💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gustav-landauer-anarchism-in-germany.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:34:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism in Germany Author: Gustav Landauer Language: en Topics: Germany, revolution Source: Retrieved on February 9, 2011 from http://libcom.org/history/anarchism-germany-gustav-landauer
Why do so many of today’s skeptics and rebels, these humanists and
futurists, among whom I count myself identify themselves as anarchists?
Why do these apostles of enlightenment who wish not only to cultivate a
new consciousness but also to create a new social form, have the closest
ties to the most radical group which advocates relentless class war?
What are the characteristics of Anarchism in Germany? In particular, is
it a working class movement; and will it remain so? I’ve decided to
answer these particular questions here. Not in order to propagandize for
Anarchism; both the publishers and the readers of Die Zukunft, a
publication with a different agenda, have the right to oppose any such
attempt. I do not consider it my calling to play gatecrasher or to sow
the seeds of dissension. My sole purpose is to dispel false impressions
and to provide an accurate picture of the ideas held by the better part
of German anarchists.
The conscious, willful, methodical formation of a personal stake and
collective fate of both smaller and larger communities is a major
attribute of the Kulturmensch. This virtue manifests itself in
humanity’s fight, first against the humbling and oppressive force of
nature and then against humanity’s self-obstructive qualities and bad
faith. History to this point has been comprised of two things: first,
the countless, isolated events of an unconscious, stifling, and
deterministic evolution, for which, just as for all other natural
phenomena, the so-called laws of nature can be construed. Second, there
are the conscious actions of individuals or communities, often resulting
in effects bearing little relation to their original intent.
Unquestionably, the various phenomena on the spectrum can be slotted
into different categories of truth. Thus, the phenomena of desire and
motivated action lend themselves, even when less certain, to the
establishment of axioms.
I’ll state here: civilization has arrived at the point where it can be
successful in overcoming these so-called laws of nature, whose
development emerged from the general aggregation of many small
coincidences. Humans now have the capacity to freely and independently
create a life that is their own. The battle against this hostile
environment has not stopped and cannot stop. But now it is consciously
waged against the one foe that bars humanity’s path to great
fulfillment.
In the past, two internally related factors hindered humanity’s
ascension. First, a lack of consciousness, a certain torpor, and the
narrow-mindedness of the masses, as opposed to smaller groups, even
though there is no natural difference between the two. Certainly, nature
produces both the intelligent and the dim, the strong and the weak. The
contention that the neglected masses are essentially populated by dolts,
while the smart and strong reside only among the fortunate few, however,
would not occur to any honest person. Second, Humanity has been
oppressed not because disunited people struggled against a natural and
hostile environment, but rather because they fought and oppressed one
another. To be sure, it has been the tiny privileged elite, who have
used every physical and spiritual means at their disposal — using the
ignorance of the great mass of people, to keep them gagged and oppressed
— right up to the present day.
Anarchism’s lone objective is to reach a point at which the belligerence
of some humans against humanity, in whatever form, comes to a halt. And
with this end point in mind, people must transcend themselves in the
spirit of brother and sisterhood, so that each individual, drawing on
natural ability, can develop freely.
Homo homini lupus — man is a wolf to man. That was, as a practical
matter, mankind’s motto in the 1800 years that passed since Jesus spoke
the words: love your neighbor as you love yourself. Anarchism isn’t
interested in postulating a God, or setting up another inflexible moral
code, since we despise all coercion. Once the events of history and
advances in technology have been analyzed once and tested again,
Anarchism seeks just one thing: the forging of alliances among all those
advocating a common interest when one needs to wrest concessions from
nature by engaging in difficult, daily struggle. And when interests
among people diverge, individuals will simply follow their own
discretion; and it is again the union of various confederations that
will protect the individual from the harmful actions of any individuals.
It should be guarded against, however, that these confederations take on
disproportionate power. It is in this sense that we call ourselves
anarchists: we are for the benefit of the multitude because we detest
all violence which deprives the enjoyment and autonomy as a result of
deeply seeded cultural factors.
We repudiate, above all, the colossal image that impresses the delusive
stamp of authority, leaving only the imprint of docile adoration behind.
We are talking in particular about the rigid institutions of long
historical standing, into which people are born and to which they
accommodate themselves, whether they regard them as reasonable and
beneficial or not. Especially when it comes to the organs of coercive
state power, the individual has ultimately but one choice: submission.
The lone justification being that those who came before acquiesced in
the same way as their descendants now do. The alternative is to
radically depart from the terra firma of received life, for today there
remains hardly a corner where the state hasn’t laid its peremptory
hands. The power of the church, admittedly still monstrous, nevertheless
finds itself in a most timely state of decay. Thus, many are finding it
possible to extract themselves, even if with difficulty. The state,
resting on the same legitimate foundation as its sister, the church,
namely the blind faith in authority, will decompose just as the
religious orders have. Currently, humanity’s real redemption lies not in
compulsion and spiritual tutelage, were it even with the best
intentions, but rather in freedom.
