💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-ed-what-is-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:24:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What is Anarchism? Author: Freedom Press Date: September, 1889 Language: en Topics: Freedom Press, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, letter Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 3, No. 34, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3170, retrieved on May 8, 2020.
To the Editor of "Freedom."
Dear Comrade,-A number of the members of the Socialist League here, are
greatly interested in the discussion that bag recently appeared in
Commonweal concerning the difference between the principles of Anarchist
Communism and those of unqualified Communism or Socialism. We have long
been anxious to understand clearly and definitively what that difference
is.
The statement of principles contained in the two letters of William
Morris (May 18 and August 17) appears to us to fully embrace all the
communism and liberty that is needful and indeed possible among men.
Knowing, however, that there are many brave and highly gifted men who
call themselves Anarchist Communists in distinction to those who like
the members of the Socialist League call themselves simply Communists or
Socialists; and knowing that Freedom is published chiefly with the view
of making the distinction of principle between them manifest, I have
been asked to put the following queries to you so that we may better
understand each other:
1. How, say in England, would Anarchists seek to supplant the existing
state of society? Would they wait till they had converted all the
people, or a majority only, or merely an effective minority; and if
before all were converted, how would they propose to deal with the
unconverted majority or minority who refused to submit?
2. Is not the voluntary submission of a minority to a majority, or a
majority to a minority for the sake of the common weal, really a refined
or disguised method of yielding to authority or compulsion? If for
example, I were to feel constrained voluntarily to do or to refrain from
doing anything in an Anarchist community for the sake of the common good
or to prevent disorder; would I not be acting from the same impulse as a
Social Democrat who for a similar reason yielded to the authority of the
State: and would not the difference between us really be one-not of
principle, but merely of the form of effecting the same end? I do not
believe that a system of State Socialism or State Communism is what we
should seek to establish, not because. it is necessarily opposed to
freedom, but because it is the most cumbrous form of association for the
common weal, and one not calculated to secure the greatest amount of
personal freedom. Absolute freedom, however, I believe. with comrade
Morris, to be impossible among men; men in society can be no more
absolutely socially free than the brain, heart and lungs, or the
corpuscles of the blood can be absolutely physically free in the living
body.
3. May not a number of men consistent with Anarchist principles
voluntarily elect or commission some one main to direct them in an
undertaking with power to say who shall do this and who shall do that?
and if so, may not a commune or nation in a similar way voluntarily
commission one man or a number of men to direct certain communal OF
national affairs for a given period; and would the power thus
voluntarily delegated by the people, become oppressive when exercised?
Let me say that I do not believe a wise people would care to delegate
their power in this way more than was felt to be really necessary; on
the other hand, I fail to see bow any form of association that prevented
the people from delegating their power, or prevented them from
voluntarily limiting their individual inclinations or caprices, could in
any sense be esteemed a form of association in which there was any real,
not to say absolute, freedom.
I trust, comrade. we may exchange. a few words in a friendly discussion
upon the above and maybe other points. There is no "ion, I think, for
any ill-nature to arise between Communist Anarchists and Socialists in
the meantime-and I trust there never will be. I can say for myself and
for many members of the Socialist League here, that we would not
hesitate to declare ourselves Communist Anarchists if we. felt convinced
that Communist Anarchism as distinct from Communism was a better and a
possible ideal.
-Yours fraternally, J. Bruce Glasier 250 Crown Street, Glasgow, Aug. 16,
1889.
We are glad to receive the above letter from our Glasgow comrade, and we
hope it will lead to the clearing up of some of the points of difference
between the Communists of the Socialists League, who have no political
ideal, and the Anarchist Communists whose political ideal is clearly
defined as opposed to that of the Social Democrats, also clearly
defined. We have endeavored in the following replies to confine
ourselves as closely as possible to the queries put in our comrade's
letter, and we Lope he will not hesitate to let us have further
questions calculated to clear away the mist from before our eyes.
