💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emile-armand-the-forerunners-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:27:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: The Forerunners of Anarchism
Author: Emile Armand
Date: 1933
Language: en
Topics: proto-anarchism, individualism, history
Source: Provided by the translator.
Notes: Translated by Reddebrek.

Emile Armand

The Forerunners of Anarchism

Introduction

Emile Armand (26^(th) of March 1872–19^(th) of February 1962) was the

son of a former Communard, that is a participant in the revolution of

1871 that established the Commune of Paris, and was for a time a

well-known French Anarchist who moved through many associations and

publications, developing his own thoughts and beliefs. In his early days

he was sympathetic to a form of Christian Humanism before becoming

interested in France’s diverse Anarchist movement. He eventually settled

on and was closely associated with what’s called Individual Anarchism.

An Anarchistic philosophy that centres free individuals as the

foundations of the new society, and as the source of the solutions to

the evils of our current society, war, domination, exploitation,

capitalism, patriarchy etc.

“If we were animals, herded together in a stockade, then the eating part

would be the only real thing that would interest us, and it would not be

so important as to whether the trough is coloured Bolshevik-red or

Fascist-black (taking it for granted that there is at all a trough),

whether the food-distributor carries upon his cap a soviet-star or a

fascist insignia or a swastika, the main thing would be the eating part.

But when one doesn’t consider oneself as a stockade-animal, when one

doesn’t place the eating above one’s determined, self-acknowledged,

ever-developing personality and its traits, then the entire program

changes.”

[Emile Armand, Individual and Dictatorship, 1935]

Individual Anarchism or Individualism as its commonly known had strong

followings in France and the United States during the late 19^(th) and

early 20^(th) centuries. It arose partly as a response and critique of

the more orthodox Socialist and Anarchist doctrines. There were many

different types of Individualist theory but in general its thrust was to

encourage Anarchists to live as closely to their ideals as possible in

the present. Essentially act as living propaganda by showing it was

possible — enjoyable even! — to live in a society based on mutual

respect and liberty.

While convincing others of the correctness of an Anarchistic ideal was

important to him he did not limit himself to writing, though he

certainly did a lot of that. He was a very active speaker attending many

meetings and conferences. He was also no stranger to the law, being sent

to prison several times in his life, the first time in 1907 for

counterfeiting money, then again in 1917 for his support of desertion,

Armand was not only an opponent of the First World War but also a

founding member of the Anti-Militarist League (established in 1911),

then again in January 1940 for three months, and shortly after release

was interred in several camps for 16 months, being released in 1941. He

also wasn’t afraid to tackle social taboos and was an early advocate for

sexual liberation, one of his more infamous stances was his defence of

nudism and belief that it holds revolutionary potential.

“It seems to us to be something else entirely than a hygienic fitness

exercise or a “naturist” renewal. For us, nudism is a revolutionary

demand. Revolutionary in a triple sense: affirmation, protest,

liberation.”

[Revolutionary Nudism 1934]

In short, he’s a very interesting character. But he seems to have fallen

into obscurity in English speaking circles. I discovered the following

pamphlet while browsing the webstore of an Esperanto workers

association, and picked it up on a whim. I was surprised I was able to

read most of it and that many of my difficulties were to do with the

subjects and not the language used. The pamphlet was written in 1933,

the Esperanto translation in 1989, and it concerns the philosophical

origins of Anarchism throughout history.

Its an interesting topic and I learnt quite a bit reading it and in

checking to make sure my translation was as accurate as could be. I

started translating it as an exercise to improve my skills with

Esperanto, but at the time of writing haven’t found this pamphlet in

English, apart from a translation of a later passage on the website

Libertarian Labyrinth which was translated from the French language

version but was useful to me in proof reading. Though there were a few

issues with the text for a modern and general audience.

I don’t know if this is the case but I strongly suspect that “Les

précurseurs de l’anarchisme” was written purely for the French Anarchist

movement, it doesn’t bother to explain what Anarchism is directly and

relies on inference from the people and works it cites, so I’ve added a

definition that Armand used in another work. It also assumed that the

reader would be as familiar with philosophy as Armand was and so he’s a

bit light on biographical context in some areas, so I’ve used footnotes

to fill in some of the gaps, though I recommend in the event of

confusion turning to the web can be instructive, most of the named

persons and works have something in English that can be found, though

worryingly I could find very little on some of them. In addition to

footnotes the text in [] are comments by me to further help fill in the

gaps.

