💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bob-green-the-ethics-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:59:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Ethics of Anarchism Author: Bob Green Date: June 1962 Language: en Topics: ethics Source: https://libcom.org/library/ethics-anarchism Notes: Published in Anarchy magazine #016 (UK)
UNLIKE CHRISTIANITY WHICH HAS ITS Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the
Mount, or Communism with its Manifesto, anarchism has no single
authoritative statement of its aims or values. In this lies both the
strength and weakness of anarchism. Without a cast iron creed there is
less risk of being wedded to dogma. There is also considerable scope for
skating rapidly over thin ice and avoiding uncomfortable issues.
A perusal of anarchist writers and personal contact with those currently
active within the movement gives rise to the suspicion that anarchism is
all things to all men. There are pacifist anarchists and violent
anarchists, atheist anarchists and Catholic anarchists, evolutionary and
revolutionary anarchists, altruistic and egotistic anarchists,
back-to-nature anarchists and brave-new-technological-world anarchists;
there are anarchists who vote and others who marry; some who see money
as the symbol of all that is rotten in our social order and others who
regard it as a useful medium of exchange, not in itself evil. All use
it. There are even capitalist anarchists — and there are many who
contrive to make a comfortable living within the plexus of a capitalist
system. There may even be some anarchists who beat their wives or
children — reluctantly, we trust.
What, then, is the common ground that enables all those holding these
diverse viewpoints to call themselves anarchists? At a guess there is
only one principle to which all would at least pay lip service. All
express mistrust of, or show active opposition to the authoritarian
element to be found in any social system from the family to the State.
From this rather broad general principle stem several subsidiary
principles to which most, though not necessarily all, anarchists would
subscribe. There is usually a rejection of entrenched privilege, since
this almost inevitably requires an authoritarian underpinning. There is
also a feeling that the domination or exploitation of man by man is to
be condemned, as this again presupposes an authoritarian structure to
maintain the inequity. One other fundamental issue may also be found to
unite by far the greater majority of anarchists. This is the rejection
of Original Sin. Anarchists, on the whole, have a lot more faith in the
basic worth of mankind than the guilt-laden Christians. Beyond this it
would probably be impossible to obtain any widespread agreement among
anarchists as to what their ideals committed them.
Stated thus baldly anarchism sounds little more than the bleat of those
who are opposed to what exists without any clear idea of what to do
about it. There are positive aspects to anarchism, but the more positive
the measure proposed the less agreement is to be found among anarchists
as to its merits. The principle of mutual aid as propounded by Kropotkin
ought to command universal acceptance, but even this has its
difficulties. In the first place it is little more than a vague
assertion that man is a co-operative animal who finds his meaning in a
social context. While this idea is both laudable and almost certainly
true, it will hardly serve to distinguish anarchists from Christians or
Communists, let alone from humanists, rationalists or others of a
humanitarian persuasion.
In the second place, there would appear to be a section of self-styled
anarchists who might find the concept of mutual aid little to their
taste. These are the egotistic anarchists whose declared over-riding
concern is with Number One. For this brand of anarchist mutual aid is
only to be espoused insofar as it furthers the interests of the
self-centred creature pursuing his narrow ends. He is concerned with
opposing authority or achieving social aims only when he is directly
affected. If he seeks the freedom of others it is because he sees this
as a necessary condition of his own freedom. Logically, if such an
anarchist were world dictator he would have arrived at his Nirvana.
He may try to escape this dilemma by avowing that he could not be happy
as world dictator where other men are not free, and it is his personal
happiness that he is seeking. However, this is anarchism by default, not
from any commitment to anarchist principles. Given a straightforward
choice between personal happiness and the happiness of others the
egotistic anarchist has no scruples. It is only to the extent that the
happiness of others coincides with his own well-being that he is a
social animal at all. For him, then, mutual aid is a means to an end —
his personal welfare. And it is only while mutual aid serves this
limited end that it finds his favour. For such anarchists the answer to
the question first posed is easily answered. They are not essentially
humanitarian. The egotistic anarchist quite frankly doesn't give a damn
for anyone but himself. His feelings for mankind and the common weal are
strictly subsidiary to his self interests.