On the basis of state-imposed servitude, reinforced by the blind faith
the masses devote to musty traditionalists and other remnants of a
bygone era — above all to dynasties and patriarchies — the oppressive
system of privileged private wealth rests. No world traditions, not even
those with the weight of millennia behind them, can make justify before
anarchists the custom that so few are able to lay real claim to
ownership of land. Those who enjoy the fruits of its bounty play no
actual role in harvesting it, yet they deny its yield to their toiling
fellow man. No earthly power or widespread prejudice will deter
anarchists from the conviction that the deprived and destitute must name
what is theirs, that which is due the last and most wretched among them:
land on which to stand, to stroll, to rest, and to work. He who
complacently enjoys custody of inherited “rights” and privilege, (a
custody secured only by enclosure behind high walls) reposing on
moneybags, has once and for all alms to pay. These alms are paid to the
oppressive regime, and its armed footsoldiers — deployed as they are
against the enemy within — whose continued power is secured by the dull
patience and dissolute will of the masses. All this while enormous
masses of people — who have the same talents and needs as the oppressors
themselves — must eke out a pittance for such necessities as the
clothing on their backs.
Anarchists do not even claim, however, that the majority of oppressed
people today even consider themselves victims. It may also be the case
that among our own ranks, compassion and love are not necessarily the
right words to describe our deepest motives. As for my animating force,
it lies in the repugnance at the humanity that encircles us, a rage at
the indolence of the rich who blithely build their happiness on the
ruins of the joyless existence of the dehumanized multitude. My rage
dissipates not one iota when I consider the extent of the squalor to
which the oppressed are subjected. As they emerged from the mother’s
womb, the haves and the have-nots are as distinguishable as one egg is
from another. And then, at the end of their miserable lives, spent as it
is among the outcasts of society: slogging, these skeletons — the shadow
remaining from an exhausting struggle for life — have scarcely enough
money to bury their kin with dignity.
This assessment of our time and our future ideal of lives lived fully
through free association is agreed upon by many among Germany’s educated
classes; yet they remain too remote to feel a true solidarity with us.
The basis for this essentially rests on two elements. First on the
incorrect, if also explainable, condemnation of the anarchist party
(there is no anarchist party) and its tactics (there are no specifically
anarchist tactics). Second, it depends on the widespread dispersion of
general despair and skepticism with respect to the prospect of any such
future ever emerging out of our present. To these men, Schopenhauer
provides solace during their sleepless nights. Their daily work is the
amelioration of the suffering which meets their eyes; they see it as
just hopeless social reform that comprises a drop in the ocean. These
skeptics, at least those of consequence, do not claim that they and
those equally-privileged are actually superior from the standpoint of
spirituality or morality. Certainly they concede — and we are of
completely like mind here — that today in some districts material
conditions are so squalid that some are born deprived of a healthy start
to life. Fortunately, this perspective today remains an exception to the
rule. By nature and with respect to their innate talent, however, the
proletarian cultural world remains poor. Yet we think that both this
degradation on the one hand and the pampered privilege on the other have
begun to enter the flesh and blood of mankind; in fact they have begun
to enter the sphere of the body and soul, whose qualities will be
inherited by the coming generation. We contend that no language can be
loud and decisive enough for the uplifting of our compatriots, so that
they may be incited out of their engrained daily drudgery. A renewed
social form must be spurred on, through the transcendence of the present
spiritual inertia, in pursuit of energetic action, designed to break
barriers, and to prepare new ground for our seed. That is the propaganda
of the deed, as I understand it. Everything else is passion, despair, or
a great misconception. It hasn’t a thing to do with killing people;
rather, it regards the rejuvenation of human spirit and will along with
the productive energies unleashed by large communities.
Large-scale communities, I say. For, it is a great mistake, one not even
overcome by the usually insightful Professor Stammler, who derives
anarchist theory from the writings of Proudhon and Stirner — that
anarchism means individualism and therefore stands, when so
misunderstood, in opposition to socialism. Certainly, socialism for us
means something quite different from the “abolition of the private
ownership of the means of production.” Our socialism doesn’t speak even
of collective property, since behind it hides nothing other than the
domination of a bureaucratic cabal. No, we speak rather of, to use
Benedikt Friedländer’s delightful expression, the “ownerlessness of
nature’s bounty.” This means, once people have recognized their real
interests, they will develop strong alliances that will guarantee
everyone a share of the Earth’s plenty. And when individuals or groups
claim the means of production for their own purposes, then those
remaining shall receive equitable compensation. I note here that Bruno
Wille expands on this line of argument in his Philosophy of Freedom. One
of the first, in contrast to the obscurantism of earlier and some
present day anarcho-communists, to soberly espouse the ideas of
anarchism, was indeed Benedikt Friedländer, in his rather suggestive
pamphlet Free Socialism Contra Marxist State Servitude. This clearheaded
thrust, recognizable in Paul Kampffmeyer’s earlier pamphlet, The Meaning
of Unions, represents, as I see it, the principle of the young anarchist
tendency, on which Eugen Dühring and Henry George have exercised
particularly strong influence, and not only here in Germany.
