|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
There is a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference.[4][5] However, the varieties are not particularly well characterized and not all of them are mutually exclusive.[6] Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[7] Preferred economic systems are one of the many areas of disagreement for anarchists.[8]
OriginsPre-Nineteenth CenturyOpposition to the state and hierarchical authority had a long history prior to the formation of the anarchist movement in nineteenth century Europe. Some claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[9] though this is a controversial topic.[10] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[9] Anarchism in the modern sense, however, has its roots in the secular political thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[11] The word "anarchist" was originally used as a term of abuse, but by the French Revolution some groups such as the Enragés had started to use the term in a positive sense,[12] seeing the Jacobin concept of a "revolutionary government" as an oxymoron. It was in this political climate that William Godwin would develop his philosophy, which is considered by many to be the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[13] James Harrington in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) uses the term anarchy to describe a situation where the people use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of either solitary land ownership (absolute monarchy), or land in the ownership of a few (mixed monarchy). He distinguishes it from a commonwealth, the situation in which both land ownership and government are shared by the population at large, seeing anarchy as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government and the form of property relations. One may also look to the later 17th Century writings of John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, takes the state of nature to be a condition of "pure anarchy". Given Locke's relatively positive view of the state of nature, as a situation in which individuals can have extensive property rights, those sympathetic to his views may also see Locke as departing from the use of the term 'anarchy' as one of simple abuse. However, in view of Locke's justification of slavery and participation in the Royal African Company, many contemporary anarchists would eschew any such endorsement. William GodwinAccording to Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), was "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work."[9] Charles A. Madison writes, "The first modern systematic exponent of anarchism was William Godwin. . . . Strongly influenced by the sentiments of the French Revolution, he argued that since man is a rational being he must not be hampered in the exercise of his pure reason. Moreover, since all forms of government have irrational foundations and are consequently tyrannical in nature, they must be swept away."[14] However, as a philosophical anarchist he was opposed to revolutionary action to eliminate the state and saw a minimal state as a present "necessary evil"[15] that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.[16] Godwin advocated an extreme form of individualism, proposing that all sorts of cooperation in labor should be eliminated; he says: "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil."[17] Godwin felt that discrimination on any grounds besides ability was intolerable. Godwin is also well known for marrying the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. Their daughter, Mary Shelley, eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin's ideas. Later she achieved fame as the author of Frankenstein. Pierre-Joseph ProudhonImage:Proudhon-children.jpg Proudhon and his children, by Gustave Courbet, 1865 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label which he adopted in his 1840 treatise What is Property?. It is for this reason that some declare Proudhon the founder of modern anarchist theory.[18] He developed the theory of spontaneous order in society, whereby organization emerges without any central authority, a "positive anarchy" in which order arises from every individual "doing what he wishes and only what he wishes"[19] and where "business transactions alone produce the social order."[20] He saw anarchy as: a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune. His opposition to capitalism, the state, and organized religion inspired subsequent anarchists and made him one of the leading socialist theorists of his time.[22] However, he was also opposed to "communism, whether of the utopian or the Marxist variety, [the criticism being] that it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control over his means of production."[22] Like Godwin, Proudhon was a philosophical anarchist who opposed violent revolutionary action. Schools of Anarchist ThoughtMutualismWhile mutualism as a body of economic ideas began in English and French labor movements of the 18th century, it later took on an anarchist form mostly associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In his landmark book What is Property? (Qu'est-ce que la propriété?, published in 1840), he criticized existing theories of private property and expounded an economic theory based on a labor theory of value, stating that, "The price of every product in demand should be its cost in time and outlay — neither more nor less. . ." However, "every product not in demand is a loss to the producer — a commercial non-value."[23] According to Proudhon, "It is labor, labor alone, that produces all the elements of wealth... according to a law of variable, but certain, proportionality." He was also careful to advise, however, that "The value of labor is a figurative expression, an anticipation of effect from cause."[24] Mutualist economics is characterised by a dedication to free association, a democratically run mutualist bank, and voluntary contract/federation. Many mutualists believe that a market without government intervention would result in prices paid for labor aligning with its true worth, as determined by the labor theory of value, because firms would be forced to compete over workers just as workers compete over firms, which would raise wages.