💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dave-coull-enemies-of-the-state.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:01:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Enemies of the State
Author: Dave Coull
Date: Unknown (Between 1997 and 2001)
Language: en
Topics: anarcho-capitalism, right libertarianism, anarchist writers, egoism, individualism, history, karl marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, marxism, anti-state, Noam Chomsky, Pëtr Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Spain, South America, anti-capitalism, Mikhail Bakunin, Max Stirner, David Friedman, Murray Rothbard
Source: Retrieved on 12/17/2020 from https://www.oocities.org/rainforest/vines/1196/Politics/enemies.htm

Dave Coull

Enemies of the State

The thoughtful student of history learns to take nothing for granted.

Received “wisdom” is there to be questioned. Much of what has passed for

“history” concerns the activities of kings and lords, and, later, those

of professional politicians; much of what has passed for “history” is

about the ruling class — about “statesmen”. Much history is about states

; and the more that we learn about the history of states, the less

loveable the state as an institution seems. There have been many

statesmen/politicians who claimed to want to minimise the state. But has

there been a historical movement which has sought the complete abolition

of all states, both existing and potential, everywhere ? Has there been

more than one such movement? Whether singular or plural, how should we

describe such a phenomenon? Finally, does such a movement have a future?

The intention of this essay is to seek to show that there has indeed

been such a movement; that there still is such a movement; that

“movement” — singular, not plural — is the appropriate way to describe

this phenomenon; that those who are actively involved in this movement

refer to it as “the anarchist movement”; and that the confidence with

which this movement regards its future is not totally without

foundation.

You can find movements with anti-state aspects to them in many different

periods of history and in many different cultures: for instance, in

ancient Greece, in Taoism, in the history of Buddhism, in early

Christianity and in Christian “heresies” of the Middle Ages and ‘The

English Revolution’; but fully fledged anarchism as a thorough-going

alternative world view involving complete rejection of all existing and

all possible states first appears in the Nineteenth Century, and has a

continuing existence from then on.

The English philosopher William Godwin put forward an anarchist

viewpoint in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence

on General Virtue and Happiness (1793) but in Godwin’s day the word

“anarchist” only had a pejorative meaning. Godwin’s son-in-law, the poet

Shelley, also advanced what would now be considered anarchistic views,

yet shied away from the self-description “anarchist”. “The word anarchy

comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government : the

condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without

government.”[1] In the time of Godwin and of Shelley, it was assumed

that such a “condition” would automatically be equivalent to chaos. The

first personwho actually said “I am an anarchist” was the Frenchman

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. “ ‘I understand, you are being satirical

at the expense of government.’ Not in the least. I have just given you

my considered and serious profession of faith. Although I am a strong

supporter of order, I am in the fullest sense of the term an

anarchist.”[2] In a great tirade expressing the anarchist attitude

towards the state, Proudhon fumed

To be governed means that at every move,operation or transaction one is

noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped,priced, assessed,

patented, licensed, authorised, recommended, admonished,

reformed.....exploited, monopolised, extorted, pressured, mystified,

robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good.[3]

As well as being against the state in all its forms, Proudhon was (like

all anarchists) against capitalism. His most famous saying was “property

is theft”.By this Proudhon meant property in a capitalistic sense. Like

most anarchists ,he did not oppose all private possessions, but only

those which were necessarily exploitative of other people. It was okay

to own a plough; but to own the factory which produces ploughs was to be

a capitalist. To begin with, Karl Marx was a fan of Proudhon, hailing

him as “the proletariat become conscious of itself”;but later they

quarrelled, and Marx called Proudhon “petit bourgeois”. This curious

change from “proletarian” to “petit bourgeois” had nothing to do with

class analysis, and everything to do with the fact that Proudhon opposed

Marx on the question of the state !

The communists in general are under a strange illusion: fanatics of

state power, they claim that they can use the state authority to ensure,

by methods of restitution, the well being of the workers who created the

collective wealth. As if the individual came into existence after

society, and not society after the individual.[4]

Once Proudhon had breached the taboo on the word “anarchist”, many other

libertarian-minded people in and around the fledgling socialist and

working class movements also started to describe themselves as such.

These people were not just philosophers, but men (and women) of action.

Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many thousands of less

well-known anarchists would all see the insides of various states’

jails.