I’m also including a short glossary of key terms some of which has less

relevance to this text but should help new readers in accessing Armand’s

other texts and texts by other authors about Anarchism.

English translations of Emile Armand’s other texts can be found online

at the

Anarchist Library

and the

Libertarian Labyrinth

Reddebrek

The Forerunners of Anarchism

“To be an anarchist is to deny authority and reject its economic

corollary: exploitation — and that in all the domains where human

activity is exerted. The anarchist wishes to live without gods or

masters; without patrons or directors; a-legal, without laws as without

prejudices; amoral, without obligations as without collective morals. He

wants to live freely, to live his own idea of life.“

[This definition of Anarchism is taken from Emile Armand’s Mini-manual

of Individualist Anarchism, written in 1911]

Antiquity

We do not know exactly — and what documents could tell us? — when

government or state authority began. Some attribute many reasons to the

establishment of authority. As the people formed more and more numerous

groups, did it prove necessary to entrust the administration of matters

and the solution of the disputes to the most intelligent or the most

feared: wizards and priests? Since primitive groups have generally been

hostile to each other, has there been a need to centralize environmental

defence in the hands of several or one chosen from among the bravest or

bravest warriors? Either way, it seems that authority existed before

individual ownership. Authority obviously ruled while the lands, objects

and in some cases even the children and women were property of the

social organisation. The regime of individual property — the possibility

for a member of the collective: 1: to seize more land than is necessary

to support his family: 2: to exploit the surplus by means of another —

only refined, complicated and made more tyrannical the authority whether

theocratic or essentially military.

Did the primitives’ rebel against even this rudimentary authority that

existed amongst primitive groups? Were there objectors, disobedient in

those times when the climatic phenomena were attributed to superior

powers, here good, now unfavourable, when they related the creation of

man to a supernatural entity? These myths show that humanity was not

always pleased to be playthings in the hand of the deity and a slave of

their representatives, for example the myths of Satan and Prometheus,

rebel Angels and Titans. Even later, when the administration and

ecclesiastical authority was firmly founded, demonstrations broke out,

which while maintaining a peaceful character, nevertheless testified to

rebellion. One can classify under this type the satirical scenes and

comedies, Roman Saturnalia and Christian carnivals etc. Many fables

circulated amongst the people who listened joyously, sometimes from

childhood, which all shared the same theme, the victory of the weak over

their subjugators and the poor triumphing over the tyranny of the rich.

Greek Antiquity, with Gorgias[1] denying all dogmas; with Aristippus

founder of the school of Hedonism, for which there is no other good than

pleasure, the present actual pleasure, whatever its origin; with the

Cynics (Diogenes and Crates of Thebes) with the Stoics (Zeno, Chyrsippus

and their servants). Greek antiquity birthed people who criticised and

then rejected the received values.

Since the denial of the values of Hellenic culture the Cynics have

reached the denial of its institutions: marriage, homeland, family,

property, state. Behind the barrel and lantern of Diogenes lay something

other than mockery and witticism. Diogenes pierced with his sharp

sarcasms the most powerful and feared among those who had torn from each

other the remnants of the dying Athens. Undoubtedly Plato, scandalised

by his ultra-popular sermons called him “delirious Socrates”; by looking

at manual labour as equal to intellectual labour, declaring themselves

citizens of the world, looking upon Generals as “Donkey drivers” making

ridiculous superstitions, including the Demon of Socrates, reducing the

object of life to the exercise and development of the moral person, the

Cynics could claim as its master, doctors of the soul, heroes of freedom

and truth. From the social viewpoint the Cynics were communalists, and

this principle of theirs applied not just to objects but to people, a

concept dear to many different philosophies.

The cynics, and especially Diogenes in particular, were rebuked for

being proud of their isolation, posing as role models, and exaggerating

in their way of life, which was a sort of denial of any organized

society. Diogenes had replied before: “I am the same as the choirmasters

who force the tone to be picked up by the students.”