[25] As William B. Greene put it: Under the mutual system, each individual will receive the just and exact pay for his work; services equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost, without profit or discount; and so much as the individual laborer will then get over and above what he has earned will come to him as his share in the general prosperity of the community of which he is an individual member.[26] Proudhon's mutualism, introduced into the United States in 1848 by Charles A. Dana,[27] supplemented a native American form already worked out by Josiah Warren. Proudhon's mutualism was adapted to American conditions by Greene, who introduced it to Benjamin R. Tucker.[28] Unlike the American individualist anarchists, Proudhon emphasises associations amongst producers;[29] thus, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[30] This sense seems confirmed by the mutualists' own writings. In What Is Property?, Proudhon develops a concept of "liberty," equivalent to "anarchy," which is the dialectical "synthesis of communism and property."[31] Greene, influenced by Pierre Leroux, sought mutualism in the synthesis of three philosophies — communism, capitalism and socialism.[32] Although later individualist anarchists used the term mutualism to describe their economic philosophy, they retained little if any of this emphasis on synthesis. Economic mutualism is not to be confused with dyadic mutualism, which holds that intimate relationships are strongest when they involve creative collaboration.[33] Collectivist anarchismImage:Bakuninfull.jpg Mikhail Bakunin Collectivist anarchism is most commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin and the anti-authoritarian section of the First International (1864-1876). Unlike mutualists, collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized. Workers would be compensated for their work on the basis of the amount of time they contributed to production, rather than goods being distributed "according to need" as in anarcho-communism. By the early 1880s, most of the European anarchist movement had adopted an anarcho-communist position, advocating the abolition of wage labour and distribution according to need rather than labor, although the early anarchist movement in Spain is sometimes associated with collectivism. Although the collectivist anarchists advocated compensation for labor, they held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need.[34] Collective anarchism arose contemporary with Marxism but was opposed to it, despite Marxism striving for a collectivist stateless society, because of an opposition to the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.[35] Anarchist communismJoseph Déjacque was an early anarchist communist and the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".[36] Unlike Proudhon, he argued that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."[37] Other important anarchist communists include Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Errico Malatesta. Many in the anarcho-syndicalist movements (see below) saw anarchist communism as their objective. Isaac Puente's 1932 El comunismo libertario[38] was adopted by the Spanish CNT as its manifesto for a post-revolutionary society. Anarchist communists propose that a society composed of a number of self-governing communes with collective usage of the means of production, with direct democracy as the political organizational form, and related to other communes through federation would be the freest form of social organisation.[38] However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty in favor of consensus.[39] In anarchist communism, individuals would not receive direct compensation for labour (through sharing of profits or payment), but would instead have free, unregulated or unrestricted access to the resources and surplus of the commune.[40] Anarchist communists believe that the value of labor cannot be measured, since the value of every creation is relative to the creator, and the creation of all products is made possible by the labor of past generations. They believe everyone should be free to consume without the restraint of arbitrary measurement of the worth of their labor. Some commentators believe that this would require an essentially communitarian 'human nature', but, according to the view developed by Kropotkin and later by Murray Bookchin, the members of such a society will spontaneously perform all necessary labour because they will recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid. As a biologist, Kropotkin in particular, on the basis of his biology research and experiments, believed that humans and human society are more inclined towards efforts for mutual benefit than toward competition and strife.[41] Peter KropotkinPeter Kropotkin, often seen as the most important theorist of anarchist communism, outlined his economic ideas in The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops. Kropotkin felt that co-operation is more beneficial than competition, arguing in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that this was illustrated in nature. He advocated the abolition of private property through the "expropriation of the whole of social wealth" by the people themselves,[42] and for the economy to be co-ordinated through a horizontal network of voluntary associations[43] where goods are distributed according to the physical needs of the individual, rather than according to labor.[44] He further argued that these "needs," as society progressed, would not merely be physical needs but "[a]s soon as his material wants are satisfied, other needs, of an artistic character, will thrust themselves forward the more ardently. Aims of life vary with each and every individual; and the more society is civilized, the more will individuality be developed, and the more will desires be varied."[45] He maintained that, in anarcho-communism: ...houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished. Individuals and groups would use and control whatever resources they needed, as the aim of anarchist-communism was to place "the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."[47] He supported the expropriation of property to ensure that everyone would have access to what they needed without being forced to sell their labour to get it. We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation... He said that a "peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," and "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom" would not be interfered with,[49] arguing that "[t]he landlord owes his riches to the poverty of the peasants, and the wealth of the capitalist comes from the same source."