The Finnish Bolshevik is Wrong About Anarchism Part 2: The State

According to the Finnish Bolshevik the Marxist perspective on the state is as follows,

The state is all the oppressive mechanisms like the police, the army and all that, secret police, intelligence service and then the bureaucracy which is needed to run things at this stage of development.”

“the state is the result of class society whether it be a society where the ruling class is the capitalist class or where the ruling class is the proletariat. When there’s no more class society, no more class conflicts, then we don’t need the state anymore.

The Finnish Bolshevik contrasts this Marxist analysis of the state with the anarchist analysis of the state. According to him anarchists,

say that the state is the root of all evil and that it should be abolished. This is incredibly naïve and denies class struggle. I’ve actually heard a very well known anarchist on youtube called anarchopac, who I actually have a lot of respect for, say that he stopped being a Marxist because anarchism supposedly offers a more in depth analysis than Marxism and dialectical materialism because anarchism according to him doesn’t restrict and reduce itself to only economics like he says that Marxism does, that anarchism doesn’t attribute inequality and all kinds of bad things to economic relations like Marxism does but to power relations.

This is actually completely backwards and not more in depth but much more simplistic. Power relations themselves don’t come from nowhere but are results of economic relations. . . Where do the bankers get their power? Do they just get their power magically and then they have money because of that? No. They have money and because of the money they have power. That’s wrong. Its not even just money. It’s the economic relations. Bankers control capital so they have power. Sure. Cops don’t control the economy but they serve the ruling class which gives them that power. Denying that social ills are the results of economic relations and saying they’re merely the result of power is denying the class nature of capitalist society, the class nature of the state, and denying class struggle itself.

Now we already know that anarchists deny the class nature of the state. The truth of the matter is though that states are controlled by people with class interests. States in themselves don’t do anything. This anarchist claim that states in themselves cause all problems helps the bourgeois in hiding the class nature of the capitalist state and propagating the myth that capitalist states represent the interests of all classes of society equally and not merely the interests of the capitalists. Anarchists and capitalists are ideologically the same boat here. They both deny the class nature of the state.

Elsewhere he expands on what he means by this,

When I said that anarchists deny the class nature of the state what I meant was that they see the state as such as being the root of all problems. You know, fascists believe in the state as such. Its generally a right wing conservative idea that the state is some kind of universal force which like goes beyond classes. There is no specific class nature of the state, that the state is some kinda power above classes that is a universal power for serving the interests of all classes. In typical anarchist fashion they take this right wing idea and they just turn it on its head. Traditional right wingers they say that the state is something objective, something that guards the interests of all classes. Anarchists, on the other hand, say that basically the total opposite of that. They say that the state is something that is bad in itself regardless of what class controls it. The state is some kind of independent force but instead of being an independent positive force its an independent negative force.

For the Finnish Bolshevik this way of thinking about the state leads to a false understanding of the USSR, China, Cuba and so on:

you guys think that the proletarian state and the capitalist state are the same thing. That is why you guys in your philosophical outlook are the same as right wingers.

The Finnish Bolshevik’s view can be summarized as follows: anarchists understand society in terms of power relations but fail to conceptualize the economic underpinnings of power. As a result, they ignore the class nature of the state and instead view it as an embodiment of power which exists independently of the economy and so of class society. This leads them to mistakenly think that, despite their different class character, workers’ states and capitalists’ states are the same since they are both embodiments of power. This negative evaluation of all states in turn reflects the false anarchist view that the state is the root of all problems in society.

The Finnish Bolshevik provides no textual evidence from anarchist authors to support this interpretation. His single source for this interpretation is two not very good videos I made several years ago called why I’m no longer a Marxist parts 1 and 2. I made the videos private once I realized that I was presenting a critique of a certain version of Marxism as a critique of Marxism as a whole. I re-watched the videos and I at no point say that we should ignore the economy and just talk about power. I at no point deny that many forms of oppression have an economic underpinning. I at no point say that the state isn’t connected to the economy or that the state is just an embodiment of power. I at no point deny the state’s role in reproducing class society. I actually barely talked about the state. All I said was that there are forms of domination, such as patriarchy, which cannot be reduced to or entirely explained by the structure of the economy. I then said that the problem with seizing state power is that the practice of exercising power over other people transforms the party leaders into tyrants concerned with preserving their power, rather than abolishing it. I would play a clip to prove this, but I find 18 year old me far too cringe inducing so you’re going to have to trust me.

The Finnish Bolshevik not only inaccurately represented what I thought but also inaccurately represented anarchist views on the state. To demonstrate this I will have to explain a) how anarchists define the state, b) what anarchists mean by the ruling class, and c) what anarchists think about really existing state socialist societies like the USSR. With this in place I shall show that anarchists do not consider the state to be the root of all problems in society.

Anarchist Definition of the State

The difficulty with explaining how anarchists define the state is that different anarchists use different terminology. Kropotkin sometimes distinguishes between government and the state and other times uses the terms as if they are equivalent. In some moods he says anarchism is self-government and in others says that anarchism is no-government. Malatesta, in comparison, thought that anarchists should speak of government rather than the state because the word state has many meanings that anarchists aren’t talking about. It is all very confusing. I will explain this in lots of detail in a future video. In this video I’m going to simplify things by only using the term state.

Anarchists generally define the state as a hierarchically and centrally organised institution which uses violence to reproduce class rule and is controlled by a ruling minority in their interests against the masses. Malatesta defines the state as “the aggregate of the governors”, such as “kings, presidents, ministers, members of parliament” who “have the power to make laws, to regulate the relations between men, and to force obedience to these laws.” In short, the power to force others to do as they, the minority of governors, wish. The state so understood is “the brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over the many” which in addition acts as “an instrument ordained to secure domination and privilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or inheritance, have taken to themselves all the means of life, and first and foremost the soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making them work for their advantage.” (Malatesta 2014, 113, 115)

For Kropotkin, the state is “the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses.” The state therefore “not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also . . . a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies . . . A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.” (Kropotkin 1993, 160) It’s important to note here that anarchists do not define the state exclusively in terms of its function as an instrument of class rule but instead argue that in order to be a state an institution must in addition to this have a particular organisational form – it must be hierarchical, centralized and controlled by a minority.

For both Kropotkin and Bakunin the modern state, as opposed to ancient states like Rome, first emerged in the 16th century. (Bakunin 2005, 9; Kropotkin 1995, 94) Over the next few centuries there was a process of “military, police, and bureaucratic centralization” which occurred in parallel with the development of capitalism. This is because, as Bakunin put it, “modern capitalist production and bank speculation require enormous centralized states, which alone are capable of subjecting the many millions of laborers to their exploitation.” (Bakunin 2005, 26, 13) Or as Kropotkin wrote, the modern state developed as “a society of mutual insurance between the landlord, the military commander, the judge, the priest, and later on the capitalist, in order to support each other’s authority over the people.” Given this, anarchists held that “the State, considered as a political power, State-Justice, the Church, and Capitalism are facts and conceptions which we cannot separate from each other. In the course of history these institutions have developed, supporting and reinforcing each other.” (Kropotkin 1995, 94)

The idea that the state reproduces class society in general and capitalism in particular permeates the writings of the classical anarchists. Bakunin, for example, claims that “[t]he State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses.” (Bakunin 1972, 256) Reclus likewise writes that “the present function of the state consists foremost of defending the interests of landowners and the “rights of capital,”” (Reclus 2013, 147) Malatesta argues that, “the landowners are able to claim that land and its produce as theirs and the capitalists are able to claim as theirs the instruments of labour and other capital created by human activity” because “the dominant class . . . has created laws to legitimize the usurpations that it has already perpetrated, and has made them a means of new appropriations.” (Malatesta 2005, 45) Berkman writes that, “the government needs laws, police and soldiers, courts and prisons to protect capitalism.” (Berkman 2003, 16) For Goldman “the State is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly.” (Goldman 1996, 51) I could go on and on.

