only degenerate into violence when those in power try to maintain
their position (a classic example of this is in Italy, in 1920, when the
occupation of factories by their workers was followed by fascist
terror -- see section A.5.5).
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both the
military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as statist/capitalist
wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker and Sam Dolgoff,
supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the second world war
as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of anarchists and
anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start of the first world
war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and North America reprinting
a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to follow orders and repress their
striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were both
arrested and deported from America for organising a "No-Conscription League"
in 1917 while many anarchists in Europe were jailed for refusing to join the
armed forces in the first and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist
influenced IWW was crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression
due to the threat its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful
elites who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like
Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement
as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still exists.
Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the Vietnam War,
the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 (including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest
against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists raised the slogan "No war but the class war" which
nicely sums up the anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil
consequence of any class system, in which the oppressed classes of
different countries kill each other for the power and profits of their
rulers. Rather than take part in this organised slaughter, anarchists
urge working people to fight for their own interests, not those
of their masters:
We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything
he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War
as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course,
as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and all capitalist classes" do
"misdeeds . . . against the workers and rebels of their own countries."
[Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with Berkman, Goldman and a host of other
anarchists, put their name to International Anarchist Manifesto against
the First World War. It expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist
movement (at the time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is
worth quoting from:
"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace,
is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the
State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political
parties . . . This confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and
continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the whole of
the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a war
of liberation.
"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have
been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.
"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that
there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is
waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against
the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt against
their masters.
"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly
aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the
spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . .
"We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the
revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social
justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war
and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won,
by the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority
and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold.
"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
-- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her]
independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified
god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long
as the individual is not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]
"Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of
collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free
community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free
spontaneous movement from below." [Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 200]
"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable
cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination
. . . But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism
in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of
others." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 40]
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism?
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist
is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is
based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging
the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual
bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial
advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . .
[with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks
and expenses." Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression
for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it
everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45 and p. 45]
A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there?
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis is a
common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back
to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin and Elisee
Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a "secret harmony exists
between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and when imprudent
societies let themselves violate this harmony, they always end up
regretting it." Similarly, no contemporary ecologist would disagree
with his comments that the "truly civilised man [and women] understands
that his [or her] nature is bound up with the interest of all and with
that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage caused by his predecessors
and works to improve his domain." [quoted by George Woodcock,
"Introduction", Marie Fleming, The Geography of Freedom, p. 15]
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the
domination of man by man. . . But it was not until organic community
relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself
was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency
finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to
its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans
against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the natural
world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of
nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured
and merchandised wantonly . . . The plundering of the human spirit by
the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital."
[Op. Cit., pp. 24-5]
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a crude
biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an ever-diminishing sense of
humanity and papers over a profound ignorance of social reality by
ignoring the fact it is capitalism we are talking about, not an abstraction
called 'Humanity' and 'Society.'" [The Philosophy of Social Ecology,
p. 160]
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic?
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called "anarcho-pacifism"
(the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes used, but this term is
unfortunate because it implies the rest of the movement are "violent,"
which is not the case!). The union of anarchism and pacifism is not
surprising given the fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism.
After all, violence, or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by
which individual freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out,
"[g]iven the anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the
long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist
values." [Demanding the Impossible, p.637] Malatesta is even
more explicit when he wrote that the "main plank of anarchism is the
removal of violence from human relations" and that anarchists "are
opposed to violence." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between
capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach expropriation
of private property and the destruction of states such as the only means of
guaranteeing fraternity between peoples and Justice and Liberty for all;
and we must prepare to accomplish these things." [Malatesta, Op. Cit.,
p. 251]
"The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the
existence of the State, which is the form of privilege . . . Whatever
the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression
for the advantage of a privileged minority . . .
Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All
agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence.
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence
except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.
The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have
always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been
anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman), the Communard Louise Michel,
and the American anarchists (and tireless champions of women's freedom)
Voltairine de Cleyre and Emma Goldman (for the former, see her essays
"Sex Slavery", "Gates of Freedom", "The Case of Woman vs. Orthodoxy", "Those Who Marry Do Ill"; for the latter see "The Traffic in
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage
and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). Freedom, the world's
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886.
Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played important
roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The "Mujeres Libres"
("Free Women") movement in Spain during the Spanish revolution is a classic
example of women anarchists organising themselves to defend their basic
freedoms and create a society based on women's freedom and equality (see
Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg for more details on this
important organisation). In addition, all the male major anarchist
thinkers (bar Proudhon) were firm supporters of women's equality. For
example, Bakunin opposed patriarchy and how the law "subjects [women]
to the absolute domination of the man." He argued that "[e]qual rights
must belong to men and women" so that women can "become independent
and be free to forge their own way of life." He looked forward to the
end of "the authoritarian juridical family" and "the full sexual
freedom of women." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 396 and p. 397]
Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of
patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria
Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it,
women "will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the
legislator who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces
you to an object is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is
a man; that the capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid
work and the speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body,
are men." Little has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists
and, to quote the anarchist paper La Questione Sociale, it is
still usually the case that women "are slaves both in social
and private life. If you are a proletarian, you have two tyrants:
the man and the boss. If bourgeois, the only sovereignty left to
you is that of frivolity and coquetry." [quoted by Jose Moya,
Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement, pp. 197-8 and
p. 200]
Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy
is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. For "[y]ou
can have no free, or just, or equal society, nor anything approaching it,
so long as womanhood is bought, sold, housed, clothed, fed, and protected,
as a chattel." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "The Gates of Freedom", pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte,
Gates of Freedom, p. 242] To quote
Louise Michel:
Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's
equality. Both share much common history and a concern about
individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,
either." ["The Tyranny of Tyranny," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist
Reader, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have
noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical society,
which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and
ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn
French argues (in Beyond Power) that the first major social
stratification of the human race occurred when men began dominating
women, with women becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social
class.
The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both
ideas and action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes
that her "discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian
and patriarchal basis] owes something to" libertarian ideas,
that is the "anarchist wing of the socialist movement." [The
Sexual Contract, p. 14] Moreover, she noted in the 1980s how
the "major locus of criticism of authoritarian, hierarchical,
undemocratic forms of organisation for the last twenty years has
been the women's movement . . . After Marx defeated Bakunin in
the First International, the prevailing form of organisation in
the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in the left
sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The women's
movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged idea
[of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments
in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social
organisation." [The Disorder of Women, p. 201]
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical feminist
perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic theory
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is
to obey the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable
of questioning or even of thinking clearly." ["Anarchism: The Feminist
Connection," Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 26]
Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists
in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it."
["Anarchism/Feminism," pp. 3-7, The Raven, no. 21, p. 6]
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values,
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity,
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however,
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See
e.g. Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade; Elise Boulding, The
Underside of History). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation,
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political
forms. [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and the Development of
Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., Capitalist Patriarchy
and the Case for Socialist Feminism, pp. 56-77] Like all anarchists,
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman:
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and
dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies,
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujeres Libres put
it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a
masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain,
pp. 22-3] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further discussion on patriarchy
and hierarchy).
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's only
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege and if these
institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will
still be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha
A. Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 119] Thus, for anarchists, women's freedom did
not mean an equal chance to become a boss or a wage slave, a voter or
a politician, but rather to be a free and equal individual co-operating
as equals in free associations. "Feminism," stressed Peggy Kornegger,
"doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no
corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a
hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy
-- economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist
revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 27]
Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis
which is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time,
showing an awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations
which eluded the mainstream socialist movement. This flows from
our hatred of hierarchy. As Mozzoni put it, "Anarchy defends the
cause of all the oppressed, and because of this, and in a special
way, it defends your [women's] cause, oh! women, doubly oppressed
by present society in both the social and private spheres." [quoted
by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 203] This means that, to quote a Chinese
anarchist, what anarchists "mean by equality between the sexes is
not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We also want
men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no longer
to be oppressed by other women." Thus women should "completely
overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special
privileges and become equal to women, and make a world with
neither the oppression of women nor the oppression of men."
[He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese
Political Culture, p. 147]
So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist
project as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 119] Anarcha-feminism continues
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong,
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same
chance of being a boss as a man does. They simply state the obvious,
namely that they "do not believe that power in the hands of women
could possibly lead to a non-coercive society" nor do they "believe
that anything good can come out of a mass movement with a
leadership elite." The "central issues are always power and
social hierarchy" and so people "are free only when they have
power over their own lives." [Carole Ehrlich, "Socialism, Anarchism
and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 44]
For if, as Louise Michel put it, "a proletarian is a slave; the
wife of a proletarian is even more a slave" ensuring that the wife
experiences an equal level of oppression as the husband misses the
point. [Op. Cit., p. 141]
Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism
as a denial of liberty. Their critique of hierarchy in the society does
not start and end with patriarchy. It is a case of wanting freedom
everywhere, of wanting to "[b]reak up . . . every home that rests in
slavery! Every marriage that represents the sale and transfer of the
individuality of one of its parties to the other! Every institution,
social or civil, that stands between man and his right; every tie
that renders one a master, another a serf." [Voltairine de Cleyre,
"The Economic Tendency of Freethought", The Voltairine de Cleyre
Reader, p. 72] The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be
separated from the struggle against hierarchy as such. As L. Susan
Brown puts it:
Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of
the origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See,
for example, Caroline Merchant, The Death of Nature, 1980). Both women
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not
only external constraints but also internal ones.