Proudhon expressed some unpleasant prejudices which would be

unacceptable today; so did Bakunin. But then, Karl Marx’s son-in-law

Paul Lafargue, who was one-sixteenth Afro-Cuban, had to put up with

constantly being called “nigger” and “gorilla” by Marx.[5] When Lafargue

showed some interest in Proudhon’s, rather than Marx’s, ideas, Marx

commented on the need to “beat some sense into that thick Creole skull

of his”.[6] To anarchists, the failings of supposedly “great” anarchists

are merely a source of amusement; while to Marxists, criticism of the

great prophets can undermine faith in their religion! Like everyone

else, anarchists are the imperfect products of this society; however, as

Martha Ackelsberg points out : “Along with contemporary feminists,

anarchists insist that those who are defined by others have great

difficulty defining themselves”.[7]

One of the most misunderstood of anarchist writers is the

arch-individualist Max Stirner. Here is Max Nettlau on Stirner :

I have elsewhere published some notes to support my judgement of Max

Stirner (in Vorfrühling der Anarchie pp. 169–173).His thinking, in

substance, was eminently socialist. He wanted the social revolution,

but, since he was sincerely anarchist, his so-called ‘egoism’

represented the protection,the defence which he considered it was

necessary to adopt against authoritarian socialism and any statism that

the authoritarians might infuse into socialism. His ‘egoism’ is

individual initiative. His ‘Verein’ is the free association which

accomplishes a purpose but which is not converted into an organisation

or society. His method is eminently disobedience, the individual and

collective negation of authority, and a voluntary association according

to what a situation may need. It is the free life as against the life

which is controlled and ordered by the usurpers of property and

authority.[8]

Stirner’s “The Ego and Its Own” is an anarchist classic, but Stirner

himself, while certainly part of the movement, was not a central player.

In contrast, Mikhail Bakunin became a formidable opponent both of all

existing states and of the Marxist alternative to them. He led the

opposition to Karl Marx in the International Working Men’s Association,

and, with the other anarchists, was expelled from the International as a

result. Very much the man of action, Bakunin only wrote in response to

things that other people said, and he wrote articles or pamphlets, not

books; yet long after his death, Bakunin’s writings would influence the

development of the anarchist movements in Spain and South America; and

during the resurgence of interest in anarchism of the 1960s, Bakunin was

the most influential thinker. However, we must again stress that

anarchists are not Bakuninists (as we can be sure Bakunin would have

been the first to agree).

Bakunin’s attitude towards the state was :

The State denotes violence, oppression, exploitation, and injustice

raised into a system and made into the cornerstone of the existence of

any society. The State never had and never will have any morality. Its

morality and only justice is the supreme interest of self-preservation

and almighty power — an interest before which all humanity has to kneel

in worship. The State is the complete negation of humanity, a double

negation: the opposite of human freedom and justice, and the violent

breach of the universal solidarity of the human race.[9]

Bakunin’s alternative to the state was libertarian socialism, which for

him was synonymous with anarchy : “Freedom without Socialism is

privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery and

brutality”.[10]

Another Russian who had considerable influence on the anarchist movement

was Pyotr Kropotkin. As well as being a revolutionary anarchist,

Kropotkin was a geographer/environmental scientist.

It was Darwin himself, said Kropotkin, who had shown that ‘sociability’

conferred an important evolutionary advantage. Therefore Thomas Huxley’s

insistence that mankind must struggle against a harsh,competitive ‘law

of nature’ was unnecessary. To Kropotkin, it was social co-operation

that gave a species its competitive edge. As he grew older, Kropotkin

became an anarchist-nihilist, doing everything he could to undermine a

social system he saw as unjust, inhumane and ‘unnatural’.[11]

After spells in Russian and French prisons, Kropotkin moved to London in

1886, where he helped set up the Freedom Press Group, which still exists

today. A century after being set up by Kropotkin, Freedom Press

republished his essay on The State , which concludes :

Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking

over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its

domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace

one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development

there is.....death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting

again in thousands of centres on the principle of the lively initiative

of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies

with you ![12]

Despite having seen that the State was the bringer of war, Kropotkin was

disastrously wrong about the First World War, in effect supporting the

allies against Germany, and allowing the nationalistic press in both

Britain and France to crow “even the anarchists say our cause is just”.