The Finnish Bolshevik is therefore entirely wrong to claim that anarchists ignore the class nature of the state. Far from ignoring it anarchists hold that one of the defining aspects of the state is its role in reproducing class rule and serving the interests of the capitalist class.

Who are the Ruling Classes?

Anarchists do not, however, think that capitalists are the only class which composes the ruling class. According to the modern anarchist theorist and historian Lucian van der Walt the ruling class is composed of two groups: economic elites “who own or control the means of production through private (and state) companies”, such as the CEO of Apple or the top managers of state owned companies like China Tobacco, and political elites “who own or control the means of administration and coercion, mainly through the state apparatus” such as generals, politicians, ministers and high ranking civil servants. Given this, the power of the ruling class “rests on two institutions that centralize power and wealth so that this minority can rule the majority, the popular classes. And these two institutions are the corporation and the state, which share the basic features of top-down rule by and for an elite, exploitation of workers, the priority of ruling class interests.” (van der Walt 2016, 257) This is not a new perspective in anarchist theory. Malatesta argued in 1897 that while “the State is the defender, the agent, and the servant of the propertied class” it “also constitutes a class by itself, with its own interests and passions. When the State, the Government, is not helping the propertied to oppress and rob people, it oppresses and robs them on its own behalf.” (Malatesta 2016, 213) Political elites “constitute a class” who “are to politics as property-owning classes are to economics.” (Malatesta 2016, 123)

Given that the state is a hierarchically and centrally organized institution wielded by a political elite in their interests it follows that, to quote Bakunin, the state “is placed by its very nature and position above and outside the people and must inevitable work to subordinate the people under rules and for objectives foreign to them.” (Bakunin 2016, 15) Or as Bakunin writes elsewhere, states “are in essence only machines governing the masses from above, through . . . a privileged minority, allegedly knowing the genuine interests of the people better than the people themselves.” (Bakunin 1964, 211) As a result, “the State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class” and eventually a “bureaucratic class”. (Bakunin 1972, 318)

Anarchist Analysis of USSR etc

This leads us to the anarchist analysis of state socialist societies like the USSR, China and Cuba. Most anarchists argue that these societies were not in fact socialist but were instead state capitalist. They do so for the following reasons. Anarchists view capitalism as an economic system based on a division between capitalists – who own the means of production and direct the productive process – and workers – who do not own the means of production and must engage in work as instructed by the capitalist. Socialism, in contrast, is understood as a society in which this division is collapsed. Workers both own the means of production and direct the productive process themselves.

Given these definitions, socialism cannot in practice be achieved through the state. The state is a hierarchically and centrally organization institution ruled by a political elite. If the state becomes the owner and manager of the economy then the economy will in practice be owned and managed by the elite who controls the state. The elite may proclaim that the working class are the ruling class and that the means of production are collectively owned but this is false. The state owns the means of production and the state is ruled by the self-proclaimed leaders or representatives of the working class, rather than by the working class themselves. This contradiction between rhetoric and reality is similar to how under Western representative democracies politicians claim that they represent and serve the people when they actually represent and serve the rich and powerful.

State socialist economies therefore rest on the same capitalist division between those who own and command and those who do not own and obey. The rulers of the state, such as the USSR’s central committee, politburo and general secretary, perform the same role as that of the capitalist: owning and managing the economy. Under market capitalism the economic elite and the political elite are largely two separate groups that exercise power through two distinct institutions – the corporation and the state. Under state capitalism the economic elite and political elite exercise power through the same institution – the state – and are frequently the same group of people. Market capitalism and state capitalism are not the exact same economic system but they do share an important common characteristic: a ruling minority who economically oppress the working class through hierarchical and centralized institutions based on relationships of command and obedience.

This perspective can be seen throughout anarchist discussions of state socialism. According to Bakunin the leaders of the communist party will “create a single state bank, concentrating in their own hands all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific production, and will divide the people into two armies, one industrial and one agrarian, under the direct command of state engineers, who will form a new privileged scientific and political class.” (Bakunin 2005, 181) Kropotkin wrote that anarchists “cannot look upon the coming revolution as a mere substitution of . . . the State as the universal capitalist for the present capitalists.” (Kropotkin 1995, 106) Elsewhere Kropotkin concluded that,

to hand over to the State all the main sources of economical life—the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on—as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, State-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. (Kropotkin 2014, 165)

Malatesta similarly wrote that,

Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master over the consumer. This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free agreement among the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical. (Malatesta 2015, 138)

The consequence of this is that a dictatorship of the proletariat that was institutionalized through the state would in reality “be the dictatorship of “Party” over people, and of a handful of men over “Party””. (Malatesta 2016, 27)

If a self-proclaimed workers’ state was based on the workers’ themselves directly owning the means of production and collectively organising the economy in particular and society in general then it would not be a state in the anarchist sense of the word. This is because it would be based on the collective self-determination of the majority, rather than minority rule. Bakunin makes this very clear in Statism and Anarchy. He writes,

What does it mean, “the proletariat raised to a governing class?” Will the entire proletariat head the government? The Germans number about 40 million. Will all 40 million be members of the government? The entire nation will rule, but no one will be ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no state; but if there is a state, there will also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves. (Bakunin 2005, 178)

We can now see how misleading the Finnish Bolshevik’s claims are. Anarchists do not ignore the different class character of workers’ states and capitalist states because they view the state as an embodiment of power that exists independently of the economy. Anarchists actually argue that these workers’ states were workers’ states in name only because they were controlled by a ruling class of economic and political elites, rather than by the workers themselves. From the anarchist perspective their rejection of really existing state socialism is based on an accurate understanding of the class nature of these states and of the relationship between these states and the economy they controlled and the working class that they oppressed along both economic and political dimensions. Anarchists do not ignore what class controls the state but instead point out that the working class do not.

The Finnish Bolshevik might respond to this by arguing that the anarchist characterization of really existing state socialist societies is historically inaccurate. Doing so would entirely miss my point. All I am arguing here is that the Finnish Bolshevik inaccurately portrayed anarchist views on the state, not that the anarchist views are themselves accurate. That is a separate question.

Is the State the Root of All Problems?