The first teaching of Zeno, that of the “Stoic” greatly resembled the

teaching of the Cynics. Zenon in his “Treatise on the Republic” pushed

against the customs, the laws, science and arts, and at the same time

promoted the community of farmers like Plato had done. The foundation of

the Stoic system is that the good of man is freedom, and that freedom is

conquered only by freedom. A Sage is synonymous with a free man: he owes

his good to himself and depends only on himself. Shielded by the blows

of fate, in everything insensitive, self-controlled, needing only

himself, he finds in himself boundless serenity, freedom, happiness. He

is no longer a man. He is a god and more than a god, because the

happiness of the sage is the privilege of his nature, while the Sage is

happy, he is the conqueror of his freedom! Zeno logically denied the

omnipotence and trusteeship of the state: man is a law unto himself and

individual harmony is born from the harmony of a collective. Hedonism,

Cynicism, Stoicism set up the “natural right” for the individual to

dispose, against the “artificial right” which turns him into a tool of

the state. Zeno used this theory to hit back just as the Cynics had

already done the excessive nationalism of the Greeks, and to promote a

social instinct, a natural instinct that would allow man to reach out to

associate with other peoples. We could consider the Cynics and the

Stoics the first internationalists.

Middle Ages

These ideas about “natural right”, “natural law”, “natural religion” has

been adopted by many philosophers. Certainly, the triumph of

Christianity was not as complete as was claimed by the incense burners.

Many heretics appeared, some of them, out of caution, cloaked themselves

with religious masks and disguised their ideas under a religious shell.

Take for example the Gnostic Carpocrates of Alexandria, founder of the

sect of the Carpocratians, whose son Epiphanes codified the whole

doctrine in his work On Righteousness. According to him, divine justice

exists in the community through equality. As the sun is set by no one,

so be it with all things, all pleasures. If God has given us a desire,

it is so we can satisfy it, not restrict it; likewise, the other living

beings on the earth do not curb their appetites.

The Carpocratians were among the first to recognise everyone’s right to

all things, to the extreme consequence, and tried to practice it. They

were seemingly exterminated. Although surviving writing indicates that

Carpocratian tendencies still existed in Cyrene North Africa until the

6^(th) Century.

Exterminated or not, the Carpocratians had followers. We do not know if

the initiates of the similar sects accepted their concepts or adopted

similar ideas: discarding all authority, whether or not they were

“organised” in the contemporary style. But it is certain that the ruling

political regime regarded them as irreconcilable enemies. There was a

network of connected secret societies in existence on an international

scale, whose travelling members were accepted as brothers by the other

associations. They were taught in secret, and the many legal penalties

against those who were discovered and victimized by their propaganda

amply demonstrate this. Very sadly, their true opinions are unknown to

us. We only talk about their crimes (?) Or their deviations (?).

At the Synod of Orleans (1022) 11 Carpocratians (Albigensians[2]) were

burned to death, accused of practising free love. In 1030, in Montfort

near Turin, heretics are accused of declaring themselves against

religious ceremonies and rites, against marriage, the killing of animals

and were supporters of a commune to work the land. In 1052 in Goslar, a

small number of heretics were burned, because they had declared their

opposition to the killing of all living things, I.e., against war,

murder and the slaughtering of animals. In 1213 Waldensians[3] were

burned in Strasbourg because they promoted free love and communal living

on the land. They were not “scholars” but simple craftsmen, weavers,

shoemakers, carpenters, masons, etc....

Relying on a passage from St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians “If ye be

led by the Spirit, ye ar no longer under the law,” many sects placed man

above the law. Men and women took a viewpoint similar enough to the

Carpocratians, and finalised, in practice, a type of libertarian

communism, which they experienced as much as they could, in more or less

occult colonies under the threat of ruthless oppression. Amalric of

Bena, near Chartes taught his ideas in Sorbonne in the 13^(th) century.

He had disciples more energetic than himself, amongst them was Ortlieb

of Strasbourg who made his doctrine of Pantheistic-anarchism known

within the German states, where they found enthusiastic and convinced

supporters who organised under the name “Bruder und Schwestern des

Freien Geistes” (Brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit). Which Max

Beer in his “History of Socialism” considers them to be a form of

Anarchist-individualists, who kept themselves outside of society, its

laws, morals and customs, and organised a separate society that was

ruthlessly opposed by the authorities.