Perhaps this is not the kindest way of presenting a Stirnerite view. In
some ways there is little to choose between the conscious egotist and
the enlightened self-interest of the 19th century utilitarians. There is
a shift in emphasis, however, in that the Stirnerite is incensed by the
hypocrisy of those Puritans and do-gooders who wish to stuff their
sanctimonious pretensions down defenceless throats — the "This hurts me
more than it hurts you" — Sado-masochistic syndrome of the Sunday
Observance misery mongers. If these and their kind would only pursue
their own happiness with just half the zeal they muster to pursue the
unhappiness of others the world would be a much pleasanter place for all
concerned.
In sharp contrast to the egotistic type is the individual whose
anarchism is also derivative, but from the opposite direction. This kind
of anarchist is first and foremost a humanitarian; he subscribes to
anarchism simply because he believes that personal freedom is a vital
condition for human happiness. For him anarchism is again a means and
not an end in itself. He differs from the egotistic anarchist in that
his cardinal concern is with the welfare of mankind rather than the
pursuit of personal goals. Given the choice between his own happiness
and that of others he is, in principle, prepared to sacrifice his own
interests to what he conceives to be the greater good.
Kropotkin and Godwin seem to have been men of this ilk. Their writings
give the overwhelming impression that they are involved in mankind to a
rare degree. Whereas Marx directs his moral indignation against the
hated capitalist class, the humanitarians are moved by compassion for
those exploited by the system. Marx sees the horrors of the Industrial
Revolution in abstract terms of supply and demand, monopolies and flow
of money, where the humanitarians feel for the victims and seek
alleviation of their distress. Marx is hungry to believe in the
cataclysmic revolution that will sweep away the tyrants; Kropotkin would
prefer to believe, and Godwin did believe, that men can change their
hearts and live in harmony without the benefit of an initial blood bath.
While Kropotkin and Godwin had more real love for their fellow men it
must be admitted that Marx was the better scholar. This, however, is
incidental. The point is that Kropotkin and Godwin represent a type of
anarchist who is essentially humanitarian. Such men believe in anarchism
only because they conceive that man needs freedom to be happy as he
needs breath to live. Convince such an anarchist that man would be
happier, more content, more at peace with himself and society, more
fulfilled as an individual, under some other system — say a benevolent
meritocracy — and he would be prepared to yield on his anarchist
principles.
These, then, are the two main types of derivative anarchists — the
egotists and the humanitarians. As a rule the egotists are more given to
the apocalyptic vision, while the humanitarians are more likely to be of
pacifist persuasion with an evolutionary approach. There is no logical
necessity in this, though there is an emotional link; it is just that
the egotist is more willing and eager to give free rein to his
aggressive impulses.
For similar reasons the Sermon on the Mount anarchist is more likely to
be found in the humanitarian ranks, with the militant atheist among the
egotists. It is only fair to point out that most anarchists are inclined
to agnosticism or plain indifference to religion, though nearly all are
implacably opposed to organised religious movements with their
hierarchical structure, authoritarian mood, traditional dogma, and
mutilation of the young.
The third distinct group comprises what might be termed the hard-core or
fundamentalist anarchists. This breed has a philosophy that is in no
sense derivative. Anarchism for these folk is a faith that they will go
with right down the line. If in opposing authority they risk destroying
themselves, then this is a price they are prepared to pay. If the
happiness of mankind is opposed to their anarchist ideals, so much the
worse for mankind.
In its way this viewpoint is as ruthless as that of the egotist. If
anarchism is incompatible with the modern technological society, then
back to hair shirts and the primitive rural community. The argument runs
that if the anarchist ideal is worth anything at all then sacrifices
must be made to further the ideal. Bakunin falls fairly into this
category, as do a substantial proportion of the blood and tears brigade.
Before dismissing these dedicated souls as just another brand of fanatic
it is worth considering what is implied by this school of thought. Here,
if anywhere, we should be able to uncover the basic tenets of anarchism.
If these people are not moved by simple egotism or broad compassion,
where do they find their zeal?