Yet in fact the vast majority of anarchists disagreed with Kropotkin and

opposed the war. Prominent amongst opponents of the war was Errico

Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist. Having fled South America with

most of the governments of that continent pursuing him, Malatesta spent

some years in London, where he met Kropotkin. During sixty years as an

active anarchist, Malatesta wrote many articles and pamphlets. Unlike

Kropotkin, between earning his living as an electrician and being

involved in revolutionary activity, Malatesta never had time to write a

book; yet nobody has ever had more influence on the international

anarchist movement. “Uniting his theory and action with rare

consistency, he combined idealism with common sense, philosophical

rigour with practical experience.”[13]

Since we are still living in a world of states, by definition, there has

never been a successful anarchist revolution. But four years after

Malatesta’s death came one of the closest things to it, the Catalan

Revolution of 1936. Here is George Orwell’s ‘Homage to Catalonia’ :

I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but

I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in

that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do.The

Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution

was in full swing.[14]

Spain is one of a handful of countries (so far) where anarchism achieved

the status of a mass movement, through the FAI (Federación Anarquista

Ibérica) and the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT (Confederación Nacional

del Trabajo). Here is a report of the CNT congress of 1936 :

Tolerance of diversity was one of the keynotes of the Congress. Every

attempt was made to incorporate the many shades of anarchist opinion,

from the collectivist to the individualist. It was recognised that the

communes would take on many different forms, and opponents of industrial

technology and advocates of nudism would be free to create their own[15]

This spirit of tolerance of diversity amongst anarchists continues to

this day, as those of us who attended the Glasgow Anarchist Summer

Schools of 1993 and 1996 can testify.

While most emphatically not claiming any anarchist equivalent of

“apostolic succession”, it is a fact that this writer first came in

contact with active anarchists in 1963, and came to know such veterans

as Tom Brown and Albert Meltzer quite well; they knew Emma Goldman, Emma

knew Malatesta, Malatesta knew Kropotkin, Kropotkin knew Bakunin, and

Bakunin knew Proudhon; so the historical continuity of the anarchist

movement is complete. Some of those who organised the campaign of

non-payment of the poll tax, and who rioted against Margaret Thatcher’s

“flagship policy” in 1990, were not a “new” anarchist movement; they

were the same one ! Of course, anarchist groups and organisations come

and go; but the movement has a continuing existence.

A libertarian organisation is not some tool acting in obedience to

orders emanating from on high or from some central point, but rather a

theater for the implementation of mutual aid and a way of blending

individual endeavours, so as to bestow upon them, in so doing, greater

social impact. Should that organisation be permanent, ad hoc, specific

or broadly-based ? Let us answer with a statement of the obvious : it

all depends on the aim.[16]

The anarchist movement in Scotland dates back to around 1880, when some

French refugees from the post-Paris Commune repression settled in

Glasgow, and one Frenchman set up home with a Scottish woman with the

surname MacTavish, and their flat in London Road became the focus of the

first Glasgow Anarchist Group. While we can speak of “the anarchist

movement in Scotland” or “the anarchist movement in Argentina”, the

movement has from its very beginnings always been consciously and

deliberately internationalist. Sometimes communication has been

difficult, but at all times anarchists have seen themselves as being

part of one movement. Today, anarchists are organising internationally

via the internet, through various groupings such as the Anarchy-List

(open to absolutely anyone) and the Organise-List (not quite so open).

The 1997 speaking tour of many European cities (including Dundee), by

the black American revolutionary anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, was

arranged through the Organise-List.

Recently, there has been some discussion on “History of Anarchism” on

the Anarchy-List. There was general agreement that Peter Marshall’s

Demanding the Impossible is the best history of anarchism — “far better

than Woodcock’s Anarchism , and better referenced, too”; and more up to

date than, and certainly easier to read than, Max Nettlau’s monumental

9-volume History of Anarchism ! Marshall’s book is “an excellent

resource — until such time as activists can write their own history —

which may be easier with the net”.[17]

Another recent discussion on the Anarchy-List, involving people from

many countries, has concerned the American anarcho-socialist Noam

Chomsky’s ideas on “expanding the floor of the cage”.[18] We know the

welfare state is a cage; but removing the bars while we are weak just

invites the capitalist wolves to dinner. We should make living space for

ourselves by “expanding the floor of the cage”, until such time as we

are strong enough to tear down the bars and deal with the wolves. Some

anarchists agree with Chomsky; many disagree; and some just dislike

Chomsky because he has become too prominent.

