💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › sam-dolgoff-misconceptions-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:54:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Misconceptions of Anarchism Author: Sam Dolgoff Date: 1986 Language: en Topics: introductory Source: From “Fragments: A Memoir,” by Sam Dolgoff (Refract Publications, 1986). Retrieved on 2006-02-11 from https://web.archive.org/web/20060211102522/http://www.algonet.se:80/~rsm/actual/archive/miscon.htm Notes: This talk discussed the main principles of constructive anarchism.
Anarchism does not connote absolute, irresponsible, anti-social
individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects every
form of organization and self-discipline. Absolute individual freedom
can be attained only in isolation- if at all: “What really takes away
liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders
one powerless.” (Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, Freedom Press, p. 87)
Anarchism is synonymous with the term “free socialism” or “social
anarchism.” As the term “social” itself implies, anarchism is the free
association of people living together and cooperating in free
communities. The abolition of capitalism and the state; workers’
self-management of industry; distribution according to needs; free
association; are principles which, for all socialist tendencies,
constitute the essence of socialism. To distinguish themselves from
fundamental differences about how and when these aims will be realized,
as well as from the anti-social individualists, Peter Kropotkin and the
other anarchist thinkers defined anarchism as the “left wing of the
socialist movement.” The Russian anarchist Alexei Borovoi declared that
the proper basis for anarchism in a free society is the equality of all
members in a free organization. Social anarchism could be defined as the
equal right to be different.
Responsibility
In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will
have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfil a freely accepted
agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government
(or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government means
self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced
obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the
members of every association freely make the rules of their association
and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse
to live up to their responsibility to honour a voluntary agreement shall
be deprived of its benefits.
Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable
right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their own
forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important of all
political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to the
reintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession will
not paralyse the association. People with strong, overriding common
interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by seceding will
compromise their differences. Those who have little or nothing in common
with the collectivity will not hurt the association by seceding, but
will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction, thereby promoting
general harmony.
The vast difference between the anarchist concept of freely accepted
authority in the exchange of services which is the administration of
things, differs fundamentally from the authority of the state, which is
the rule over its subjects, the people. For example, repairing my
television: the authority of the expert mechanic ends when the repairs
are made. The same applies when I agree to paint the mechanic’s room.
The reciprocal exchange of goods and services is a limited, not a
personal, cooperative relationship which automatically excludes
dictatorship. But the state, on the contrary, is an all-pervading
apparatus governing every aspect of my life from conception to death,
whose every decree I am compelled to obey or suffer harassment,
abrogation of rights, imprisonment and even death.
People can freely secede from a group or association, even organize one
of their own. But they cannot escape the jurisdiction of the state. If
they finally do succeed in escaping from one state to another they are
immediately subjected to the jurisdiction of the new state.
Anarchist concepts are not artificially concocted by anarchists. They
are derived from tendencies already at work. Kropotkin, who formulated
the sociology of anarchism, insisted that the anarchist conception of
the free society is based on “those data which are already supplied by
the observation of life at the present time.” The anarchist
theoreticians limited themselves to suggest the utilization of all the
useful organisms in the old society in order to construct a new one.
That the “elements of the new society are already developing in the
collapsing bourgeois society” (Marx) is a fundamental principle shared
by all tendencies in the socialist movement. The anarchist writer, Colin
Ward, sums up this point admirably: “If you want to build the new
society, all the materials are already at hand.”
Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the
natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual
aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became
necessary. It springs from the ineluctable interdependence of mankind
and the will to harmony. This form of organization is federalism.
Society without order (as the term “society” implies) is inconceivable.
But the organization of order is not the exclusive monopoly of the
state. Federalism is a form of order which preceded the usurpation of
society by the state and will survive it.
There is barely a single form of organization which, before it was
usurped by the state, was not originally federalist in character. To
this day only the listing of the vast network of local, provincial,
national and international federations and confederations embracing the
totality of social life would easily fill volumes. The federated form of
organization makes it practical for all groups and federations to reap
the benefits of unity and coordination while exercising autonomy within
their own spheres, thus expanding the range of their own freedom.
Federalism — synonym for free agreement — is the organization of
freedom. As Proudhon put it, “He who says freedom without saying
federalism, says nothing.”