I imagine! For Amalric of Bene and his followers, God was found in Jesus

as well as in the pagan thinkers and poets he spoke through the mouth of

Ovid, as well as through that of St. Augustine. Such people were not

worth living!

In the heresies it is necessary to distinguish between the Pantheistic

Anarchism of Amalric, whose followers considered themselves elements of

the holy spirit, discarding all asceticism, all moral truths, situated

so to speak beyond good and evil, and the heirs of the Manichean

agnosticism of the Albigensians, ascetics who aspired to victory over

matter. But it is not always easy to see the exact line between them.

The Catholic historian Döllinger who has studied the history of all of

these sects, did not hesitate to declare that if they had been

victorious (mainly concerning the Waldensians and Albigensians) the

result would be a general reversal and complete return of pagan

barbarity and indiscipline.

To the first pantheistic-anarchist group we link the Antwerp heresy of

“Tanchelm”, that of the “Kloeffers” of Flanders, of the Picards or Adams

(radiating to Bohemia), of the “Loïsten” also from Antwerp; Everywhere

there are people or associations who want to react against the

predominant system, represented especially by Catholicism, whose

dignitaries behaved scandalously, keeping prostitution at bay, ruled

brothels and gambling houses, were armed and fought like professional

soldiers.

I agree completely with Max Nettlau that at the close of the Middle

Ages, Southern France, the provinces of the Albigenses, part of Germany

reaching out to Bohemia, lands washed by the lower Rhine as far as

Holland and Flanders, certain portions of England and Italy, and finally

Catalunya were overrun with sects that attacked the institutions of

Marriage, Family and Property.

This anti-authoritarian movement did not just spread in Europe. In the

History of Armenia by Tschamschiang (Venice 1795), we read about a

Persian heretic by the name of Mdusik, who rejected “all law and all

authority”... In the Literary Supplement of the Temps Neuveux (Paris Vol

II, pg 556–7) contains an article titled “One Forerunner of Anarchism”,

in which the Turkish writer Dr Abdullah Djevdet introduces a Syrian poet

from the 15^(th) century Ebr-Ala-el-Muarri.

The Renaissance

We are approaching the Renaissance; it cannot be denied that the

Catholics with the aid of the secular state annihilated and reduced to

impotence the pantheistic-anarchist heretics. The Protestants did not

show mercy to the Anabaptists, a kind of authoritarian communists

founded on an interpretation of the Old Testament. The dictatorship of

John of Leiden in Münster disappeared lightning fast. The old world had

to bow its head under the omnipotence of a state that was stronger and

more centralised than in the Middle Ages. The discovery of America,

however, ignited the spirit of the thinkers and originals, whose state

of mind was not crushed under the laminate of the political

organization.

They talked of a happy island, about El Dorado’s, Arcadias. In his

“Cosmography” (1544) Sebastian Munster described the inhabitants of the

“New Islands”, “Where one lives free from all authority, where one knows

neither justice nor injustice, where no one punishes misdemeanours,

where parents do not rule over their children, no kind of law, freedom

in sexual relations. No trace of any God, nor of any baptism, nor of any

worship”. To these aspirations for liberty, it is possible to add the

Free Masons and the different orders of Illumination. One of the most

brilliant genius of the Renaissance, François Rabelais with his Abbey of

Theleme (Gargantua I. 52/57)[4] can be equally regarded as amongst the

forerunners of Anarchism. Élisée Reclus proclaimed him “our great

ancestor”. Certainly, in that bookish environment it’s true that he

tended to neglect the economic side, and that he owed more to his

century than he imagined. Certainly, he painted his refined estate with

the same spirit as Thomas More, in his “Utopia,” his idealized England,

and as Companella, in his “City of the Sun,” his Italian and theocratic

republic, or as the author. of “Kingdom of Antangil” (the first French

utopia, 1516) his Protestant constitutional monarchy. That doesn’t stop

Rabelais, in Theleme Abbey, from painting an unauthorized life. It is

recalled that Gargantua did not want to build “walls around it”. “Even,

and not without reason, approved by the monk, where a wall is in front

and behind, there is a lot of murmur, envy and dumb conspiracy”… The two

sexes did not stand still and speechless… they were dressed in a similar

ornament…”