[50] PlatformismPlatformism is a tendency within the wider anarchist communist movement which shares an affinity with organising in the tradition of Nestor Makhno's Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft). The Platform came from the experiences of Russian anarchists in the 1917 October Revolution, which lead eventually to the victory of Bolshevik party dictatorship rather than workers' and peasants' self-management. It argued for the "vital need of an organization which, having attracted most of the participants in the anarchist movement, would establish a common tactical and political line for anarchism and thereby serve as a guide for the whole movement."[51] Anarcho-syndicalismImage:Anarchist flag.svg Flag used by Anarcho-syndicalists. The early twentieth century saw the rise of anarcho-syndicalism as a distinct school of thought within the anarchist tradition. More heavily focused on the labour movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society that is democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Three important principles of syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. Anarcho-syndicalism and other communitarian branches of anarchism are not mutually exclusive: anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to communist or collectivist schools of anarchism. Its advocates propose labour organization as a means to create the foundations of a non-hierarchical anarchist society within the current system and bring about social revolution. Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labour in his 1938 pamphlet Anarchosyndicalism.[52] Although more frequently associated with labor struggles of the early twentieth century (particularly in France and Spain), many syndicalist organizations are active today. Individualist anarchismIndividualist anarchism is an anarchist philosophical tradition that has a strong emphasis on equality of liberty and individual sovereignty, drawing much from the tradition of classical liberalism.[14] Individualist anarchists believe that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority."[53] Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies; there are "several traditions of individualist anarchism."[54] EgoismMax Stirner was the author of a form of individualist anarchism called "Egoism." Stirner's "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."[55] In 1844, Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (sometimes translated as "The Individual and His Property") was published, which is considered to be "a founding text in the tradition of individualist anarchism."[55] Stirner held that society had no responsibility for its members.[56] Stirner believed that most commonly accepted social institutions — including the concept of the state, property as a right, natural rights, and the very notion of society — were mere illusions or ghosts in the mind, saying of society that "the individuals are its reality." He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism, in which individuals would unite in "associations of egoists" only when it was in their self interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." Stirner never called himself an anarchist; he accepted only the label "egoist". Nevertheless, he is considered by most to be an anarchist because of his rejection of the state, law, and government. Also, his ideas influenced many anarchists, although interpretations of his thought are diverse. Anarchists including Benjamin Tucker, Federica Montseny, and the Bonnot Gang claimed him as an influence, while Emma Goldman gave lectures on his thought.[57] 19th century United StatesImage:JosiahWarren.jpg Josiah Warren is generally considered "the first American anarchist." Individualist anarchism in the American tradition began with nineteenth century figures such as Josiah Warren, William B. Greene, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Victor Yarros, and Henry David Thoreau. The tradition is a form of philosophical anarchism, which does not recommend any violent revolutionary action for immediate elimination of the state. Thoreau's individualist anarchism proclaimed "the inevitability of self-government accompanied by atrophy of the State" and argued that the state had no power other than what individuals cede to it,[58] but included no practical program for social change. Other individualist anarchists pursued a more comprehensive theory and practice. Also known as the "Boston anarchists," the nineteenth century individualists supported private property and a free market,[59] also advocating that protection of liberty and property should be provided by private contractors voluntarily funded in a free market rather than by the state.[60] Victor Yarros explained the understanding of the word "anarchism" of the market anarchists such as Tucker, himself, and others: Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.[61] Unlike social anarchists anarchists, they supported the exchange of labor for wages. Benjamin Tucker said, "Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism."[62] (Note that "the meaning of the term [socialism] has changed with time" and Tucker's philosophy "cannot be considered collectivist in any politically meaningful sense,"[63]. Also, it has been debated whether the term should refer to state control.[64]). The nineteenth century individualists argued that the state prevents true free competition in the market,[65] which they thought caused labor to receive less income than it should receive. Benjamin Tucker supported the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer," as did Spooner. However, Spooner argued that "each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the latter case, a part of the fruits of his labor go to his employer, instead of coming to himself"[66] However, though Andrews held to the labor theory and believed that pay should be proportional to labor exerted, he disagreed that "every individual being so employed as to be his own 'boss' and to work solely for himself...is either desirable of feasible. It is not all men who are made for designers, contrivers, and directors."