We can now turn to whether or not anarchists think that the state is the root of all problems. The short answer is: no. Anarchists consider the root of social problems to be oppressive hierarchical social relationships and argue that two of the most damaging hierarchical social structures are capitalism and the state. Importantly, they hold that these two social structures are inter-connected with one another because capitalism relies upon the state to reproduce itself. This can be seen in Kropotkin’s claim that,

anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the State was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolise the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the State, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the State altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.(Kropotkin 2014, 164)

The great importance that anarchists placed on abolishing capitalism can be seen in the fact that the first point of Malatesta’s anarchist programme of 1899 was the “[a]bolition of private property in land, in raw materials and the instruments of labour, so that no one shall have the means of living by the exploitation of the labour of others”. It is only after this point that Malatesta calls for the “[a]bolition of government and of every power which makes the law and imposes it on others”. (Malatesta 2014, 281) If anarchists, as the Finnish Bolshevik claimed, viewed the state as the root of all problems then surely Malatesta would not have done this.

Nor do anarchists limit themselves to critiquing capitalism and the state. For Goldman “while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life – individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.” (Goldman 1996, 64) Kropotkin likewise argued that anarchists held “that the whole of the life of human societies, everything, from daily individual relationships between people to broader relationships between races across oceans, could and should be reformulated.” (Kropotkin 2014, 197-8) Historically this led anarchists to critique such things as organized religion, authoritarian schools, sexism, racism and homophobia.

In the modern anarchist movement combating patriarchy, queerphobia, ableism and racism has taken on an even greater importance than it did historically. Modern anarchists will place special emphasis on the way that these forms of oppression interact with and are perpetuated by capitalism and the state but they will not reduce them to capitalism and the state. Instead they will focus on the specific character of these forms of hierarchical social relationships and the specific mechanisms through which they are reproduced. Patriarchy, for example, is perpetuated through socialization into gender roles, the enforcement of the gender binary, and the subordination of women, trans and non-binary people. The state plays an important role in reproducing patriarchy, such as the Tory government in the UK cutting funding to domestic abuse shelters or the police victim blaming women who are raped, but the state is not the main cause of patriarchy. This way of theorizing makes zero sense if anarchists view the state as the root of all problems. The Finnish Bolshevik is once again entirely wrong.

Conclusion

I hope that listeners are noticing a pattern here. The Finnish Bolshevik says things about anarchism that are false and does so with a huge amount of confidence, despite providing zero textual evidence for his interpretation. This is all the more worrying when one considers that many of the points I’m making have already been made at length in the anarchist faq. I do not have a problem with Marxists critiquing anarchism. I merely wish that Marxists would first gain an accurate understanding of anarchism before they decided to try and critique it. To not do so is to lack basic intellectual integrity.

Bibliography

Bakunin, Michael. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism. Edited by G.P. Maximoff. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.

Bakunin, Michael. Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

Bakunin, Michael. Statism and Anarchy. Edited by Marshall Shatz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Bakunin, Michael. Bakunin: Selected Texts 1868-1875. Edited by A W Zurbrugg. London: Merlin Press, 2016.

Berkman, Alexander. What Is Anarchism? Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2003.

Goldman, Emma. Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader. Edited by Alix Kates Shulman. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1996.

Malatesta, Errico. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2014.

Malatesta, Errico. Life and Ideas: The Anarchist Writings of Errico Malatesta. Edited by Vernon Richards. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2015.

Malatesta, Errico. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2016.

Reclus, Élisée. Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: Selected Writings of Élisée Reclus. Edited by John Clark and Camille Martin. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013.

Kropotkin, Peter. Fugitive Writings. Edited by George Woodcock. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1993.

Kropotkin, Peter. Evolution and Environment. Edited by George Woodcock. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1995.

Kropotkin, Peter. Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology. Edited by Iain McKay. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2014.

Walt, Lucien van der. “Alternatives From the Ground Up: Globalization School Input on Anarchism/Syndicalism and (Black) Working Class Self-Emancipation in Postapartheid South Africa.” WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labour and Society 19, no. 2 (2016).

 

Advertisements

The Finnish Bolshevik is Wrong About Anarchism Part 1: Bakunin and Freedom

Introduction

One of the dangers of the internet is that people who don’t know what they’re talking about can make videos on any subject and be believed by their fans simply because they said it with enough confidence. Viewers rarely fact check youtubers and so as youtubers we have a responsibility to seriously research a topic before we make a video on it. I know that in the past I made the mistake of making videos having not done enough research, such as the videos on Marxism I made in 2013 which I deleted once I’d realised my errors.

A youtuber who has decided to talk about anarchism despite neither understanding it or having done enough research is the Finnish Bolshevik. In this video I shall be responding to what he says about Bakunin and freedom. According to the Finnish Bolshevik,

Bakunin is one of the craziest people out there. Nothing much that is of any value in Bakunin really.

Bakunin certainly didn’t like the dictatorship of the proletariat. He didn’t want worker government. So here’s Bakunin in statism and anarchy: “They say that such a yoke – dictatorship is a transitional step towards achieving full freedom for the people: anarchism or freedom is the aim, while state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses of people, they have first to be enslaved!”

. . . As you can see from the rhetoric here anarchism is not about welfare of the people, its not about ending exploitation, its not about collective ownership. Most of all its about individual freedom. That’s what its really about.

The Finnish Bolshevik has provided no argument here. He has provided no substantial textual evidence to support his highly un-orthodox reading of Bakunin. He has merely read a quote in which Bakunin places an emphasis on freedom and on the basis of this asserted that Bakunin only really cares about freedom and does not care about or does not place importance on the welfare of the people, ending exploitation or the collective ownership of the means of production. This reading of Bakunin is entirely false. To explain why I will have to provide a detailed overview of Bakunin’s value system.

Bakunin’s Value System

The three core values of Bakunin’s anarchism are freedom, equality and solidarity. For Bakunin these three values are inter-connected. You cannot have one without the other two. He writes, for example, that freedom can “only be realised by means of society and through the strictest equality and solidarity of each and everybody.” (Bakunin 1973, 149) What then did Bakunin mean by freedom, equality and solidarity? I shall discuss each in turn.

Bakunin defined freedom as having two components: freedom as self-determination and freedom as the development of oneself as a human. This can be seen clearly in Bakunin’s statement that,

by freedom we mean, on the one hand, the fullest possible development of all the natural faculties of each individual, and, on the other, [the individual’s] independence — not vis-à-vis natural and social laws, but vis-à-vis all the laws imposed by other human wills, whether collective or isolated. (Quoted in McLaughlin 2002, 17)

Bakunin consistently refers to these two aspects of freedom throughout his writing. He speaks of freedom as self-determination when he claims that,

Freedom is the absolute right of every adult man and woman to seek no other sanction for their acts than their own conscience and their own reason, being responsible first to themselves and then to the society which they have voluntarily accepted. (Bakunin 1972, 76)

He refers to freedom as human development when he writes that,

I am a fanatical lover of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind may develop and increase. . . the freedom which consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers which are found in the form of latent capabilities in every individual. (Bakunin 1973, 196)

For Bakunin freedom so understood is inherently social. He writes,

Man completely realizes his individual freedom as well as his personality only through the individuals that surround him, and thanks to the labor and the collective power of society. . . Society far from decreasing his freedom, on the contrary creates the individual freedom of all human beings. Society is the root, and liberty is its fruit. (Bakunin 1972, 236)

Bakunin’s reason for thinking this is that it is society which provides people with the real possibility to lead self-determining lives in which they develop themselves. In order for society to do so it must be egalitarian and based on relationships of solidarity.