All their lives were occupied with laws, statutes, regulations. But

according to their good will or free will; they rose when they pleased,

drank, ate, worked, slept when they felt like it. No one woke them up,

no one forcibly forced them to drink, eat, or do anything. Thus settled

the Gargantua affair. And their rule was just that clause: “do what thou

wilt,” for free men, well-born, well-educated, conversing with shameful

companions, naturally have an instinct and a sting which pushes them to

virtuous deeds, and draws them away from the wickedness they called

honour. There are those who, due to trivial domination and coercion,

allow themselves to be diverted from their noble inclinations to tend

virtues, meanwhile we have discarded that servile yoke; for always

undertake forbidden things, and covet that which is denied us. With that

freedom, they immersed themselves in competition to do whatever pleased

them. If someone said “Let’s drink” everyone drank, if someone said

“let’s play” everyone played. If they said “let’s go to the field”

everyone went there.

Rabelais was more Utopian. Another predecessor of Anarchy — and a famous

one — is undoubtedly La Boétie (Étienne or Estienne de La Boétie) in his

“Against One” or “Discourses on Voluntary Servitude” (1577) whose main

idea is the refusal to serve tyrants, whose power springs from the

voluntary servitude of the people. “Everyone knows that the fire from a

small spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood

to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no

more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a

flame. The same goes for the tyrants: the more they are given and

served, the more they gain new forces to annihilate and destroy

everything. On the contrary, if nothing is given to them, if they are

not obeyed, without blow, without battle, they remain naked and

defeated, and are annihilated; like a root that without juice, without

food, dries up and dies.” “Firmly decide that you will no longer serve,

and you are already free”.

La Boétie did not propose a well-defined social organisation. Yet he

speaks about nature which has seemingly made all men in the same form

and mould ... “If in distributing her gifts nature has favoured some

more than others with respect to body or spirit, she has nevertheless

not planned to place us within this world as if it were a field of

battle, and has not endowed the stronger or the cleverer in order that

they may act like armed brigands in a forest and attack the weaker. One

should rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and

smaller shares to others, nature has intended to give occasion for

brotherly love to become manifest, some of us having the strength to

give help to others who are in need of it. Hence, since this kind mother

has given us the whole world as a dwelling place, has lodged us in the

same house, has fashioned us according to the same model so that in

beholding one another we might almost recognize ourselves; since she has

bestowed upon us all the great gift of voice and speech for fraternal

relationship, thus achieving by the common and mutual statement of our

thoughts a communion of our wills; and since she has tried in every way

to narrow and tighten the bond of our union and kinship; since she has

revealed in every possible manner her intention, not so much to

associate us as to make us one organic whole, there can be no further

doubt that we are all naturally free, inasmuch as we are all comrades.

Accordingly, it should not enter the mind of anyone that nature has

placed some of us in slavery, since she has actually created us all in

one likeness.” From this we can deduce a total social system.

[Quotations are from Discourses on Voluntary Servitude]

Modern Times

Monarchy became more and more absolute. Louis XIV reduced half of the

“intelligentsia” to a state of servitude and forced the other half to

turn to the Dutch press. In the “Longing of enslaved France, which

aspires to freedom” (1689–1690) and similar works appeared in Amsterdam,

amongst which can be found a few expressions of Anarchism. They had to

wait a little for Diderot,[5] to hear that phrase which sufficiently

expresses the whole of Anarchism. “I neither want to give nor receive

laws”. In his conversation between a father and his sons (complete works

Vol.5 page 301) he gave precedence to the man of nature over the man of

law, and to human reason over that of the legislator. Everyone remembers

the phrase of Maréchale: “Evil is that which does more harm than

advantages, good is the opposite, it has more advantages than harm”. And

the parting words of the old man in the “Supplement to the Voyage of

Bougainville” You two are children of nature, what rights do you have

over him, which he does not have over you?” Stirner who came later,

would not say it better.

In the “Revue Socialist” of September 1888, Benoit Malon [the founder

and editor] dedicated 10 pages to Don Deschamps a Benedictine monk from

the 18^(th) century, a predecessor to Hegelianism, transformism and

Anarchist Communism.