[67] To ensure that individuals self-employed or employed by others are paid in accordance with the labor theory, he, following Warren, advocated the use of money denominated in labor hours. Dyer Lum argued that a free market would see the end of wage labour by co-operatives.[68] They accepted a labor theory of value, believing that free-market competition would cause what they believed to be non-labor income (profit, rent and interest) to disappear. They believed that unregulated "free banking" and the use of local, mutual currencies would cause interest rates to decline to a nominal rate, as a result of intensified competition in lending. Benjamin Tucker, who was one of the most prominent individualist anarchists, opposed what he called four "monopolies": the money monopoly (state control over currency, credit, and banks); the land monopoly of land-titles that remained in effect if individuals were not using their land; patents, which prohibit competition; tariffs, which restrict competition in favor of established firms. There was also agreement among the early American individualists on the permissibility of employment ("wage labour").[69] Tucker believed that if the state stopped protecting these "monopolies" from competition that "it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines."[70] The nineteenth century individualists disagreed on various things, so there is not one philosophy of "individualist anarchism." For example, Spooner supported intellectual property rights[71] and permitted absentee ownership of land.[72] Steven T. Byington also opposed Tucker's ideas on occupancy and use requirements for land titles.[73] Several of these individualist anarchists later converted to the Egoist form of individualist anarchism, most associated with Max Stirner. After abandoning allegiance to natural rights individualism, Tucker said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." In regard to land he said, "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."[74] Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as private property anarchism or free-market anarchism[75]) is considered to be a form of individualist anarchism[76] that has a significant following in the United States.[77] Like their nineteenth century American predecessors, such as Benjamin Tucker, anarcho-capitalists would like for all services, including law enforcement and security, to be performed by multiple private providers all competing for business, rather than by a monopolist state agency funded by taxation. Anarcho-capitalism's leading proponents include Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Walter Block. It has been influenced by right-libertarians such as Gustave de Molinari, Frederic Bastiat, and Robert Nozick. Although anarcho-capitalism was also influenced by Tucker and Spooner,[78] it rejects their labor theory of value in favor of the modern neo-classical marginalist view. Thus, many anarcho-capitalists, like most modern economists, do not believe that prices in a free market are, or would be, proportional to labor (nor that "usury" or "exploitation" necessarily occurs where they are disproportionate). Anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard, being economics-inclined, believe that different prices of goods and services in a market, whether completely free or not, are ultimately the result of goods and services having different marginal utilities rather than the fact they contain differing amounts of labor - and that there is nothing unjust about this. Anarcho-capitalists also disagree with Tucker that interest would disappear with unregulated banking and money issuance. Rothbard believed that people in general do not wish to lend their money to others without compensation, so there is no reason why this would change where banking is unregulated (nor does he agree that unregulated banking would increase the supply of money).[79] Rothbard defined free-market capitalism as "peaceful voluntary exchange," in contrast to "state capitalism" which he defined as a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[80] Anarcho-capitalism has a theory of legitimacy that supports private property as long as it was obtained by labor, trade, or gift.[81] Anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer. David Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed."[82] Most anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of the institutionalized aggression carried on by the state, free capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop through natural market processes, and thus other forms of aggression would be diminished. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[83] Anarchism without adjectivesAnarchism without adjectives, in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, ... [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools".[84] It arose as the result of being troubled by the "bitter debates" between the different movements and was a call for more tolerance.[85] Anarchism without adjectives emphasizes harmony between various anarchist factions and attempts to unite them around their shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. The expression was coined by Cuban-born Fernando Tarrida del Mármol, who used it in November 1889 in Barcelona. To these anarchists, economic preferences are of secondary importance to abolishing all coercive authority. Rudolf Rocker, who was one of these anarchists, said that the different types of anarchism presented "only different methods of economy, the practical possibilities of which have yet to be tested, and that the first objective is to secure the personal and social freedom of men no matter upon which economics basis this is to be accomplished."[86] Voltairine de Cleyre was one of the most prominent "anarchists without adjectives". Although she initially identified herself as an individualist anarchist, she later espoused a collectivist form of anarchism,[87] while refusing to identify herself with any of the contemporary schools. She commented that "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom." In The Making of an Anarchist, she wrote, "I no longer label myself otherwise than as 'Anarchist' simply." However, she said that "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to." According to Sharon Presley and Crispin Sartwell: "Voltairine's plea for tolerance and cooperation among the anarchist schools strikes a contemporary note, making us realize how little things have changed. Factionalism rages yet, with fervent apostles still all too eager to read other tendencies (whether "anarcho-capitalist" or "anarcho-communist" or "green") out of the anarchist fold."