💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › johann-most-anarchy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:25:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

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

Title: Anarchy
Author: Johann Most
Date: 1888
Language: en
Topics: introductory

Johann Most

Anarchy

Anarchy is said to be general confusion, wild turmoil, which every

civilization scorns. Since this condition renders both government and

law unthinkable, anarchy means the atomization of society into isolated

individuals, who with impunity attack others, until the strong subject

the weak in a slavery more terrible than the world has ever seen.

Abominable and absurd, the goal of the anarchist! Foul the means by

which it is to be attained, namely theft, murder, arson, and all kinds

of destruction! Anarchy is therefore a mixture of idiocy and crime.

Against it society must defend with all power—legally so far as

possible, violently when necessary. At all events, every lover of order

is obliged to nip anarchy in the bud as well as eradicate anarchists

root and branch from the face of the earth...

Now if people would only think... they would see: anarchy (autonomy or

freedom) really means, not the criminal chaos just referred to, but the

absence of the criminal chaos that archy (subjugation or government) has

brought to mankind. Archy springs from the desire of the strong to

oppress the weak; and up to the present day, whatever its form,

oppression has been its goal. Archy, always the tool of the propertied,

has forever put the screws to the unpropertied. The more barbaric the

society, the harsher and more flagrant the archy. The higher the

civilization, the more refined the cleverness of the archists in hiding

the usurpation of power—without weakening the exercise of power...

If archy in all forms has brought mankind grief, it follows that the

remedy is repudiation. The repudiation of archy is anarchy. Anarchy is

therefore the goal of freedom-seeking mankind. Whoever seeks freedom,

advances anarchy. If, among freedom-seekers, a multitude want no part of

anarchy (having a false notion of it), that fact does not demean

anarchy. The multitude simply do not know that, regardless of the route

taken in the search for the rights of man, every route leads to anarchy.

It cannot be otherwise; for either one accepts archy or one fights it

and advances its opposite, anarchy. Something in between is

unthinkable...

The truth that government (archy) is instituted to exploit the poor is a

truth the opponents of anarchy blink at; and, counting on the ignorance

they have created in the masses, they adduce a hundred bagatelles in

archy's favor. They emphasize crime. Were government and law abolished,

they say, unpunished crime would peril life and property until chaos

rendered existence disagreeable at best.

These sorcerers! In broad daylight they ascribe to anarchy aberrations

of their society, when the basis of anarchy is the absence of such

aberrations. All crimes—except misbehavior of madmen, which, by

definition, is the symptom of illness—all crimes are notoriously the

offspring of the system of private property, archy's reason for being.

This system mandates a struggle for existence, by all, against all.

Greed and the lust for power flourish in the propertied and goad the

propertied to crimes that as a rule go unpunished because archy enforces

its laws against another kind of "crime": those deeds done out of

necessity and in response to brutality. Turn the pages of the so-called

civil law: the topic is "yours and mine"; the civil law is the natural

result of a society of individuals who want to cheat as much as possible

because cheating is the only way to power and wealth. Today's society

considers such behavior normal.

Freedom and equality, the conditions of anarchy, would end this ruinous

struggle for existence.... Law, purposeless, would no longer be needed,

nor government... and they would disappear.

More important than the arguments of the archists are the arguments from

a side that should have the least reason to oppose anarchy. Unconscious

anarchists, particularly those called socialists, expend untold time and

effort attacking anarchy, even though their goals are freedom and

equality (anarchy).... These people maintain: anarchy is opposite to

socialism. In truth, anarchy is socialism perfected. Because anarchists

seek freedom for the individual—the greatest human happiness-other

socialists say the anarchists contradict the brotherhood of man.· As if

the brotherhood of man did not presuppose the freedom of the

individual!…

This wrongheadedness goes so far as to claim that the anarchists ignore

technology and favor cottage industry.... But... no anarchist wants to

reverse technological advances; every anarchist wants more such.

advances. Accordingly, anarchists recognize, labor and production must

be organized, their powers united. And since the lack of freedom today

results from private property s control of the factors of production...

those who want freedom (anarchy) want these things owned in common· that

is they want communism…

Contrary to the old-style communists, however the anarchists declare for

the organization with the greatest validity, federalism… From it, “over

and under" structure—that is, authority concentrated in economic and

political hierarchies, and power centralized. in the state—would be

excluded. Instead, voluntary association would give rise to thousands of

special organizations, interconnected horizontally according to purpose

or necessity...