Friedländer’s pamphlet, even though it comes off as most modest and
lacking in presumption, seems to me of much greater significance than,
for instance, the works of Mackay, as referred to by Professor Stammler,
as they are heavy on imprecision and pretension. Moreover, the Communist
Kropotkin has the merit of having freed Anarchism from cliche by his
detailed vision of a free society.
I have no misgivings in saying that strong organizations will exist in
anarchist society too, just as I am certain that some already existing
organizations will “grow into” Anarchism. Indeed, this terminology is
suitable here — by that I mean, the organizations of real producers,
namely, the workers. I allude in passing to the exceedingly suggestive
state in which our language exists with respect to the words producer
and worker. The worker isn’t a producer per se, for where then do the
proceeds of his work collect? And the producer is often no worker
because — where is his work? I absolutely include among the ranks of the
workers, whose unification shall be the basis for creating a free
society, the leading lights of science, those experienced in exchanging
goods, be they today called engineers, directors, salespeople, railroad
bureaucrats or whatever else.
Of course, it absolutely doesn’t occur to us to construct an artifice of
historical development, by which — as a matter of material necessity —
the working class, to one extent or another, is called by Providence to
take for itself the role of the present day ruling class, to say nothing
of the founding of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I have no
hesitation in clarifying that class struggle fails to have this meaning
for me. I am in no way of the opinion that once an individual has passed
a certain threshold of wealth, that he then becomes an irredeemable
reprobate, undeserving of any place in the coming society. It is,
obviously, no more a scandal to have been born a bourgeois than a
proletarian. More to the point, we anarchists are ready to regard
anyone, regardless of their social class of origin, who considers our
perspective correct and is willing to live a life that comports with the
consequences of this belief, as a comrade.
However, the person who has recognized the truth in Anarchism, will
certainly not spend all his time in clubs or conventions disputing which
method the future society will employ for the washing of dishes or the
efficacious cleaning of boots. Rather, this person, as far as personal
courage and station in life allow, will without doubt demand the
step-by-step improvement of his life’s condition. Insight alone tells
him that the improvement of his economic lot, as present circumstances
dictate, remains intimately linked with the success of vigorous mass
actions by workers. As long as the owners and the powerful have at their
disposal all of the means they allow themselves to uphold the wretched
conditions of today, so too will organized people fight back with all
allowable methods for the comprehensive improvement of their lot. We
don’t preach class war but we acknowledge that it is often forced on the
persons who desire an improvement in their condition. It isn’t a matter
of the destruction of modern culture, it’s rather a matter of a vast
army of those previously locked out, and who have by now acquired an
appetite to also sit at the table and feast.
Those barely keeping their heads above water, to say nothing of the
jobless and down-trodden are not well served by talk of revolution and
future paradise. That’s why relentless class struggle remains
self-evident for those whose only recourse for the betterment of their
life station, in today’s society, is the determination of solidarity and
the energy of engagement. And not to be misunderstood, I do not
necessarily hold any particular enmity for many among the bourgeoisie.
Just as Mr. von Egidy saw fit to call out: “all of us are among the
guilty,” so too could the bourgeoisie, product of millennia as they are,
declare, “No one is guilty!” However, this won’t be true much longer.
With respect to our ghastly inheritance, we retain the right of checking
its inventory, and so shall the demand ring ever more imperatively: to
shunt aside the old plundering order, while salvaging what we can from
the debris of the now obsolescent rot. This is the gauntlet that
Anarchism throws down. The lower orders of society will never — in light
of recent and mounting evidence of injustice — be brought so low as to
accept a cease-fire in striving for the formation of a society which
does everyone justice and therefore deserves the title ‘just.’
Anarchists do not comprise a political party, since our scorn for the
state forecloses our treading on the same ground with it and especially
since we despise bargaining and haggling. We Anarchists want to be
preachers: a revolution of spirit is, for us, the first order. What end
can come from the obstinacy of today’s elite when they repress the
aspirations and desires of the masses of our people? We shall not
abdicate responsibility, rather, we will quietly take it on, safe in the
knowledge that future generations will thank us for helping them respect
themselves once again. The consciousness that we will not only not see
the culmination of our victory, but rather will suffer fresh
disappointments and setbacks — to say nothing of persecution — will not
hold us back. In spite of this, we will devote ourselves to our life’s
work and to the expansion of enlightenment to all layers of society. We
think, along with Schopenhauer: “Life is short and even though truth
appears remote, the truth lives long: so tell the truth!” Of course,
most anyone, after a bit of honest and courageous study, can name his
own truth. Whoever believes it is in order to demand the imposition of
“his Truth” along with the violent suppression of those with a divergent
belief, may wish to wander down that road. The anarchists will walk down
theirs.