[88] Errico Malatesta was another proponent of anarchism-without-adjectives, stating that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses."[89] Anarchism as a Social MovementIndividualist anarchism does not represent the majority of anarchists; most anarchists favor some form of communitarianism or collectivism.[90] Advocacy of collectivism and violent revolution dominated mainstream anarchism from the days of the First International until the destruction of anarchism as a mass movement at the end of the Spanish Civil War.[91] The First InternationalImage:Ait.jpg The masonic "level in a circle" as used by the Federal Council of Spain of the International Workingmen's Association. Note the inclusion of the plumb, one of the working tools of operative masonry, and a symbol of rectitude of conduct.[92] Karl Marx became a leading figure in the International and a member of its General Council. Proudhon's followers, the mutualists, opposed Marx's state socialism, advocating political abstentionism and small property holdings. Mikhail Bakunin joined in 1868, allying with the anti-authoritarian socialist sections of the International, who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the state and the collectivization of property. At first, the collectivists worked with the Marxists to push the First International in a more revolutionary socialist direction. Subsequently, the International became polarized into two camps, with Marx and Bakunin as their respective figureheads. Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as authoritarian and predicted that, if a Marxist party came to power, its leaders would simply take the place of the ruling class they had fought against.[93] In 1872, the conflict climaxed with a final split between the two groups, when, at the Hague Congress, Marx engineered the expulsion of Bakunin and James Guillaume from the International and had its headquarters transferred to New York. In response, the anti-authoritarian sections formed their own International at the St. Imier Congress, adopting a revolutionary anarchist program.[37] Anarchism and organized laborImage:CNT tu votar y ellos deciden.jpg CNT poster from April 2004. Reads: Don't let the politicians rule our lives/ You vote and they decide/ Don't allow it/ Unity, Action, Self-management. The anti-authoritarian sections of the First International were the precursors of the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to "replace the privilege and authority of the State" with the "free and spontaneous organization of labor."[94] The Confédération Générale du Travail (General Confederation of Labour, CGT), formed in France in 1895, was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement, but it had been preceded by the Spanish Workers Federation in 1881. Anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), founded in 1910. Before the 1940s, the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics and played a major role in the Spanish Civil War. The CNT was affiliated with the International Workers Association, a federation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions founded in 1922, with delegates representing two million workers from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America. The largest organised anarchist movement today is in Spain, in the form of the Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) and the CNT. CGT membership was estimated to be around 100,000 for the year 2003.[95] Other active syndicalist movements include the US Workers Solidarity Alliance and the UK Solidarity Federation. The revolutionary industrial unionist Industrial Workers of the World, claiming 2,000 paying members, and the International Workers Association, an anarcho-syndicalist successor to the First International, also remain active. The Russian RevolutionAnarchists participated alongside the Bolsheviks in both February and October revolutions, many anarchists initially supporting the Bolshevik coup. However, the Bolsheviks soon turned against the anarchists and other left-wing opposition, a conflict that culminated in the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion. Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned or driven underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks. In the Ukraine, anarchists fought in the civil war against Whites and then the Bolsheviks as part of the Makhnovshchina peasant army led by Nestor Makhno. Expelled American anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were amongst those agitating in response to Bolshevik policy and the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising, before they left Russia. Both wrote classic accounts of their experiences in Russia, aiming to expose the reality of Bolshevik control. For them, Bakunin's predictions about the consequences of Marxist rule[96] had proved all too true. The victory of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution and the resulting Russian Civil War did serious damage to anarchist movements internationally. Many workers and activists saw Bolshevik success as setting an example; Communist parties grew at the expense of anarchism and other socialist movements. In France and the US, for example, the major syndicalist movements of the CGT and IWW began to realign themselves away from anarchism and towards the Communist International. In Paris, the Dielo Truda group of Russian anarchist exiles, which included Nestor Makhno, concluded that anarchists needed to develop new forms of organisation in response to the structures of Bolshevism. Their 1926 manifesto, called the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft),[51] was supported by some communist anarchists, though opposed by many others. Platformist groups today include the Workers Solidarity Movement in Ireland and the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists of North America. The Fight Against FascismImage:CNT-armoured-car-factory.jpg Spain, 1936. Members of the CNT construct armoured cars to fight against the fascists in one of the collectivised factories. In the 1920s and 1930s, the familiar dynamics of anarchism's conflict with the state were transformed by the rise of fascism in Europe. Italy saw the first struggles between anarchists and fascists. Anarchists played a key role in the anti-fascist organisation Arditi del Popolo. This group was strongest in areas with anarchist traditions and marked up numerous successful victories, including driving back Blackshirts in the anarchist stronghold of Parma in August 1922.