Organization is paramount. Indeed, the enemies of the proletariat are so

well organized, so unified, that the proletariat commit crime by not

gathering all forces and directing them at once at the destruction of

the status quo by all possible means. For whether the propertied and

ruling classes call themselves conservative or liberal, clerical or

free-thinking, protectionist or free-trade, aristocrat or democrat,

imperialist or republican—their differences hinder them not from seeing

themselves as the propertied against the unpropertied.... Nor should be

overlooked the monstrous police, military, and legal apparatus that

stands at the disposal of the bourgeoisie. Nor should be forgotten the

machinations of the black constabulary of priests and the reactionary

press; the bourgeoisie can turn them to its purpose, too...

If the rich stick together, why can't the poor stick together?

Unfortunately, the cause of discord among those who should be of one

heart and a single mind, and who need the profoundest of unity to

achieve victory, is nothing but fear of the word anarchy. Yet all that a

socialist has to get rid of, to be an anarchist, is the idea of the

political state, to which socialists who are terrified hold fast, even

though Marx and Engels taught that in a truly free society, the state

would wither away.

What is the supreme joy of mankind? It is the greatest freedom possible,

i.e., the opportunity to realize intellectual and physical potential. Of

course, such freedom must not go beyond the point at which it hurts

someone, for then a domination of some by others occurs. At the same

time, in a civilized society, many goals are not attainable by

individuals; they can be reached only by associations with a common

purpose. But is that to say: a system must exist in which an individual

has by dictate to exist tucked away in the bureau of a centralized

state, put there by a higher power and told what to do from birth to

death? …

What is needed to produce a system in which the freedom of one and all

is guaranteed is simply an agreement for a free society! No need for a

Providence directing from above; it is only necessary that things are

handled correctly from below...

What is the issue? Is it not whether besides society a state is needed?

The answer, you see, is simpler than many think. We need only imagine

what the state has been hitherto. Is it natural, an eternal verity? It

is a creature of circumstance, used by a clique to dominate the masses.

Let us therefore smash the state to bits.... Nothing less must be the

climax of the Revolution...

We do not stand alone. The really great minds have long been sure that,

without freedom, no perfect society is possible, and that no government,

not even a representative government, insures freedom.

John Stuart Mill [the British philosopher and economist, 1806-1873] has

said that the only part of behavior for which anyone is accountable to

society is that which concerns others; over himself, his own mind and

spirit, the individual is supreme...

[Ludwig] Borne [the German journalist and outspoken liberal, 1786-1837]

writes that as soon as a child is born, its mother, wet nurse, father,

and governess surround it, and later its teachers, and then the

policeman and the state. The mother brings sugar, the wet nurse a fairy

tale, the governess a rod, the father a reproach, the teacher a cane,

and the state chains and the axe. And if the child shows any resistance,

it will be coaxed, harangued, or forced. Thus in childhood we become

like... a goose fattened for its liver. Everything is sacrificed to the

liver. We are locked in a stall, not able to move, so we grow fat; we

are force-fed moral corn, and we wheeze and nearly choke on morality,

erudition, and obedience; and then an old cook of a government paws us,

praises us, slaughters us, and uses our liver.... What does death find

to take in us! But death is a poor dog, nothing but bones its life

through-seldom does a whole person fall to him.

Asked what kind of government he preferred, [Pierre Joseph] Proudhon

[the French political reformer, 1809-1865] denied monarchy,

republicanism, democracy, constitutionalism, aristocracy, and a mixed

form. Asked, in desperation, "What are you then?" he said: "I am an

anarchist.”