Bakunin distinguishes between “political equality” and “economic and social equality”. (Bakunin 1973, 76). By political equality he means the “[c]omplete equality of political rights for all men and all women”. (Bakunin 1973, 66) For Bakunin this includes the right to self-determine one’s own life and not be subject to domination by others. This can be seen when he refers to, “my human right, which consists in not obeying any other man and behaving only in accordance with my own convictions”. (Bakunin 1973, 148) A society based on political equality would be one in which each individual is free “to enjoy the utmost possible liberty” but lacks “the power to set himself above others or to dominate them, except through the natural influence of his own intellectual or moral qualities, which must never be allowed either to convert itself into a right or to be backed by any kind of political institution.” (Bakunin 1973, 153) In other words, everybody would be equally free to self-determine their lives but would not be free to violate the freedom of others, especially through hierarchical social structures.

A society organised according to political equality would be one in which each individual belonged to a community of equals who formed a horizontal, rather than a hierarchical, association. This is because if individuals live in groups and if each individual has an equal right to self-determine their life then it follows that when a group makes decisions they must do so collectively and each individual must have an equal say in decisions which affect them. As Bakunin says, “[o]rder in society must be the outcome of the greatest possible development of all local, collective and individual liberties” The consequence of this is that “[t]he political and economic organization of society must . . . not flow downwards, from high to low, and outwards, from centre to circumference, as it does today on the principle of unity and enforced centralization, but upwards and inwards, on the principle of free association and free federation.” (Bakunin 1973, 65)

This takes us to social and economic equality. Bakunin defines social equality as “equality at the outset”, or in other words, equality of opportunity. Bakunin thinks that society should be structured such “that each human individual born into it may find . . .  equal means for his development from infancy and adolescence to coming of age, first in upbringing and education, then in the exercise of the various capacities with which each is endowed by nature.” (Bakunin 1973, 76-7) Equality of opportunity is essential for individual freedom because without it each individual will lack the resources they need to develop themselves, such as having enough food or access to a dance teacher.

In order for there to be social equality Bakunin thought that there had to be economic equality by which he meant the communal ownership and management of the means of production. Bakunin writes, “equality must be established in the world by the spontaneous organization of work and of the collective ownership of producers’ associations, freely organized and federated into communes, and by the equally spontaneous federation of these communes, but not by the overriding and enslaving activity of the state.” (Bakunin 1973, 197) By spontaneous Bakunin doesn’t mean that this will just appear out of nowhere and happen. Nor does he mean that it will occur without conscious planning or organisation. He means that it will be a product of voluntary co-operation and collective self-determination, rather than being imposed on people by an external authority.

This advocacy of collective ownership is not a one-off occurrence. Bakunin advocates it throughout his writings. In 1868 Bakunin states that, “instruments of labour, land and all forms of capital should become the collective property of society, as a whole, and should be used only by workers, that is to say by industrial and agricultural associations.” (Bakunin 2016, 34) In 1869 Bakunin explains that the “full emancipation of labour and of labourers” requires “the creation of collective property”. Collective property is according to Bakunin “the absolute precondition for real, universal equality, for freedom, justice and meaningful fraternity.” (Bakunin 2016, 36)

In Appendix B of the Marshall Shatz edition of Statism and Anarchy, the book which the Finnish Bolshevik quotes from, Bakunin proclaims that the

[a]bolition of the state, the right of property, and the juridical family alone will make possible the organization of popular life from below upward, on the basis of collective labor and property . . . This will be achieved by means of the completely free federation of separate individuals into associations or autonomous communes . . . and the federation of communes into nations and of nations into humanity. (Bakunin 2005, 219)

The idea that Bakunin does not advocate, value or place importance on collective ownership is therefore entirely false. One of the main reasons why Bakunin advocates the collective ownership of the means of production was that it would end the domination and exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. He writes,

Have you understood that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and that this is the inevitable consequence of their respective economic positions? That the prosperity of the bourgeois class is incompatible with workers’ freedom and well-being, because the particular wealth of the bourgeoisie exists and can be based only on the exploitation and servitude of labour; and that for this reason, the prosperity and the human dignity of the working masses demands the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a distinct class. And that in consequence the war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is a matter of life and death, and it can end only with the destruction of the former? (Bakunin 2016, 43)

In this passage Bakunin not only advocates the abolition of exploitation but also clearly argues that a capitalist economy damages the wellbeing, and so welfare, of the working class. Elsewhere he argues that a socialist economy would promote human wellbeing. He claims that the socialist revolution aims to “ensure that all who are born on this earth become fully human in the fullest sense of the word, that all should have not just the right but the means necessary to develop their faculties, to be free and happy, in equality and through fraternity!” (Bakunin 2016, 100) Note the explicit reference to happiness. In another passage he writes that, “I am a convinced supporter of economic and social equality, because I know that, outside that equality, freedom, justice, human dignity, morality, and the well-being of individuals, just as much as the prosperity of nations, will never be anything but lies.” (Bakunin 1973, 197)

For Bakunin freedom and equality as actually existing social phenomena are maintained over time by relations of solidarity between human beings. By solidarity Bakunin meant individuals co-operating with one another in pursuit of a common goal and forming reciprocal caring relationships in which they preserve the freedom and equality of one another. This can be seen in Bakunin’s statement that “solidarity” is “the confirmation and realization of all liberty, drawing its strength not from any political law but from man’s own collective nature, according to which no man is free if all the men around him and all those who have the slightest influence on his life are not equally free.” (Bakunin 1973, 259-60) Bakunin understood that a free life is a life in which we are positively connected with other humans. For me to view myself as a self-determining human is for others to treat me as one. For me to develop myself as a human is for others to help, teach, support and encourage me. Bakunin writes,

Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection, for the liberty of any individual is nothing more or less than the reflection of his humanity and his human rights in the awareness of all free men — his brothers, his equals. (Bakunin 1973, 147)

The Finnish Bolshevik’s claim that Bakunin values individual freedom is therefore highly misleading to the uninitiated. It suggests that Bakunin thinks of freedom in terms of isolated individuals who are separated from other people. Yet, as I have shown, Bakunin thinks that in order to be free an individual must be immersed within friendly social relations with other humans, such as having loving friends or belonging to a highly connected community.

Conclusion

I hope the listener now has a better understanding of what Bakunin actually thought. With everything I’ve just said in mind lets re-listen to what the The Finnish Bolshevik had to say:

anarchism is not about welfare of the people, its not about ending exploitation, its not about collective ownership. Most of all its about individual freedom. That’s what its really about.

We can now see just how wrong this statement is. Bakunin clearly cared about human wellbeing and advocated the abolition of exploitation and the establishment of collective ownership of the means of production. Bakunin clearly held that individual freedom was inherently social and that it could only be realised in and through a free society. The Finnish Bolshevik talks as if caring about these things is in some sense in opposition to or in tension with caring about freedom. But for Bakunin we should care about these things precisely because we care about freedom.