[97] In France, where the fascists came close to insurrection in the February 1934 riots, anarchists divided over a 'united front' policy.[98] In Spain, the CNT initially refused to join a popular front electoral alliance and abstention by CNT supporters led to a right wing election victory. But in 1936, the CNT changed its policy and anarchist votes helped bring the popular front back to power. Months later, the ruling class responded with an attempted coup, and the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was underway. In response to the army rebellion, an anarchist-inspired movement of peasants and workers, supported by armed militias, took control of Barcelona and of large areas of rural Spain where they collectivized the land. But even before the eventual fascist victory in 1939, the anarchists were losing ground in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists. The CNT leadership often appeared confused and divided, with some members controversially entering the government. According to George Orwell and other foreign observers, Stalinist-led troops suppressed the collectives and persecuted both dissident Marxists and anarchists. Since the late 1970s some anarchists have been involved in fighting the rise of neo-fascist groups. In Germany and the United Kingdom some anarchists worked within militant anti-fascist groups alongside members of the Marxist left. They advocated directly combating fascists with physical force rather than relying on the state. Since the late 1990s, a similar tendency has developed within US anarchism.[citation needed] Issues in anarchismEnds and meansGenerally, anarchists advocate direct action and oppose voting in elections. Most anarchists feel that real change is not possible through voting. Further, many argue that voting is equivalent to condoning the state,[99] while others advocate a more pragmatic approach, including voting in referendums.[100] Direct action may be violent or non-violent. Although some anarchists believe that violence is justified in overthrowing existing authority, most anarchists reject terrorism as authoritarian. Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta, for example, wrote of violence as necessary in revolutionary settings, but denounced terrorism as counter-revolutionary.[101] Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts, including riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism by some anarchists, as well as persistently negative media portrayals.[102] Some anarchists do not see the destruction of property as a violent act. Anarchists see war, however, as an activity in which the state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically and in foreign lands, and subscribe to Randolph Bourne's view that "war is the health of the state."[103] Many anarchists participate in subversive organizations as a means to undermine the establishment, such as Food Not Bombs, radical labor unions, alternative media, and radical social centers. This is in accordance with the anarchist concept of dual power: creating the structures for a new anti-authoritarian society in the shell of the old, hierarchical one. CapitalismMost anarchist traditions reject capitalism (which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative) along with the state. Free-market anarchists however, consider private property and markets essential to a free society.[104] Ninetenth century individualists such as Benjamin Tucker opposed socialization of the ownership of capital,[105] however he is not usually considered a capitalist. Market anarchists believe trade and private ownership of the means of production to be natural and spontaneous, and that its abolition would require a coercive state or private aggression. Thus elimination of capital and property is seen as counterproductive to anarchy.[citation needed] The ninteteenth century American individualist anarchists were "fervent anti-capitalists" who "saw no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."[106] However, these individualists did not have identical philosophies. Many, such as Benjamin Tucker supported private property arising from labor, including private ownership of the means of production with the caveat that land would not be considered owned if not in use. Lysander Spooner, however, supported private property in land as well whether in use or not.[107] They believed that individuals receiving an income without labor was exploitative of others. They called this "usury", which they said included rent that was greater than an amount to cover maintenance costs, interest, and profit from the labor of others. And, they thought that this "usury" would disappear in laissez-faire due to competitive pressures. Such individualist anarchists support free trade, free competition, and varying levels of private property, like in mutualism and homesteading.[14][108] Anarcho-capitalists support free-market capitalism without a state, which Murray Rothbard defines as "peaceful voluntary exchange" as opposed to state capitalism which he calls "violent expropriation."[109] Non-individualist anarchists, in contrast, follow Proudhon in opposing ownership of workplaces by capitalists and aim to replace wage labour with workers' associations. These anarchists agree with Kropotkin's comment that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society" lies in "the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society" rather than in simple opposition to the state or government.[110] They argue that wage labour is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature and, consequently, capitalism cannot be anarchist.[111] Such anarchists would agree with scholar Jeremy Jennings when he argues that it is "hard not to conclude that these ideas [i.e. anarcho-capitalism] -- with roots deep in classical liberalism -- are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is."'[112] In Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Peter Marshall argues that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. . . Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."[113] | |||||||||||||||||||