As far as can be made out the philosophy goes something like this: Man,
the social animal, can never realise his full potential as an individual
so long as he is involved in any authoritarian structure, whether as
victim or oppressor. To be involved in an authoritarian system, be it
religious, military, political, educational, within the family, at work
or play is to accept a limitation to the growth of the individual; to be
less than one might be. It is this refusal to accept the authoritarian
condition whatever its benefits, material or emotional, because of the
stunting of an individual's potential, that characterises the
fundamental anarchist position. The central value is not the happiness
of mankind nor that of the individual — it is an almost mystical belief
in the individual himself. Whatever stands between the individual and
the realisation of his full potential must be swept aside, no matter the
cost.
But just what is this potential that an individual must be free to
develop? It is here that the philosophy gets a bit woolly. Perhaps the
most enlightening statement of the position has been made not by an
avowed anarchist, but by Erich Fromm and Carl Rogers, both
psychotherapists. In Escape from Freedom and Man for Himself Fromm
discusses at length the implications of this article of faith. Rogers in
Counselling and Psychotherapy and Client Centred Therapy puts forward a
similar view of the nature of man. As a result of their clinical
observations Fromm and Rogers believe that children grow best and
patients recover best in a free social environment. By "best" is meant
the development of a more adequate, diversified personality and a
happier, more creative individual.
This psychological growth process they believe to be as natural and
spontaneous as physical growth. All you have to do is provide the right
conditions and the individual will do the rest. And the right conditions
they are quite adamant, are non-authoritarian conditions. Given a
non-authoritarian family background and a Froebel type, or similar free
environment education, the individual will grow into a happy, creative,
co-operative, good-hearted, positive social being. All the inner
resources will be mobilised to make the most of life. Without such
conditions the individual will, to some degree, be stunted and warped,
far from happy, not very creative, co-operative to only a limited
extent, evincing illwill rather than goodwill for his fellow men,
destructive and negativistic. In other words, socially sick.
In their turn such individuals will pass on their disease to those with
whom they are in contact, particularly their children, who will react
negativistically to reinforce the symptoms. Unhappiness begets
unhappiness, illwill begets illwill, and so on. The victim is caught in
a vicious circle and compulsively forges his chains day by day. Yet, all
the time within him is a yearning for happiness, creativity, a striving
for acceptance and love. The victim wants to be wanted, but cannot set
in motion the wheels that will release him from his bondage to the past.
To reverse this malignant process a special set of therapeutic
conditions is necessary. The patient, as he has become, is provided with
a benign environment in which he is accepted without question, without
condemnation, for what he is. If he confesses to having put the dog
through the mangle that morning, then the therapist controls his own
feelings of horror, and expresses only interest in the why and wherefore
of such aberrant behaviour, encourages the patient to talk, to put his
point of view, to reveal the emotional content behind the action.
Within this extremely permissive atmosphere the patient has a chance to
find himself, to examine and understand the springs of his own conduct,
and eventually to shed the straightjacket of his past. Like Brutus he
learns to look inside himself for the key to his fortunes. He assumes
responsibility for his own conduct; takes command of his own life;
learns to believe in himself again.
So, if the psychotherapists are right, anarchists have spotted something
about the nature of man previously overlooked by other schools of
thought. Man is not by nature steeped in Original Sin, nor is he simply
an economic animal. Basically, he is driven neither by guilt nor greed
but by an overwhelming urge to grow, to diversify, to make the most of
himself as an individual in a social context. He is driven towards the
stars by something inside himself that will not accept limitations.
Society as currently structured does not make it easy for him to pursue
this course. Family, school, church and job often conspire to frustrate
his vital urge to grow — precisely because of their authoritarian
structure.
All the time he is consciously or unconsciously seeking ways round and
through these artificial barriers to growth. Where the barriers prove
too strong the pent up energy may eventually break with explosive force
into criminality — the individual's protest, or war — the bursting of a
whole society's abscess.
Anarchism, by recognising this basic urge to growth within the
individual, draws attention to those aspects of the social system that
thwart or warp such growth. Anarchism is not concerned with specifics
such as monogamy versus polygamy or polyandry. All it insists on is that
the family, whatever else it may or may not be, must be
non-authoritarian in its structure. It is not concerned with whether
children should be taught arts or science subjects at School, only that
the school should be non-authoritarian in outlook. It is not, in any
essential sense, opposed to religion — only to religious bigotry. And in
capitalism, socialism and communism it sees the same fault — all are
authoritarian and all restrict the growth of the individuals trapped
within them.