But, it may be objected, so far we have only considered “left-wing” or

socialistic anarchists. Even arch-individualists like Stirner turn out

to be in favour of solidarity and mutual aid. What about other forms of

anarchism ?

What other forms of anarchism ? Oh, there are many variations, but,

essentially, we have now described the historical anarchist movement —

rebels who are opposed to the state and to all forms of authority,

including the authority of the capitalist boss.

What, it may be objected, about “anarcho-capitalists” like David

Friedman and Murray Rothbard ? The answer is that they are not

anarchists. Their ideas are really those of the so-called minimal state

— a state which always turns out, on closer examination, to be

not-so-minimal-after-all . Peter Marshall says “Anarcho-capitalism

overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist

anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept

the ‘anarcho-capitalists’ into the anarchist camp.” It should be added

that anarchists throughout the world, whether they call themselves

individualist-anarchists, anarchist-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, or

just plain anarchists, are virtually unanimous in regarding the

so-called anarcho-capitalists, not as friend or allies, not as fellow

travellers along the road to anarchy, but as capitalists first,

foremost, and always, and therefore as the sworn enemies of anarchy. The

“anarcho”-capitalists’ obsession with protection of property rights

means that they are prepared to defend the legalistic “rights” of the

rich, so they have to think in terms of “law and order”; they have to

come up with some means of defending the indefensible, and essentially

that means the state. Their “minimal state” would lock up the true

anarchists who would be seeking to take the opportunity of a weak state

to expropriate the capitalistic property of the rich. The so-called

“anarcho”-capitalists are latter-day frauds and charlatans who pretend

to some spurious connection with historical anarchism in order to give a

false impression of being libertarians who oppose the state.

Financially, the “anarcho”-capitalists are quite rich, especially in the

USA, and can well afford to spread their misrepresentations ; but in

terms of numbers, they are insignificant.The anarchist movement has

historically shown itself capable of becoming, in some countries, during

favourable circumstances, a mass movement; that could never be said

about the “anarcho”-capitalists.

This brief look at the history of anarchism shows that a movement of

principled opposition to the State — to all states, and to all possible

states — first appeared in the Nineteenth Century. Though there were

many religious and other movements with anti-state aspects to them in

earlier centuries, these can be seen as preludes to anarchism. Since its

beginning, the anarchist movement has been, as well as anti-State, also

anti-capitalist ; indeed , anti- all forms of authority ; and since its

beginning the movement has been internationalist.

There are many different groups and factions within the anarchist

movement — sometimes it can seem there are as many anarchisms as there

are anarchists — but they all consider themselves to be part of one

movement. “Movement” is also the correct term for non-anarchists to use,

because, even if there might appear to be little actual “motion” for

considerable periods of time, nevertheless, the word fits better than

any other. The anarchist movement is not just a “school” of

philosophical or political thought, but the sum of all those who

actively seek, individually and collectively, to put that thought into

practice. Nor is the anarchist movement a political “party” in the sense

that the SNP or the Liberal Democrats are parties, because it does not

seek governmental power, it does not have leaders, and it does not have

a manifesto.

As to the future, with the failure of Marxist communism (as predicted by

Bakunin as long ago as 1870), the greatest challenge to the untrammelled

power of the capitalistic states comes from the anarchist movement.

Anarchists are constantly adapting to changing circumstances, have

established a formidable intellectual and organisational presence on the

internet, and are the fiercest opponents of all attempts to control the

net. The new International which is evolving consists not just of talk,

but of action too, for it consists of activists involved in a wide

variety of struggles. While a census is of course quite impossible (one

hundred per cent non-co-operation guaranteed) there are probably more

anarchists world-wide today than at any previous time in history. In

short, people in the anarchist movement feel that they have some reasons

for looking to the future with a certain amount of confidence.

Anarchists are proud of the fact that, at all times, in all countries,

they are “enemies of the state” . So far as they are concerned , history

most definitely remains (to quote the title of a 1990s Class War

pamphlet) “Unfinished Business” .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackelsberg, Martha

Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of

Women

Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991.