Victor Drury [American anarchist, Most's contemporary] rightly argues

that freedom is the self-government (sovereignty) of the individual;

freedom is order and security, without which no freedom. Freedom means

the denial of all government, since it stands to reason that where

authority exists, oppression must also exist—and with it all kinds of

danger and disorder. It is not the word anarchy but the word government

that means the absence of order and security. The admirer of authority

would call that a paradox, but it is simply logical.

Otto Hotzen [German poet, 1830-1899] gets to the heart of things: A

temple piled high with corpses Slain to build the state- Who asks if

brick and mortar have feelings? The welfare of people is not a goal Of

founding fathers or of slave drivers. The state, that Moloch, devours

the people that "God" has made for this purpose.

Even Frederich Engels [Karl Marx's associate, 1820-1895] could not avoid

breaking a lance for anarchism: "The state is not an eternal verity.

There have been societies, finished in every way, but having no

suspicion of state and state-power. With us, at a certain level of

economic development, which was of necessity connected with the

splitting of society into classes, the state became a necessity because

of this splitting. We are rapidly nearing a stage of development of

production at which these classes are no longer not merely unnecessary

but are a hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they

rose. With them falls the state. The society that organizes production

on the basis of free and equal associations of producers, displaces

thereby the machinery of the state to where it belongs: the museum of

antiquity, beside the spinning wheel and the bronze axe."…

Pythagoras [the Greek philosopher and mathematician, fl. 540- 510 B.C.]

said: a people that needs laws does not deserve freedom.

Thomas Paine [the British crusader for democratic rights and American

patriot, 1737-1809] established the truth that a large part of what we

call government is nothing more than arrogance and effrontery. The

higher the civilization, the less reason for government, because

civilized people govern themselves. The Jaws society should follow are

the laws of nature, which require no human government. Whatever may seem

the cause of insurrections, the true cause is dissatisfaction. The

business of government, since the beginning, has been monopolized by the

ignoramus and the rogue.

In the papers of Richard Wagner [the German composer, conductor, and

author, 1813-1883] the following sentences occur: "Freedom means not to

suffer authority that is against our purpose and desire.... Only were we

to consider ourselves ignorant and without will could we believe useful

an authority that showed us the right thought and true purpose. To

tolerate an authority that we realize does not know and do right is

slavery.”

Wagner also says: only blockheads and people without will—those in

despair of character—can suffer domination (archy), while people of

sound mind and of strong will resist it.

[Percy Bysshe] Shelley [the British poet, 1792-1822] says: the true man

does not command or obey. Authority is a pestilence that devours

everything it touches. Obedience is the death of genius, virtue, truth,

freedom—obedience enslaves people—obedience is the true enemy of noble

deeds and makes automatons of body and soul.

Karl Hemzen [the German publicist, 1809-1880] maintains: “Yes, man alone

commits the crime called law, which in its perfection appears as penal

law. What is this law? Simply a stipulation of conditions under which a

person is to be imprisoned, exiled, or executed. Were an assembly of the

best people to consider these punishments as ways of securing society

against its worst enemies, these punishments would be exposed as

tyrannical arbitrariness or bloodthirsty barbarity; but they are

necessary and legal, under any conditions, when done in the name of the

"law," which the worst people have made. Within the law, no crime;

outside the law, no virtue. Be a monster and you can become a saint, if

the law does not affect you. The law alone labels behavior. Again, who

makes law? He who has the power to imprison and murder without danger of

reprisal, who orders and forbids, and rewards and punishes as he

pleases, which behavior he calls legal... he makes law. Law did not

create power, which law uses: power created law, and abuses it. At the

side of power stands religion, which crowns power, blesses law, and

curses crime. Unless basic changes are made, what if the doors of

prisons be opened, the blood of officials flow, the flames crackle? The

law will be carried out, crime atoned for, and divine order maintained

until a new prison be built, a new scaffold raised, and a new pyre

erected.”

We could fill a book with such citations, and prove that from time

immemorial every great mind has proclaimed anarchy. Is anyone,

therefore, narrowminded enough to be afraid of the ideal we call

anarchy?"