Here, then, is the basic article of faith of the hard core anarchist;
man can discover what is best in himself only under non-authoritarian
conditions.
It is easier to see now why anarchism appears at first glance to offer
so little by way of positive content. Its basic premiss provides a
touchstone for deciding personal conduct, but does not lead with logical
necessity to any particular social system. It tells us what is wrong
with established systems without providing a blue print of the ideal
society. It can tell us only that the ideal society must be
non-authoritarian — and this condition could hold for a diverse number
of societies that differ in their family traditions, educational
systems, religious beliefs and economic structure.
In passing it should be pointed out that in attempting to analyse the
value systems of anarchists it is not suggested that they can be sorted
into three neat piles, egotistic, humanitarian and hard core. Many
anarchists, possibly most, have never bothered to consider to what
extent their anarchism is based on self interest, a love of mankind, or
an article of faith concerning the nature of man. Elements of all three
may probably be found in various proportions in all anarchists.
Quite complex arrangements of these values are possible. An anarchist
may be essentially humanitarian in his dealings with his fellow men
while being more ruthless with himself. He might, for instance, refrain
from encouraging some young person from breaking with an authoritarian
family because of the ensuing unhappiness, while having been quite
prepared to make such a break himself, and damn the consequences. That
is, he is prepared to stand on his own feet, come hell or high water,
while recognising that others may not be able to find sufficient
strength within themselves under the same circumstance.
There is a wider issue involved here. Anarchists on the whole are more
willing to face up to the shortcomings of society, less gullible
regarding patriotism, church-going, marriage, prisons and the thousand
and one social institutions accepted without question by the vast
majority of their fellow citizens. There is a ruthless pursuit of truth
with regard to society to be found elsewhere only among professional
social anthropologists as a rule.
It does not follow that anarchists are any more willing to face up to
the truth about themselves. On the contrary, most have learned to
externalise their aggression, finding fault with society rather than
burdening themselves with a sense of inadequacy or guilt. This is not to
suggest that in choosing to debunk the holy cows worshipped by others,
anarchists have found a comfortable resolution of personal problems.
They have in fact chosen to reject the bogus values of present day
society the hard way. Little comfort or support can be expected from
their family, workmates or other associates. This in turn exposes the
anarchist to the dangers of a holier-than-thou attitude. Having suffered
and been shriven in the pursuit of social truths the anarchist is all
too prone to the temptation of parading his unpalatable discoveries
before unwilling victims. Moral indignation is all right as steam in the
boiler, but it makes a dangerous star to steer by.
Which brings us to the crux of a moral dilemma faced by any
humanitarian, anarchist or otherwise. Many, if not most, people prefer
happiness to truth. A few will pursue truth wherever the trail may lead
and whatever the cost. A worthy, even heroic, stand to take — provided
the pursuer is the one who suffers in the cause. But what if, as a
result of pursuing truth, others are made to suffer in a cause not of
their choosing? Noble self-sacrifice is in danger of degenerating into
the cruel imposition of suffering onto others less fitted, perhaps, to
survive the onslaught. The medical practitioner has long since learned
that the last thing most of his patients want to hear is the clear,
unvarnished truth. Some, of course, are motivated less by sympathy than
by a desire to play God — the omniscient Almighty who dispenses only as
much information as he thinks you are fitted to receive. Nevertheless,
many people would much prefer not to be told that they are about to
shuffle off this mortal coil, and to impose the painful truth would be a
heartless addition to their misery.
There is a multitude of other truths, too, that come too near the
knuckle for comfort. Self knowledge and happiness are all too often
incompatible; and who is to say which is the "right" choice for others?
An anarchist may prefer the cold light of reason, but he is in no better
case than the Sunday Observance fanatic when it comes to justifying
scourging of the innocents in the name of the cause they do not espouse.