Things are, however, much worse than they appear. We might forgive the Finnish Bolshevik for not having read enough Bakunin but he cannot be forgiven for failing to read the source that he himself cites. The Finnish Bolshevik has clearly not read the entirety of Statism and Anarchy. I know this because there is only one complete edition of the book available in English and the sentence he quotes uses a different translation. The translation that the Finnish Bolshevik relies upon is Sam Dolgoff’s translation, which is publicly available on the Marxist internet archives. In the extracts which Dolgoff translates Bakunin explicitly critiques exploitation and argues that in order to be both free and happy the working class must self-manage society through workers’ councils. Bakunin writes,

Modern capitalist production and bank speculation inexorably demand enormous centralization of the State, which alone can subject millions of workers to capitalist exploitation. Federalist organization from the bottom upward, of workers’ associations, groups, communes, cantons [counties], regions, and finally whole peoples, is the sole condition for true, non-fictitious freedom, but such freedom violates the interests and convictions of the ruling classes, just as economic self-determination is incompatible with their methods of organization.

He continues,

The exploitation of human labor cannot be sugar-coated even by the most democratic form of government … for the worker it will always be a bitter pill.

He also says that,

We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.

Given this, the Finnish Bolshevik is either deliberately misrepresenting Bakunin, or has not actually read the text which he quotes from, or, and I think this is most likely, decided to make a video having not re-checked if the source he read a while ago actually supports his conclusions. Either way it doesn’t look very good, especially when we consider how strongly and confidently he stated his inaccurate understanding of Bakunin.

Bibliography

Bakunin. Michael. 1972. Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff. Vintage Books.
Bakunin, Michael. 1973. Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings. Edited by Arthur Lehning. London: Jonathan Cape.
Bakunin, Michael. 2005. Statism and Anarchy. Edited by Marshall Shatz. Cambridge University Press.
Bakunin, Michael. 2016. Bakunin: Selected Texts 1868-1875. Edited by A W Zurbrugg. London: Anarres Editions
McLaughlin, Paul. 2002. Mikhail Bakunin: The Philosophical Basis of His Anarchism. New York: Algora Publishing.

August Reinsdorf – The Unsuccessful Anarchist Terrorist

One of the most unsuccessful terrorists in history is the German anarchist August Reinsdorf. Reinsdorf’s first plot was to dig a tunnel under the Reichstag, plant explosives at the buildings few supports and ignite them while the Reichstag was in session. Reinsdorf made the mistake of explaining his plan in a letter dated September 1st 1880 to his associate Johann Most, a German anarchist who at the time lived in London and edited the anarchist journal Freiheit. Oskar Neumann, a spy living in London, heard of the plan and subsequently informed the Berlin police. Reinsdorf was arrested on the 14th November while carrying a long dagger near the home of the Berlin chief of police, Guido von Madai, who he likely planned to assassinate. (Carlson 1972, 285)

Despite this initial failure Reinsdorf decided to undergo a second attempt at blowing up Germany’s ruling classes. As he explained in an 1882 letter to an American comrade only the bomb could “inject the whole bourgeoisie and their slaves with total terror” and achieve “complete and utter revenge” “for all the dirty tricks and atrocities” they committed. (Quoted in Linse 1982, 210) This time Reinsdorf and his associates in the town of Elberfeld planned to use dynamite to kill Wilhelm I, alongside many other key members of the German ruling classes, at the inauguration of the Niederwald Monument on the 28th September 1883.

Due to a sprained ankle Reinsdorf was unable to go himself and two of his associates, the saddler Franz Rupsch and the compositor Emil Küchler, went in his place. The day before the event they concealed the dynamite in a drainage pipe which lay underneath the only road leading to the monument and attached a fuse that they led to a nearby tree. The next day Küchler saw the Emperor’s party approaching and gave the signal to Rupsch to ignite the fuse. The fuse, however, failed to burn as it was soaking wet after a night of heavy rain fall. Küchler had been instructed by Reinsdorf to buy a waterproof fuse but had decided to purchase the slightly cheaper normal fuse instead.

After their initial failure Rupsch and Küchler decided to make a second attempt. They moved the dynamite to the nearby town of Rüdesheim and placed the explosives against a wall of the Festhalle where an evening concert was being given. Unknown to them the hall was full of local civilians with the Emperor and his party having gone to the city of Wiesbaden. They ignited the dynamite which blew a hole in the wall of the kitchen. The explosion shattered glass and blew food and wine across the kitchen into the caterer Porsberger. The explosion was so loud that the bartender Johann Lauter was unable to hear for several hours. Fortunately, nobody was killed by the explosion. Realising their total failure Rupsch and Küchler returned to Elberfeld.

On the 29th October an explosion severely damaged the Frankfurt Police Headquarters, which was unoccupied at the time. In reaction the police, despite lacking evidence, arrested Reinsdorf in January and his associates over the course of the next few months in connection with this attack. By December Reinsdorf and his group were on trial for the attempted assassination of the Emperor in Nielderwald and the following bombing of the Festhalle in Rüdesheim, the news of the plot having been publicly announced on the 24th April 1884. It turned out that one of Reinsdorf’s associates, the weaver Carl Palm who had donated 40 marks towards Rupsch and Küchler’s travel expenses, was in fact a police spy and had been informing on the group from the very beginning.

During the trial Reinsdorf actively sought to become an anarchist martyr and went to great lengths to antagonize the jury. He claimed that “the quickest death” was best for a “hunted proletarian” like himself and that if he had ten heads he would gladly lay them all on the block for the cause of anarchism. He went so far as to exclaim that “[t]he people will one day have enough dynamite to blow up all of you and every other member of the bourgeois.” In uttering these words Reinsdorf was trying very hard to secure an execution. The reason being that he was terminally ill and would die anyway. His choice was between a slow death in a hospital bed or a quick death on the executioner’s block. As he said in his last letter to his parents, “Sick as I am, and with a prospect of long suffering, it should be looked upon as a blessing when such an existence is put to a quick death.”

On the morning of February 7th 1885 Reinsdorf and Küchler were executed, with Rupsch having had his death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life. Reinsdorf’s last words before he was decapitated were “I die for humanity, down with barbarism, long live anarchism.” The last words of Küchler, in contrast, were “I die an innocent man, my poor wife, my poor children.” As he said children his head was cut off. The execution lasted a mere fifteen minutes. (Carlson 1972, 288-301)

Although many may wish to consider Reinsdorf an anarchist martyr it should be kept in mind that his plots caused a significant amount of harm to the German socialist movement. Bismarck deliberately ensured that Reinsdorf’s assassination plot against the Emperor was revealed just as the anti-socialist laws, which banned socialists from organising, outlawed trade unions, and shut down socialist newspapers, were up for renewal. The laws were consequently extended in May 1884. (Carlson 1972, 293) Nor did Reinsdorf personally adhere to anarchist principles since he was caught raping a ten year old girl in 1881. After running away from the police and going into hiding he was eventually ruled innocent by a judge because the witnesses, the victim and her mother, were deemed to be unreliable. Reinsdorf is therefore one among many men on the left who has gotten away with sexual violence because women are not believed. (Carlson 1972, 286)

Bibliography

Carlson, Andrew. 1972. Anarchism in Germany, Volume 1: The Early Movement. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Linse, Ulrich. 1982. “‘Propaganda by Deed’ and ‘Direct Action’: Two Concepts of Anarchist Violence” in Mommson, Wolfgang J and Hirschfeld, Gerhard (eds) Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth century Europe, 201-229. London: The Macmillan Press.