Society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labour, and all
the deeply rooted institutions now usefully functioning will in some
form continue to function for the simple reason that the very existence
of mankind depends upon this inner cohesion. This has never been
questioned by anyone. What Is needed is emancipation from authoritarian
institutions over society and authoritarianism within the organizations
themselves. Above all, they must be infused with revolutionary spirit
and confidence in the creative capacity of the people. Kropotkin, in
working out the sociology of anarchism, has opened an area of fruitful
research which had been largely neglected by social scientists busily
mapping out new areas for state control.
The anarchists were primarily concerned with the immediate problems of
social transformation that will have to be faced in any country after a
revolution. It was for this reason that the anarchists tried to work out
measures to meet the pressing problems most likely to emerge during what
the anarchist writer-revolutionary Errico Malatesta called “the period
of reorganization and transition.” A summary of Malatesta’s discussion
of some of the more important questions follows.
Crucial problems cannot be avoided by postponing them to the distant
future — perhaps a century or more — when anarchism will have been fully
realized and the masses will have finally become convinced and dedicated
anarcho-communists. We anarchists must have our own solution if we are
not to play the role of “useless and impotent grumblers,” while the more
realistic and unscrupulous authoritarians seize power. Anarchy or no
anarchy, the people must eat and be provided with the necessities of
life. The cities must be provisioned and vital services cannot be
disrupted. Even if poorly served the people in their own interests would
not allow anyone to disrupt these services unless and until they are
reorganized in a better way, and this cannot be achieved in a day.
The organization of the anarchist-communist society on a wide scale can
only be achieved gradually as material conditions permit, and the masses
convince themselves of the benefits to be gained and as they gradually
become psychologically accustomed to radical alterations in their way of
life. Since free and voluntary communism (Malatesta’s synonym for
anarchism) cannot be imposed, Malatesta stressed the necessity for the
coexistence of various economic forms — collectivist, mutualist,
individualist — on condition that there will be no exploitation of
others. Malatesta was confident that the convincing example of
successful libertarian collectives will
attract others into the orbit of the collectivity ... for my part, I do
not believe that there is “one” solution to the social problem, but a
thousand different and changing solutions, in the same way as social
existence is different in time and space. [Errico Malatesta, Life and
Ideas, edited by Vernon Richards, Freedom Press, London, pp. 36, 100,
99, 103–4, 101, 151, 159]
“Pure” anarchism is defined by the anarchist writer George Woodcock as
“the loose and flexible affinity group which needs no formal
organization and carries on anarchist propaganda through an invisible
network of personal contacts and intellectual influences.” Woodcock
argues that “pure” anarchism is incompatible with mass movements like
anarcho-syndicalism because they need
stable organizations precisely because it moves in a world that is only
partially governed by anarchist ideals ... and make compromises with
day-to-day situations ... [anarcho-syndicalism] has to maintain the
allegiance of masses of [workers] who are only remotely conscious of the
final aim of anarchism. [Anarchism, pp. 273–4]
If these statements are true, anarchism is a Utopia, because there will
never be a time when everybody will be a “pure” anarchist and because
humanity will forever have to make “compromises with the day-to-day
situation.” This is not to say that anarchism excludes “affinity
groups.” Indeed, it is precisely because the infinite variety of
voluntary organizations which are formed, dissolved and reconstructed
according to the fluctuating whims and fancies of individual adherents
reflect individual preferences that they constitute the indispensable
condition for the free society.
But the anarchists insist that production, distribution, communication
exchange and the other indispensable which must be coordinated on a
world-wide scale in our modern interdependent world must be supplied
without fail by “stable” organizations and cannot be left to the
fluctuating whims of individuals. They are social obligations which
every able-bodied individual must fulfil if he or she expects to enjoy
the benefits of collective labour. It should be axiomatic that such
indispensable “stable” associations, anarchistically organized, are not
a deviation. They constitute the essence of anarchism as a viable social
order.
Anarchists are not so naive as to expect the installation of the perfect
society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed
their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits on the “day after the
revolution.” We are not concerned with guessing how society will look in
the remote future when heaven on earth will at last be attained. But we
are above everything else, concerned with the direction of human
development. There is no “pure” anarchism. There is only the application
of anarchist principles to the realities of social living. The one and
only aim of anarchism is to propel society in an anarchist direction.
Thus viewed, anarchism is a believable, practical guide to social
organization. It is otherwise doomed to Utopian dreams, nor a living
force.