This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we preach.
As Voltairine de Cleyre argued, "I never expect men to give us
liberty. No, Women, we are not worth it, until we take it." This
involves "insisting on a new code of ethics founded on the law of
equal freedom: a code recognising the complete individuality of
woman. By making rebels wherever we can. By ourselves living our
beliefs . . . . We are revolutionists. And we shall use propaganda
by speech, deed, and most of all life -- being what we teach."
Thus anarcha-feminists, like all anarchists, see the struggle against
patriarchy as being a struggle of the oppressed for their own
self-liberation, for "as a class I have nothing to hope from men
. . . No tyrant ever renounced his tyranny until he had to. If history
ever teaches us anything it teaches this. Therefore my hope lies in
creating rebellion in the breasts of women." ["The Gates of Freedom", pp. 235-250, Eugenia C. Delamotte,
Gates of Freedom, p. 249 and p. 239] This was sadly as applicable within the
anarchist movement as it was outside it in patriarchal society.
Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual
equality, women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the
Mujeres Libres organisation to combat it. They did not believe in
leaving their liberation to some day after the revolution. Their
liberation was a integral part of that revolution and had to be
started today. In this they repeated the conclusions of anarchist
women in Illinois Coal towns who grew tried of hearing their male
comrades "shout in favour" of sexual equality "in the future society"
while doing nothing about it in the here and now. They used a
particularly insulting analogy, comparing their male comrades to
priests who "make false promises to the starving masses . . . [that]
there will be rewards in paradise." The argued that mothers should
make their daughters "understand that the difference in sex does
not imply inequality in rights" and that as well as being "rebels
against the social system of today," they "should fight especially
against the oppression of men who would like to retain women as
their moral and material inferior." [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by
Caroline Waldron Merithew, Anarchist Motherhood, p. 227] They
formed the "Luisa Michel" group to fight against capitalism and
patriarchy in the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three
decades before their Spanish comrades organised themselves.
For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle
for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the
rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against capitalism
which would somehow be automatically solved after the revolution. It is
an essential part of the struggle:
A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
evil for "the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death doth
part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty of the
man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and commands."
Women are reduced "to the function of man's servant and bearer of his
children." [Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 220-1] Instead of this, anarchists proposed "free love," that is couples and families based on free agreement between equals
than one partner being in authority and the other simply obeying.
Such unions would be without sanction of church or state for "two beings
who love each other do not need permission from a third to go to bed."
[Mozzoni, quoted by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 200]
Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. For "if
social progress consists in a constant tendency towards the equalisation
of the liberties of social units, then the demands of progress are not
satisfied so long as half society, Women, is in subjection. . . .
Woman . . . is beginning to feel her servitude; that there is a
requisite acknowledgement to be won from her master before he is
put down and she exalted to -- Equality. This acknowledgement is,
the freedom to control her own person. " [Voltairine de Cleyre,
"The Gates of Freedom", Op. Cit., p. 242] Neither men nor state
nor church should say what a woman does with her body. A logical
extension of this is that women must have control over their own
reproductive organs. Thus anarcha-feminists, like anarchists
in general, are pro-choice and pro-reproductive rights (i.e. the right
of a woman to control her own reproductive decisions). This is a long
standing position. Emma Goldman was persecuted and incarcerated because
of her public advocacy of birth control methods and the extremist notion
that women should decide when they become pregnant (as feminist writer
Margaret Anderson put it, "In 1916, Emma Goldman was sent to prison for
advocating that 'women need not always keep their mouth shut and their
wombs open.'").
Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it
aims at changing all aspects of society not just what happens in
the home. For, as Goldman asked, "how much independence is gained if
the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the
narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department
store, or office?" Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought
everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they
be achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is
only possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's
self-activity and self-liberation for while the "right to vote, or
equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins
neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . .
her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches."
[Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 216 and p. 224]
The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has
come from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise
Michel put it, "[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without
begging anyone, we are taking our place in the struggles; otherwise,
we could go ahead and pass motions until the world ends and gain
nothing." [Op. Cit., p. 139] If women waited for others to act
for them their social position would never have changed. This
includes getting the vote in the first place. Faced with the
militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British anarchist
Rose Witcop recognised that it was "true that this movement shows
us that women who so far have been so submissive A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism?
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist
movements to remind them of their principles.
"The first thing that must change is the relationship between the
sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be
walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will
last as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its controls,
the 'weaker' half." [The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel, p. 139]
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and
public condemnation." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 211]
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination,
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserve individual
existential freedom, for both men and women." [The Politics of
Individualism, p. 144]
"We do not need any of your titles . . . We want none of them. What
we do want is knowledge and education and liberty. We know what our
rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing next to you
fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men, to
make part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women?
And then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."
[Louise Michel, Op. Cit., p. 142]