What Do Anarchists Think About Animal Liberation?

Anarchism aims for a society free from oppression and domination. These values have in turn led many anarchists to become vegetarians and vegans, or, at the very least, advocate improved animal welfare. The Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, for example, claimed that “civilized man . . . will extend his principles of solidarity to the whole human race, and even to the animals.” (Kropotkin, 1993, 136) This view was most consistently and fully articulated by the French anarchist and geographer Elisée Reclus, who wrote against the oppression of animals by humans as early as 1896 and 1901.

For Reclus, meat eating rests on a simultaneous process of violence against and degradation of non-human animals. He writes,

Today’s domestication of animals exhibits in many ways moral regression since, far from improving animals, we have deformed and corrupted them. Although through selective breeding we have improved qualities such as strength, dexterity, scent, and speed in racing, as meat-eaters our major preoccupation has been to increase the bulk of meat and fat on four legs to provide walking storehouses of flesh that hobble from the manure pile to the slaughterhouse. Can we really say that the pig is superior to the wild boar or the timid sheep to the courageous mouflon? The great art of breeders is to castrate their animals and create sterile hybrids. They train horses with the bit, whip, and spur, and then complain that the animals show no initiative. Even when they domesticate animals under the best possible conditions, they reduce their resistance to disease and ability to adapt to new environments, turning them into artificial beings incapable of living spontaneously in free nature.

Such degradation of species is itself a great evil, but civilized science goes even further and sets about exterminating them. We have seen how many birds have been wiped out by European hunters in New Zealand, Australia, Madagascar, and the polar archipelagos, and how many walruses and other cetaceans have already disappeared! The whale has fled the waters of the temperate zone, and soon will not even be found among the ice shields of the Arctic Ocean. All the large land animals are similarly threatened. We already know the fate of the aurochs and the bison, and we can foresee that of the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the elephant. (Reclus 2013, 134-5)

This mistreatment of other animals is itself symptomatic of how people destroy the natural environment in order to meet their own ends. Reclus writes,

Isn’t this moreover the way that we act in relation to all of nature? Let loose a pack of engineers in a charming valley, in the midst of meadows and trees, or on the banks of a beautiful river, and you will soon see what they are capable of doing to it. They will do everything in their power to make their own work conspicuous and hide nature under piles of gravel and coal. They will be quite proud to see the sky crisscrossed by streaks of filthy yellowish or black smoke from their locomotives. (Reclus 2013, 158)

The violent and non-caring treatment of non-human animals in turn acts as a foundation for violence against fellow humans. Reclus asks how Europeans who committed atrocities when crushing the Boxer Rebellion in China came to be “wild beasts with human faces who take pleasure in tying Chinese people together by their clothing and pigtails and then throwing them into a river? How is [it] possible for them to finish off the wounded and force prisoners to dig their own graves before shooting them?” (Reclus 2013, 158-9) Reclus replied,

But isn’t there a direct causal relationship between the food eaten by these executioners, who call themselves “civilizers,” and their brutal deeds? They often praise bloody flesh as a source of health, strength, and intelligence. And without disgust they go into butcher shops with slippery reddish pavement and breathe the sickly sweet odor of blood! How much difference is there between the dead carcass of a cow and that of a man? Their severed limbs and entrails mixed in with one another look quite similar. The slaughter of the former facilitates the murder of the latter, especially when an order resounds from a superior, or when one hears from afar the words of his royal master, “Show no mercy!” (Reclus 2013, 159)

For Reclus,

It is in no way a digression to mention the horrors of war in connection with massacres of cattle and carnivorous banquets. People’s diet corresponds closely to their morality. Blood calls for blood. (Reclus 2013, 159)

The murder of non-whites by Europeans rested, according to Reclus, on the same kind of thinking that underlies meat eating culture, such as the notion that it is wrong to kill cats but ok to kill pigs. The morality of white supremacy,

holds that there are two laws for mankind, one law for those with yellow skin and another law that is the prerogative of the whites. Apparently in the future it will be permissible to kill or torture the former, while it will still be wrong to do so to the latter. But isn’t morality equally flexible when applied to animals? By goading dogs on to tear a fox to pieces, the gentlemen learns how to send his marksmen after the fleeing Chinese. The two kinds of hunt are part of one and the same “sport,”. (Reclus 2013, 159)

To overcome forms of sectarianism such as nationalism or racism humans must come to view one another as part of an international human family. As Reclus writes, “[e]ach individual must be able to address any of his peers in complete brotherhood”. (Reclus 2013, 231) Likewise humans should come to consider non-human animals as part of an extended family composed of all living things. We should come to understand that what we are taught to consider “meat on feet” in fact “loves as we do” and “feels as we do”. For the vegetarian,

the real concern is to recognize the bonds of affection and kindness that link man to animals. . . The horse and the cow, the wild rabbit and the cat, the deer and the hare – these are more valuable to us as friends than as meat. We are eager to have them either as respected fellow workers, or simply as companions in the joy of living and loving.” (Reclus 2013, 160) Or as Reclus says elsewhere, vegetarians seek to make other animals “neither our servants nor our machines, but rather our true companions. (Reclus 2013, 136)

Coming to view other animals as friends rather than food is merely an expansion of what humans already do with their favourite animals. Reclus writes,

just as there are many carnivores today who refuse to eat the flesh of man’s noble companion, the horse, or that of those pampered guests in our homes, the dog and the cat – in the same way it is repugnant to us to drink the blood of the steer, an animal whose labour helps supply us with bread. We no longer want to hear the bleating of sheep, the bellowing of cows, or the grunts and piercing cries of pigs as they are led to the slaughterhouse. (Reclus 2013, 161)

The process of coming to treat other animals as friends rests on nourishing, rather than destroying, the natural environment that we share with all other life forms. Reclus writes that we must “develop the part of the earth that falls to us so as to make it as pleasant as possible, not only for ourselves, but also for the animals of our household.” (Reclus 2013, 160) As Reclus wrote elsewhere,

To develop the continents, the seas, and the atmosphere that surrounds us; to “cultivate our garden” on earth; to rearrange and regulate the environment in order to promote each individual plant, animal, and human life; to become fully conscious of our human solidarity, forming one body with the planet itself; and to take a sweeping view of our origins, our present, our immediate goal, and our distant ideal – this is what progress means. (Reclus 2013, 233)

Bibliography

Kropotkin, Peter. 1993. Fugitive Writings. Black Rose Books.
Reclus, Elisée. 2013. Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: Selected Writings of Elisée Reclus. PM Press.

 

 

 

Anarchism and Love

Something which doesn’t get enough attention is the role of love in anarchist politics. Love is a recurring theme in the writings of the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta.