Similarly, most people would appear to place a sense of security higher
than a need for personal freedom. Anarchists may deplore this, and even
marvel at the perfidy of their weaker brethren, but the fact remains
that most people do not share the anarchist's appetite for freedom to
the extent of wishing to make the sacrifices involved. It follows that
if anarchists are humanitarians then they will insist on paying the
price for freedom themselves, but will leave those who prefer their
chains to their own devices.
The only snag with this argument is that many anarchists suspect that
freedom, like peace, in indivisible. In which case others must be made
free, like it or lump it. The system that enslaves those who prefer
enslavement also enslaves both anarchists, who would choose otherwise,
and children, who will form the next generation of emotional cripples.
Hence the moral dilemma. Whatever happens someone is going to get hurt.
All the humanitarian can do is to weigh up the issues involved on each
specific occasion and decide whether and where to throw his weight into
the balance. The average bonehead, for example, seems quite content with
the laws on abortion and homosexuality in this country, despite the fact
that these laws seem designed to ensure the maximum amount of misery for
all, and happiness for none. On these particular issues there is no
doubt where you will find the anarchists — which, as it so happens, is
where you will also find the humanitarians.
Not all issues, however, are anything like so clear cut. Such vicious
laws are readily opposed because the suffering is universal and not
confined to the masochistic pea-brains who support them. But what of the
law relating to drunken driving? As things stand the abolition of this
law would undoubtedly lead to an increase of slaughter on the roads. It
is here that the humanitarian and hard core anarchist part company. And
also where the hard core anarchist gets dismissed as a crank by many who
are otherwise sympathetic to anarchist ideals. This does not prove that
the hard core anarchist is wrong — only that he is willing to pay a far
higher price for his personal freedom than the vast majority. At least,
he says he would pay this price, but one wonders if a lively encounter
or two with drunken motorists would modify his ardour. A broken limb,
loss of sight, or death of his child might make the price seem
excessive.
Anarchists face another dilemma with regard to the role of violence in
their scheme of things. A resolution of differences by the use of
violence is, by definition, an imposed settlement. Yet, anarchism by its
very nature is committed to non-authoritarian solutions. Hence, it may
be argued, the anarchist is precluded from the use of violence in
promoting his ideals, as this would involve repudiating his basic
premiss. On these grounds the humanitarian, the pacifist, and the
evolutionary anarchist find common cause in rejecting the proposition
that a free society can be brought about by violent revolution. The end
precludes such means. Governments may be overthrown in a matter of
hours, but the hearts of men do not change overnight. A free society
presupposes men nurtured in freedom. The present generation has acquired
a taste for its chains and wouldn't give a thank you for the sort of
society envisaged by anarchists. It follows that the revolutionary dream
would prove to be a nightmare. There are no short cuts to the free
society. The problem is basically educational, and the process is
inevitably a long one. The most that can be hoped and worked for is that
the next generation will be less authoritarian in outlook than the
present one.
This is a gradualist point of view, held in contempt and vilified as
"reformism" by the revolutionary anarchist, usually a hard core
specimen, sometimes an egotist. There is a powerful counter-argument to
thoroughgoing pacifism. Violence can, in the long run, be met
effectively only by violence. Gandhian passive resistance, the usual
alternative offered by pacifists, is a technique with only limited
application. It worked in India only because the British were not
willing to go the whole way against the courageous men and women who lay
on the railway tracks. It could not, and did not, work in Nazi Germany.
The ghosts of an army of Jehovah's Witnesses bear silent testimony to
this unpleasant fact. Their passive resistance led them straight to the
gas-chambers. Hitler recognised only one argument — might is right.
The revolutionary anarchist then points out that Hitler was simply an
extreme example of the authoritarian in naked action. All governments
are fundamentally authoritarian. They believe in and rely on the threat
of violence to maintain their position. Their police and soldiers are
trained in violence and will attack anyone designated as an enemy by
those in power, be they CND passive resisters or colonial peoples
struggling for national independence. And, again, the only argument with
meaning in these circumstances is the one conducted in the language of
violence. Those in power will not yield their power and privileges
without a fight. So, eventually, like a good Marxist, the lover of
freedom must be prepared for the violent uprising which holds out the
only hope of sweeping away the armed citadels of entrenched privilege.