Bakunin, Michael (ed. G.P. Maximoff)

The Political Philosophy of Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism

New York : Free Press, 1953.

Barsamian, David

“Expanding the Floor of the Cage: An Interview with Noam Chomsky”

Z Mag (March 97)

Boston : Z Magazine, 1997.

Godwin, William

An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice

and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness

London : G.G. & J. Priestley, 1793.

Goldman, Emma

Anarchism and Other Essays

New York : Dover, 1969.

Guerin, Daniel

Anarchism : From Theory to Practice

New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970.

Hyams, Edward

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works

London : John Murray, 1979.

Kropotkin, Peter

The State : Its Historic Role

London : Freedom Press, 1987.

Malatesta, Errico

Anarchy

London : Freedom Press, 1974.

Marshall, Peter

Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism

London : Fontana Press, 1993.

Mehring, Franz

Karl Marx : The Story of His Life

London : Allen & Unwin, 1951.

Meltzer, Albert

The Anarchists in London, 1935–1955

Sanday, Orkney : Cienfuegos Press, 1976.

Milner, Richard

The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity’s Search for its Origins

New York, Oxford : Facts on File, 1990.

Nettlau, Max

A Short History of Anarchism

London : Freedom Press, 1996.

Orwell, George

Homage to Catalonia

London : Secker & Warburg, 1967.

Payne, Robert

Marx

London : W.H. Allen, 1968.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (ed. Stewart Edwards, trans. Elizabeth Fraser)

Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

London : Macmillan, 1969.

Rothbard, Murray N.

For a New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto

New York : Collier, 1978.

Skirda, Alexandre

Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective :

Les Anarchistes et L’Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours

Paris : Skirda, 1987.

Stirner, Max (trans. Steven T. Byington)

The Ego and its Own

London : Rebel Press, 1982.

Woodcock, George

Anarchism : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements

Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1986.

[1] Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, (London : Freedom Press, 1974), p. 11.

[2] Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Stewart Edwards (ed.), translation Elizabeth

Fraser, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, (London :

Macmillan, 1969), p. 88.

[3] Daniel Guerin (quoting from Proudhon’s “Idée Générale de la

Révolution au 19ieme Siècle”) Anarchism : From Theory to Practice, (New

York : Monthly Review Press, 1970), pp. 15–16.

[4] Edward Hyams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind

and Works, (London : John Murray, 1979), pp. 85–86.

[5] Robert Payne, Marx, (London : W.H. Allen, 1968), p. 391.

[6] Franz Mehring, Karl Marx : The Story of His Life, (London : Allen

and Unwin, 1951), p. 345.

[7] Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle

for the Emancipation of Women, (Bloomington : Indiana University Press,

1991), p. 20.

[8] Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, (London : Freedom Press,

1996), pp. 54–55.

[9] Michael Bakunin (ed. G.P. Maximoff), The Political Philosophy of

Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism, (New York : Free Press, 1953), p. 224.

[10] Michael Bakunin (ed. G.P. Maximoff), The Political Philosophy of

Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism, (New York : Free Press, 1953), pp. 373,

269.

[11] Richard Milner, The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity’s Search

for its Origins, (New York , Oxford : Facts on File, 1990), p. 259.

[12] Peter Kropotkin, The State : Its Historic Role, (London : Freedom

Press, 1987),p. 56.

[13] Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism,

(London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 361.

[14] George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, (London : Secker & Warburg,

1967), p. 2.

[15] Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism,

(London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 460.

[16] Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective : Les

Anarchistes et L’Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours (Paris : Skirda,

1987) Chapter 20. N.B. — The quotation as given here is from the English

translation by Paul Sharkey,due to be published by A.K. Press of Boston,

Massachusetts in August 1998. Various contributors to discussion on

“History of Anarchism”, Anarchy-List Archives

<http://www.cwi.nl/htbin/jack/mailfetch.py> December 1997.

[17] David Barsamian, “Expanding the Floor of the Cage : An Interview

with Noam Chomsky” from the pages of Z magazine , available on-line at:

http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/mar97barchom.htm

[18] Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of

Anarchism,(London : Fontana Press, 1993) 565.