Firstly, love is integral to Malatesta’s vision of an anarchist society and so the goal which anarchists are struggling for. Malatesta claims that anarchists “seek the triumph of freedom and of love.” (Malatesta 2015, p60) He writes that anarchists “aim at the good of all, the elimination of all suffering and the extension of all the joys that can depend on human actions; we aim at the attainment of peace and love among all human beings; we aim at a new and better society, at a worthier and happier mankind.” (Ibid, p15)

Malatesta argues that,

Since all the present ills of society have their origin in the struggle between men, in the seeking after well-being through one’s own efforts and for oneself and against everybody, we want to make amends, replacing hatred by love, competition by solidarity, the individual search for personal well-being by the fraternal cooperation for the well-being of all, oppression and imposition by liberty, the religious and pseudo-scientific lie by truth. (Ibid, p19)

Secondly, Malatesta says that he is an anarchist because it furthers his desire for a society based on love. He writes,

I am an anarchist because it seems to me that anarchy would correspond better than any other way of social life, to my desire for the good of all, to my aspirations towards a society which reconciles the liberty of everyone with cooperation and love among men. (Ibid, p18)

Thirdly, Malatesta argues that love is essential to anarchist politics because it is the emotion that motivates us to not oppress others and to act for the good of others. He writes,

By definition an anarchist is he who does not wish to be oppressed nor wishes to be himself an oppressor; who wants the greatest well-being, freedom and development for all human beings. His ideas, his wishes have their origin in a feeling of sympathy, love and respect for humanity: a feeling which must be sufficiently strong to induce him to want the well-being of others as much as his own, and to renounce those personal advantages, the achievement of which, would involve the sacrifice of others. If it were not so, why would he be the enemy of oppression and not seek to become himself an oppressor? (Ibid, p16)

Malatesta makes this same point in more detail when he writes,

Apart from our ideas about the political State and government. . . and those on the best way to ensure for everybody free access to the means of production and enjoyment of the good things of life, we are anarchists because of a feeling which is the driving force for all sincere social reformers, and without which our anarchism would be either a lie or just nonsense. This feeling is the love of mankind, and the fact of sharing the sufferings of others. If I . . . eat I cannot enjoy what I am eating if I think that there are people dying of hunger; if I buy a toy for my child and am made happy by her pleasure, my happiness is soon embittered at seeing wide-eyed children standing by the shop window who could be made happy with a cheap toy but who cannot have it; if I am enjoying myself, my spirit is saddened as soon as I recall that there are unfortunate fellow beings languishing in jail; if I study, or do a job I enjoy doing, I feel remorse at the thought that there are so many brighter than I who are obliged to waste their lives on exhausting, often useless, or harmful tasks.

Clearly, pure egoism; others call it altruism, call it what you like; but without it, it is not possible to be real anarchists. Intolerance of oppression, the desire to be free and to be able to develop one’s personality to its full limits, is not enough to make one an anarchist. That aspiration towards unlimited freedom, if not tempered by a love for mankind and by the desire that all should enjoy equal freedom, may well create rebels who, if they are strong enough, soon become exploiters and tyrants, but never anarchists. (Ibid, p17)

Fourthly, Malatesta claims that love motivates anti-authoritarian people in general. He speaks of non-anarchists possessing an anarchist spirit, by which he means:

that deeply human sentiment, which aims at the good of all, freedom and justice for all, solidarity and love among the people; which is not an exclusive characteristic only of self-declared anarchists, but inspires all people who have a generous heart and an open mind. (Ibid, p110)

From this I hope it’s clear that Malatesta loves love. As radicals we must remember that love isn’t the exclusive domain of hippies and ‘spiritual’ people. Love for 19th century radicals was primarily about building communism and we need to make love about communism again.

Bibliography

Malatesta, Errico. 2015. Life and Ideas: The Anarchist Writings of Errico Malatesta, edited by Vernon Richards. PM Press

What Do Anarchists Think About Violence?

In the popular imagination anarchism is synonymous with violence. But what do anarchists actually think about violence? In this video I’ll be examining what the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, who wrote during the late 19th and early 20th century, had to say about violence.

Malatesta held that the “main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations” (Malatesta 2015, 45) because violence is “the essence of every authoritarian system” (Malatesta 2014, 188). For example, Malatesta advocates the abolition of the state because it is in practice “the brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over the many” (Malatesta 2014, 115) and so is based on the “coercive, violent organisation of society” (Malatesta 2015, 45). Malatesta likewise critiques capitalism because private property was historically established through “violence, robbery and theft, legal or illegal” (Malatesta 2005, 47), such as the English enclosure movement, and is still to this day protected by the violence of the legal system and the police.

If anarchism aims for a non-violent society then one might expect that Malatesta opposes violence completely. This is, however, not the case. Malatesta of course understands that a free non-violent society cannot be violently imposed on people. As he writes,

it would be ridiculous and contrary to our objectives to seek to impose freedom, love among men and the radical development of human faculties, by means of force. One must therefore rely on the free will of others, and all we can do is to provoke the development and the expression of the will of the people. (Malatesta 2014, 282-3)

But Malatesta is not naive and realizes that “those who benefit from existing privileges and who today dominate and control all social life” will oppose the creation of a free society “with brute force”. The ruling classes “have police forces, a judiciary, and armies created for the express purpose of defending their privileges; and they persecute, imprison, and massacre those who would want to abolish those privileges and who claim the means of life and liberty for everyone” (Malatesta 2014, 283) Not only is contemporary society “underpinned by force of arms”, it is also the case that “[n]o oppressed class has ever managed to emancipate itself without recourse to violence; the privileged classes have never surrendered a part, the tiniest fraction, of their privileges, except because of force or fear of force.” (Malatesta 2014, 201)

It is because of this that in order to achieve an anarchist society the masses must rise up and “get rid of the armed force which defends existing institutions”. This decision to engage in violent action “is not the result of our free choice, but is imposed upon us by necessity in the defence of unrecognized human rights which are thwarted by brute force.” (Malatesta 2014, 189) As Malatesta summarizes,

We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to submit to a violent imposition. We intend to use force against government, because it is by force that we are kept in subjection by government. We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by force that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the fruit of human labour, and use it to oblige others to work in their interest. We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain or regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labour of others. (Malatesta 2015, 47)

In short, “violent revolt . . . [is] a factor of progress in a society based on violence . . . [and is] a necessary means of resolving the social question when the privileged have the guns on their side and are, as they demonstrate day by day, determined to use them.” (Malatesta 2016, 384)

For Malatesta, the violence of revolution is not only a necessity, but also moral, since “slaves are always in a state of legitimate defence” against “those institutions which use force to keep the people in a state of servitude.” (Malatesta 2015, 50, 49) Revolutionary violence must therefore not be ethically evaluated in the abstract, but instead be judged relative to the violence perpetuated by those institutions which revolutionaries seek to abolish. He writes that,