The main drawback to this argument is historical fact. When oppressive
governments have been swept away by armed revolt the outcome has often
turned out to be quite as unsavoury as the original evil. One
authoritarian regime is ousted and another rises from the ashes. The net
result — a pile of corpses, lots of work for the artificial limb
industry, and a new set of backsides in the seats of power. Ride the
tiger, and you'll end up inside it.
Nevertheless, there have been revolutions that on balance seem to have
been justified, and without doubt there have been cases where the
radical and violent course would have saved mankind a lot of unnecessary
suffering. The greater happiness of a large section of mankind, for
example, would almost certainly have been served had someone had the
nerve and foresight to pop a bomb in Hitler's pyjamas in the early
1930's. And a similar kind of service would have done Torquemada a power
of no-good.
Where the evolutionary and revolutionary anarchists fail to agree is on
the question of where to draw the line. When in doubt the evolutionary
anarchist prefers a cautious "wait and see" policy, on the grounds that
to incur a very certain evil in the name of a very speculative good is a
transaction of dubious worth. In the same circumstances the
revolutionary anarchist displays less patience and more panache. Who is
in the right on any given occasion would appear to be largely a matter
of opinion, and what you care to believe largely a question of
temperament. Even the most pacific humanitarian with a utilitarian ethic
will agree, however, that there comes a time to dig your heels in and
fight it out. This is when the very certain immediate evil follows from
pacifism — as with the gas chambers.
So much for the inner conflicts of the humanitarian cum hard core
anarchists. Other forms of heart searching are just as complicated. An
anarchist may recognise in himself a large egotistical streak without
being proud of it. That is, part of his motive in pursuing anarchism is
pure self-interest, but this for him is not what justifies his belief in
anarchism. He may see such egotism as ancillary to his basic belief,
possibly irrelevant, possibly as a personal weakness opposed to what he
really wants to stand for.
On the other side of the coin, the egotistic anarchist who makes a song
and dance about his dedication to self interest may be covering up
humanitarian feelings which he fears may be taken as a sign of weakness,
exposing him to exploitation by leeches of one kind or another. Or he
may quite simply abhor the idea of being taken for a humbug.
And so on. The permutations are as many and diverse as there are
anarchists. They are united only in their opposition to authoritarian
systems. As a philosophy anarchism is hardly more systematic or less
emotional than existentialism and nihilism, with which it has historical
links. As a movement it can never sweep the country like Protestantism
or Socialism as it has no blueprint, no rallying point, no central
organisation, no leader to direct and channel the social forces it
wishes to arouse. The most effective anarchists have either been
propagandists, like Kropotkin, or pioneers in the educational field like
Homer Lane and A. S. Neill. In the industrial field neither syndicalism
nor mutual aid has fired the imagination of any significant proportion
of the population. So far from being interested in workers' control, the
average worker cannot be bothered to take an active part in Union
activities.
Individuals can solve this problem by becoming self-employed, but as our
industrial units become still larger and more complex the prospects for
syndicalism become yet more remote. Which may help to explain why the
average sort of bloke finds anarchism as pie-in-the-sky as any other
religious vision.
However, even in the industrial field things are not as gloomy as they
might appear. The social sciences lend support to the anarchist point of
view, and it is only a question of time before we begin to apply what we
have learned and are learning about the social needs of man to
education, family life, and industrial organisation.
In the meantime anarchists can continue to protest against the
authoritarian aspects of all our social institutions. By propaganda they
can present their ideas as clearly and cogently as possible. By
modifying the institutions whenever they have the chance they can
demonstrate a better way of doing things. By their day-to-day behaviour
and personal contact with other people they can display the more
intimate social consequences of the non-authoritarian viewpoint. They
cannot change the educational system of this country overnight, but they
can easily make sure that their own children are not beaten at school,
just as they can refrain from using this primitive argument at home.
By exposing the shortcomings of authoritarian pseudo-solutions to social
problems they can hope by precept and action to strike the same spark of
protest off in those who long since gave up hope. When enough people
have seen through the swindle of authoritarian systems clearly enough to
feel cheated themselves, then it won't matter whether they vote with
their hands or their feet. One way or another society will just have to
move in an anarchist direction.