💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-anarchism-and-the-big-society.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:22:00. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and the Big Society Author: Anarcho Date: February 16, 2011 Language: en Topics: society, Britain Source: Retrieved on 1st February 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=496
In the Independent (16/02/11), Brian Lincoln from Edinburgh wrote a
letter discussing David Cameron’s “Big Society” and anarchism:
“In proposing the ‘Big Society’ as the antidote to ‘big government’, has
David Cameron converted to anarchism, the political philosophy which
most wants to get the state out of everything?
“In an 1896 text, the Russian revolutionary Peter Kropotkin explains
that anarchism “seeks the most complete development of individuality
combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all
its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims;
ever-changing, ever-modified associations which carry in themselves the
elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms which
answer best to the multiple aspirations of all’. Familiar?”
Yet this is a selective account of anarchism, completely ignoring its
economic ideas and the means advocated to achieve it. This can be seen
from the text quoted, namely Kropotkin’s Anarchism: Its Philosophy and
Ideal. Yes, Kropotkin does argue for free association but he recognises
that this is only truly possible in a society without class division for
“we know full well today that it is futile to speak of liberty as long
as economic slavery exists.” Thus capitalism meant the worker must “sell
his labour power for less than it is capable of bringing in” and
Kropotkin points to “the fatal consequences of the present forms of
property.” Thus:
“when we analyse the evils of the present economic system, we see – and
the worker knows it full well – that their essence lies in the forced
necessity of the worker to sell his labour power ... he renounces the
benefits his labour might bring him in; he abandons the lion’s share of
what he produces to his employer; he even abdicates his liberty; he
renounces his right to make his opinion heard on the utility of what he
is about to produce and on the way of producing it.”
Interestingly, given the current economic woes being used to justify
Cameron’s ideological agenda, Kropotkin notes that these are inherent in
capitalism and so the “industrial crises, the frequency and duration of
which are always augmenting, have passed into a chronic state in many
industries.” He was also clear, given his analysis of the exploitative
nature of capitalism, that an economic revolution was required as well
as a political one:
“a conception of society arises, in which conception there is no longer
room for those dominating minorities. A society entering into possession
of the social capital accumulated by the labour of preceding
generations, organising itself so as to make use of this capital in the
interests of all, and constituting itself without reconstituting the
power of the ruling minorities.”
Such a “society, having recovered the possession of all riches
accumulated in its midst, can liberally assure abundance to all in
return for four or five hours effective and manual work a day, as far as
regards production.” Libertarian communism, Kropotkin stressed, was “the
best basis for individual development and freedom; not that
individualism which drives man to the war of each against all.” No Tory
would agree with that perspective.
Similarly, it is doubtful that Cameron would conclude that “this ideal
presents itself based on the necessity of Communism, imposed on our
modern societies by the eminently social character of our present
production.” Anarchy, argued Kropotkin, “refuses all hierarchical
organization and preaches free agreement.” This applies economically as
well as politically. The hierarchical capitalist workplace based on
wage-labour must be replaced by the self-managed socialist one based on
associated-labour. Anarchists, unlike the Tories, “loudly ask for the
return to the community of all riches accumulated by the work of
preceding generations” and the “holding in common of land, mines,
factories, inhabited houses, and means of transport.”
Again, unlike Cameron, anarchism sees free association as being created
from below rather than legislated from above:
“Communist organisation cannot be left to be constructed by legislative
bodies called parliaments, municipal or communal council. It must be the
work of all, a natural growth, a product of the constructive genius of
the great mass. Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not
live even for a few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all
did not uphold it. It must be free.”
Again, unlike the Tories, anarchism sees a free society being created by
the direct action of the working class:
“The worker perceives that he has been disinherited, and that
disinherited he will remain, unless he has recourse to strikes or
revolts to tear from his masters the smallest part of riches built up by
his own efforts”
Unlike the attempts by the Tories to restrict the right to strike and to
organise unions, Kropotkin stressed the need for “collective revolt –
strikes and working class insurrections.” This was the means by which
“they will be able to start the destruction of the present economic
system” as well as the state which protects it, that “mutual insurance
society of landlords, bankers, priests, judges, and soldiers.” The means
of production would be seized and run by those who use them, for “how
can the peasant be made to believe that the bourgeois or manorial land
belongs to the proprietor who has a legal claim ... how make the worker
in a factory, or the miner in a mine, believe that factory and mine
equitably belong to their present masters”?
Would Cameron be praising such actions as the “Big Society” or would he
be invoking “Big Government” to crush such revolts? The answer is all
too obvious.
To conclude, it is not a wise thing (unless you wish to discredit
anarchism!) to suggest Cameron’s vision of a privatised society is
similar to anarchism’s socialised one. It staggers belief that anyone
could suggest David Cameron has “converted” to anarchism or seeks the
same society as Kropotkin. Yes, anarchism is for free and self-managed
association but it is premised on a transformation of economic relations
and property. Cameron has not decided to become a (libertarian)
socialist nor, like Kropotkin, renounce his own social position to work
for the self-emancipation of the working classes from our slavery to
capital and its defender, the state. Quite the reverse as the cuts and
the Tory agenda he is trying to hide begin his “Big Society” rhetoric
are aimed at increasing our slavery to capital. The road to private
serfdom, if you like…
Suffice to say, anarchism has never been purely anti-state and to
suggest otherwise is to impoverish it. As can be seen from Kropotkin’s
1896 text, we recognise that free association cannot exist as long as
capitalism does.
---
Kropotkin’s Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal is contained in the
excellent anthology Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings
(previously released as Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets). It is
reviewed along with an Emma Goldman book here: How Revolutions Must Not
be Made. His ideas on mutual aid are discussed here: Mutual Aid: An
Introduction and Evaluation. His arguments for revolutionary unions and
direct action are addressed here: Syndicalism, Anarchism and Marxism.
Attempts by the Tories to adopt the mantle of social progressives are
refuted in Tories for Social Justice? WTF? while Mutualism: Fake and
Real exposes the nonsense of the Tories promoting co-operatives. As
predicted, in power the Tories are still Thatcherites
Finally, for more information on anarchism then visit An Anarchist FAQ
or, for a shorter introduction on that kind of socialism based on (to
quote Proudhon) “the denial of Government and of Property” then read: “I
am an Anarchist”