There is no doubt that the revolution will cause much misfortune, much suffering. But it might cause a hundred times more and it would still be a blessing compared to what we endure to-day. It is a well-known fact that in a single battle more people are killed than in the bloodiest of revolutions. It is a well-known fact that millions of children of tender age die every year for lack of care, that millions of workers die prematurely of the disease of poverty, that the immense majority of people lead shunted, joyless, and hopeless lives, that even the richest and most powerful are much less happy than they might be in a society of equals, and that this state of things has lasted from time immemorial. Without a revolution it would last indefinitely, whereas one single revolution which went right to the causes of the evil could put humanity for all time on the road to happiness. So let the revolution come! Every day that it delays means an enormous mass of suffering inflicted on mankind. (Malatesta 2014, 157-8)

Malatesta not only defended revolutionary violence but also critiqued three other main perspectives on violence which were held at the time. Firstly, Malatesta is opposed to the idea that we should be “opposed to all violence whatever, except in cases of personal defense against direct and immediate attack.” This is because doing so “would mean the renunciation of all revolutionary initiative, and the reserving of our blows for the petty, and often involuntary agents of the government, while leaving in peace the organizers of, and those chiefly benefited by, government and capitalist exploitation.” (Malatesta 2014, 187) In other words, if we should only engage in immediate self-defence then we should only use violence against the police or soldiers who are attacking us and not the members of the ruling classes who, while not personally attacking us with their bodies, do control the means of violence and have it deployed in their interests. Therefore,

as Anarchists, we cannot and we do not desire to employ violence, except in the defence of ourselves and others against oppression.  But we claim this right of defence – entire, real, and efficacious. That is, we wish to be able to go behind the material instrument which wounds us, and to attack the hand which wields the instrument, and the head which directs it. (Malatesta 2014, 189)

The second view on violence Malatesta rejects is strict pacifism. According to this view “we must endure oppression and degradation in our own cases and in those of others rather than do harm to the oppressor” and so not use “every available means to defend” ourselves or others. Malatesta is opposed to strict pacifism because someone who engages in it would “in practice and much against his will. . . be simply terrifically selfish. . . to let others suffer oppression without trying to come to their defence”, such as preferring to rather “see some class ground into misery, some people downtrodden by the invader, some man suffer trespass against his life and liberty . . . than that a hair on the head of the oppressor be harmed”. Therefore, “Tolstoyans . . . [are] those who would let the whole of humanity be ground down by the weight of the greatest suffering rather than trespass against a principle.” (Malatesta 2014, 203-4)

Against this highly abstract view of morality, Malatesta holds that our morals must be grounded in the actual conditions that we are acting in. He writes that “[t]he means we employ are those that circumstances make possible or necessary. It is true that we would prefer not to hurt a hair of anybody’s head; we would like to wipe away all tears and not to cause any to be shed.” (Malatesta 2014, 156-7) But we are unfortunately “forced to struggle in the world as we found it, on pains of remaining sterile dreamers, who leave untouched all the existing evils, and do good to no one, for fear of doing wrong to anyone.” (Quoted in Turcato 2012, 22)

The third view on violence Malatesta rejects is one in which violence is celebrated and transformed into an end in and of itself. Malatesta rejects “needless, harmful violence” because, “anarchists should not and cannot be avengers; they are liberators. We bear hatred towards none; we are not fighting to avenge ourselves or to avenge anyone else; we seek love towards all, liberty for all.” As a result,

let us have no unnecessary victims, not even in the enemy camp. The very purpose on behalf of which we struggle requires us to be kind and humane even in the heat of battle; so I fail to understand how one can fight for a purpose like ours without our being kindly and humane. And let us not forget that a liberating revolution cannot be born of massacre and terror, these having been – and ever so it shall remain – the midwives to tyranny. (Malatesta 2014, 203)

Instead of viewing violence as an end in and of itself anarchists “must be like the surgeon who cuts when he must but avoids causing needless suffering.” (Malatesta 2014, 159) Given this, while Malatesta is in favour of violence when it is necessary, he does prefer “passive resistance” when it is an “effective weapon” because “it would be the most sparing one in terms of human suffering.” (Malatesta 2014, 204)

Bibliography

Malatesta, Errico. 2005. At The Cafe. Freedom Press
Malatesta, Errico. 2014. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. AK Press
Malatesta, Errico. 2015. Life and Ideas: The Anarchist Writings of Errico Malatesta. Edited by Vernon Richards. PM Press
Malatesta, Errico. 2016. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. AK Press
Turcato, Davide. 2012. Making Sense of Anarchism: Errico Malatesta’s Experiments With Revolution, 1889-1900. Palgrave Macmillan

3 Reasons Why Radical Education Matters

I want to suggest three reasons why radical education matters.

The first reason emerges from the fact that we have all been and continue to be socialised by this society. Socialisation refers to the process whereby human beings learn the norms and values which exist in their society. When people speak of socialisation they often limit their discussion to the socialisation of children, such as children learning table manners or children learning to associate pink with girls and blue with boys. While the socialisation of children is really important, we should not act as if socialisation is only something which happens to children. The truth is that since we always live in society we never stop being socialised by our society. We are always being conditioned. For example, daily workplace experiences, listening to the news, seeing adverts, going shopping etc have an effect on our consciousness, whether we want to admit it or not. Likewise, sexism, racism, homophobia etc are not just things that we learn as children, but are rather constantly being taught to us as we go about our day. For example, Arabic people or Muslims being regularly depicted as terrorists on TV, in the news, and in films.

Radical education is therefore important because it equips people with the knowledge and tools that are needed to oppose this on-going socialisation. After all, if we’re constantly being socialised into harmful norms and values by this society, then unlearning what this society teaches us must be a never ending process. Prior to learning about socialism a person may watch a film in which unions are depicted as the enemy and allow this idea to drift unopposed into their mind. While once this person has learned about socialism they are able to see the ways in which the film contains pro-capitalist messages which attack working class people for resisting their oppression. Radical education, in short, enables people to engage in intellectual self-defence.

The second reason why radical education matters is that intellectual self-defence must occur not only at the level of opposing negative messages projected by others, but also at the level of one’s own thoughts. For example, a non-binary person may have constant mental arguments with themselves over whether or not they should be proud or ashamed of their gender identity. The knowledge that comes with reading feminist and queer theory will help such a non-binary person resist their tendency to hate themselves due to the internalisation of queerphobia. This will in turn help them learn to love themselves and to feel comfortable being who they are. Radical education in such situations is not then a purely academic or theoretical affair, but is instead necessary for survival and well-being.

The third reason why radical education matters is that learning theory enables people to change how they act towards others. For example, an able-bodied person learns that lots of people have disabilities which are not immediately obvious from looking at them, such as chronic fatigue or legg-calve perthes disease (which is what I have). This in turn stops the able-bodied person assuming that a person isn’t disabled if they’re not in a wheelchair or are not missing limbs. Or, to take a more class war example, a worker interacts with management differently after reading the communist manifesto. They no longer see a manager as just another worker, but instead view them as a class enemy whose institutional role is subordinating labour to the control of capital.

It is often the case that theory changes a person both internally and in terms of how they interact with others. For example, a women reads a feminist article on why women shouldn’t shave their body hair if they don’t want to. This not only leads them to stop shaving, but also helps them learn to stand up to men who tell them that they should shave their body hair. In so doing they are both resisting a given individual man and reclaiming their body as their own, rather than as something which exists purely for men to find sexually attractive, and thereby changing their own relationship with their body.