And finally, Sylvain Marechal, poet, author, librarian (1750–1803) who

was the first to joyously proclaim anarchist ideas, although tainted

with Arcadianism. Sylvain Marechal was a political author, who tackled

all kinds of subjects. “Shepherds Poems” in (Bergeries)1770, and

“Anacreontic Songs” (Chansons anacréontiques) in 1770, and in 1779 he

successfully released pieces on “Moral Poem about God” (Fragments d’un

poème moral sur Dieu) “The Modern Pibrac” (Le Pibrac Moderne) in 1781,

and in 1782 “The Golden Time” (L’Âge d’Or ) and “Shepard’s Fables”; in

1784 “Book esacped from the deluge” (Livre échappé du déluge) or “Newly

Discovered Psalms”. In 1788 as a sublibrarian at the Mazarin Library, he

published “Almanac of Honest Men” (Almanach des Honnêtes Gens) in which

he replaced the names of Saints with those of famous men and women. He

places Jesus Christ between Epicurus and Ninon de l’Enclos. For this,

the Almanac was condemned to be burned by the hand of the executioner

and the author sent to St. Lazare (A prison in France) where he remained

for four months. In 1788 his “Modern Apologies for the Crown

Prince”(Apologues modernes, à l’usage d’un dauphin) appeared. In them is

the story of a King who, following a cataclysm, returns home each of his

subjects, ordering that, from now on, the head of every family be king

in his home. In that work there is the formula of a “general strike” as

a method for establishing a society in which the earth is the common

possession of all its inhabitants, where “Liberty, Equality, Peace and

Innocence” rule. In “The Triumphant Tyranny” he imagines a people that

surrender their cities to armed bands of soldiers and seek refuge in the

mountains, where divided into families, they will live with no other

master than nature, with no other king beyond the family heads, forever

renouncing their time in the cities with its costly buildings, each

stone of which came from the shedding of tears and stained with blood.

The soldiers sent to bring the men back to their strongholds are

converted to freedom, and remain with those they had to enslave again,

returning their uniforms to the tyrant, who dies of fury and hunger,

devouring himself. This is indisputably a reminder of “Voluntary

Serfdom.”

In 1790, he published the “Almanac of Honest Women” decorated with a

satirical engraving of the Duchess of Polignac.[6] By exaggerating the

“Almanac of the Honest Men” he replaced every saint with a famous woman.

These famous women were separated into 12 classes or “genres” as he put

it (1 class for 1 month): January Lesbians; February, sex workers, etc

(...) this very rare pamphlet is found only in the hell of the National

Library.

Sylvain Marechal greeted the revolution of 1789 with reservations. The

first anarchist newspaper in France “The

Humanitarian”L’Humanitaire(1841) asserted that he declared that so long

as there were masters and servants, rich and poor, there would never be

liberty nor equality.

Sylvain Marechal continued to promote his works, in 1791 he published

“Mother Nature at the Helm of the National Assembly” (Dame Nature à la

barre de l’Assemblée nationale) in year II (Revolutionary calendar) or

1793 he published “The Last Judgement of the Kings” (Jugement dernier

des rois) in 1794 “The Festival of Reason” (La Fete de la Raison). He

worked on the journals “Revolutions of Paris” “The Friend of the

Revolution” and “Bulletin of the Friends of Truth”. The Herbertist

Chaumatte was a victim of the Terror, but Marechal escaped Robespierre.

He would have escaped the persecution of the Thermidorean reaction and

the Directory too, had he not gotten involved with the “Manifesto of

Equals” or so it is claimed.

At the end of the storm, Marechal again took up the pen. In 1798 his

work “Worship and Laws of a Society without God” (Culte et lois d’une

société d’hommes sans Dieu). In 1799, “The Voyages of Pythagore” (Les

Voyages de Pythagore) in six volumes. In 1800 he wrote his great work

“Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Atheists” (Dictionnaire des Athées

anciens et modernes) whose supplement was written by the astronomer

Jerome Lalande. Finally in 1807 “On Virtue” (De le Vertu) published

posthumously, which may have been printed, but did not appear, and which

Lalande used for his second supplement to the “Dictionary of Atheists”.

Moreover, Napoleon forbade the famous astronomer from writing anything