1. Anarchists do not seek to impose their will upon others, so that
there would be no question of their dealing with art unconverted
majority or minority who refused to submit. They recognize that there
are and have been great inequalities in the mental development of man,
due of course to the vicious social systems which have prevailed and
fostered inequality, and they see that a Galileo or a Bruno may be right
in his views although the whole world is against him. Therefore they do
not believe in rule of any kind, either majority or minority rule. They
do not wish to rule and they do not wish to be ruled. But they mean to
resist tyranny and robbery whenever they are able to do so and to
persuade others to do the same. Coercion in their view is always
unjustifiable, even if the end in view in the opinion of the coercers is
good. The Social Revolution is with them the emancipation of the workers
from the burdens and tyrannies of to-day. Every worker they hold should
revolt against oppression and robbery on his own account whenever he has
the power, and numbers of workers should freely band themselves together
for the same purpose. The Social Revolution is inevitable. All the
forces of society at the present moment are undoubtedly moving towards
gigantic social changes, viz., the expropriation of the possessing
classes and the destruction of authority, which the Anarchists are doing
their best to make clear to the people. The Anarchist workers at the
first opportunity will endeavor to organize themselves in free
associations, and those who do not care to participate in the freedom
and happiness of the people may continue to support the idlers who now
live upon their labor, if they choose. Anarchists are in no way
concerned as to whether a majority or minority is in favor of such and
such a thing. What they think about is whether the force over against
them is stronger than the force on their side and how they are to hold
their own against a stronger force, which is by no means necessarily a
majority.
2. We all of us have to submit to coercion at the present time, just in
the same way as an unarmed man has to submit to the ruffian who holds a
pistol at his head, but that is not voluntary submission. When a
majority in a certain community decide upon a certain course which is
not of the first importance, and the help of the minority is necessary,
the minority may voluntarily acquiesce for the sake of the common weal,
but that cannot be called yielding to authority. If you were to
voluntarily refrain from doing anything which would injure the community
you would not be acting from the same impulse as a man who refrained
because of the law. You would be using your reason, the State Socialist
would not. He would not distinguish between bad laws and good (?)
obeying the former and disobeying the latter-he would obey all alike
because it was the law. For example, if a majority of the people of
London were to say there shall be no meetings in Trafalgar Square, a
consistent State Socialist would bow to the will of the majority,
whereas the Anarchist would refuse to recognize the decision of the
majority. He would use his reason, and if that told him he was injuring
no one by meeting in the Square, he would hold his meeting in the Square
if he was strong enough to do so.
Your remarks on absolute freedom are not to the point. No Anarchist has
ever suggested that absolute freedom in the sense in which you define it
is possible. Men must obey natural laws in their relation to each other
as well as in relation to matter, but artificial law., (man made laws,
Acts of Parliament) are seldom if ever in accord with natural laws, and
that is where the difficulty- comes in.
3. Certainly a number of men may choose some man or a body of men to
direct them in some definite undertaking, on the understanding that no
coercive authority is exercised over them, and yet consistently support
the Anarchist Principle, but in most cases the common end in view is
quite sufficient in our opinion to ensure the best result. For instance
foremen are necessary now because every worker instinctively feels that
he is being robbed, and is certainly overworked, and therefore has not
his heart in his work. He must be overlooked and directed and kept to
his task. The foreman is rather a driver than a helper. In a workshop
conducted on Anarchist principles the work would be -divided up by
mutual agreement and a driver would be unnecessary. "any particular work
was too difficult for the man who had undertaken it to do, be might ask
his bench-mate just as to-day be might ask his foreman about it. The
present writer was once employed in a Socialist printing office where
the work was conducted pretty well on these lines. There was certainly
no foreman in the ordinary sense of the word. There was a manager who
had to attend to the outside business, to purchase paper, etc., to make
and receive payments, etc., but that was a part of his share of the
work. His interference with the workers was practically nil. They
arranged among themselves -hat each one should do and with the best
results for all concerned.
As to the oppression of a central body them can be, no doubt about that.
The central body, however advanced in views its members may be when
elected tends to become conservative. They taste the forbidden fruit,
power, and their taste for it grows upon them to the injury of their
fellows. Take the case of any one of our trade unions and you will find
that the main body are out of touch with the executive. Besides a free
combination does not want a center to secure common united action; its
center is where the greatest activity is. If it needs to delegate anyone
to do certain work it can do so, but it cannot give any individual or
number of individuals power to undertake the general direction of others
without interfering with the general freedom and the efficiency of the
combination.