Anarchism as a Way of Life

In 1925 the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta wrote that,

Anarchy is a form of living together in society; a society in which people live as brothers and sisters without being able to oppress or exploit others and in which everyone has at their disposal whatever means the civilisation of the time can supply in order for them to attain the greatest possible moral and material development. And Anarchism is the method of reaching anarchy, through freedom, without government – that is, without those authoritarian institutions that impose their will on others by force . . . (Malatesta 1995, 52)

In this passage Malatesta distinguishes between anarchy as a goal and anarchism as a method of achieving this goal. One of the interesting features of Malatesta’s theory is that he views anarchy itself as both a goal and an on-going process. He refers to anarchy as a “form of living together in society” which has to be continuously produced and reproduced over time, rather than a static unchanging utopia. This idea can be clearly seen in Malatesta’s earlier writings. In 1891 he wrote that,

By the free association of all, a social organisation would arise through the spontaneous grouping of men according to their needs and sympathies, from the low to the high, from the simple to the complex, starting from the more immediate to arrive at the more distant and general interests. This organisation would have for its aim the greatest good and fullest liberty to all; it would embrace all humanity in one common brotherhood, and would be modified and improved as circumstances were modified and changed, according to the teachings of experience. This society of free men, this society of friends would be Anarchy. (Malatesta 2014, 128)

Since anarchy is a society which will be continuously modified and improved over time it follows that “Anarchy” is “above all, a method”. This method is, according to Malatesta, “the free initiative of all”, “free agreement” and “free association”. (Malatesta 2014, 141, 142) These two claims come together in the view that,

Anarchy, in common with socialism, has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and improvements for the benefit of everybody. (Quoted in Turcato 2012, 56. For a different translation see Malatesta 2014, 143)

What Malatesta means by this is as follows. Anarchy’s point of departure is a stateless classless society in which the means of production are owned in common and no person has the institutionalised power to impose their will on others via force. This not only creates a situation in which people are no longer subject to domination and exploitation by the ruling classes. It, in addition to this, establishes the real possibility for all people to do and be a wide variety of different things since their ability to act is no longer limited by poverty, borders, government bureaucracy, having to work for a capitalist to survive etc. This equality of conditions is the social basis from which people can engage in an open-ended process of striving towards the goal of universal human co-operation at a societal level and the formation of bonds of mutual support and love at the level of our day to day lives with friends, family, partners and so on.

People living under anarchy will move towards the goal of solidarity through the method of forming voluntary horizontal associations. These voluntary horizontal associations will then enter into free agreements with one another and establish a decentralised network capable of co-ordinating action over a large scale. Although violence may sometimes be necessary to defend spaces of co-operation from external attack or to overthrow the ruling classes, force cannot be used to establish co-operation among equals. If one tries to impose decisions on others through force then the result will not be solidarity but conflict, strife and relations of command and obedience. The achievement of genuine solidarity requires that people come to agreements which best suit everyone involved and must therefore be established voluntarily.

This process of striving for solidarity through the method of freedom will result in a wide variety of experiments in different forms of life. Through a process of trial-and-error people will over time establish new social structures and relations which do a superior job of maximising the equality, solidarity and freedom of humanity. These new social structures and relations will, in turn, lay the foundations from which future improvements can occur and so on and on. As Malatesta wrote in 1899, “Anarchist ideals are . . . the experimental system brought from the field of research to that of social realisation”. (Malatesta 2014, 302)

Malatesta does not think that the establishment of anarchy will occur automatically or that humans naturally create anarchy. Anarchy only exists if it is consciously produced and reproduced by human action. As he wrote in 1897,

The belief in some natural law, whereby harmony is automatically established between men without any need for them to take conscious, deliberate action, is hollow and utterly refuted by the facts.

Even if the State and private property were to be done away with, harmony does not come to pass automatically, as if Nature busies herself with men’s blessings and misfortunes, but rather requires that men themselves create it. (Malatesta 2016, 81)

This exact point was repeated by Malatesta in 1925. He wrote, “Anarchy . . . is a human aspiration which is not founded on any true or supposed natural law, and which may or may not come about depending on human will.” (Malatesta 1995, 46) If anarchy is a product of human will, then it follows that anarchy could be ended if humans choose to oppress others and establish relations of domination and subordination. This is a danger that Malatesta was aware of. He wrote in 1899 that, “if anyone in some future society sought to oppress someone else, the latter would have the right to resist them and to fight force with force”. Anarchy was therefore a society based on “freedom for all and in everything, with no limit other than the equal freedom of others: which does not mean . . . that we embrace and wish to respect the ‘freedom’ to exploit, oppress, command, which is oppression and not freedom”. (Malatesta 2019, 148, 149).

A crucial aspect of reproducing anarchy as a social system is therefore ensuring that relations of domination and exploitation do not arise in the first place and that, if they do somehow arise, they are quickly defeated. Malatesta does not provide many details on how to do this because he thought this was a question which would be settled through large groups of people engaging in a process of experimentation with different forms of association. Modern anarchists can, however, look at anthropological evidence on how really existing stateless societies reproduce themselves. They do not provide exact blueprints which we can follow like an instruction manual for creating a free society, but they can be useful sources of inspiration. It should, in addition to this, be kept in mind that some stateless societies are hierarchical in other ways, such as men oppressing women or adults oppressing children.

There is a tendency for people raised in societies with states to assume that the true or correct end point of human cultural evolution is the creation of a society with a state. Those who live in stateless societies are therefore viewed as inferior people who have failed to realise the best way of organising society. In response to this way of thinking, the anthropologist Pierre Clastres has suggested that stateless societies should not be viewed as societies without a state, but instead as societies against the state. That is to say, people do not live in stateless societies by chance. They have instead developed political philosophies about the kind of society they want to live in and consciously created social structures to ensure that a society without rulers is reproduced. Members of stateless societies have not failed to realise the possibility of a society in which a ruling minority imposes their will on everyone else through violence. They have instead deliberately chosen to create a different kind of society. (Clastres 1989, 189-218) Clastres writes, in what I consider to be outdated and problematic language, that,

primitive societies do not have a State because they refuse it, because they refuse the division of the social body into the dominating and the dominated. The politics of the Savages is, in fact, to constantly hinder the appearance of a separate organ of power, to prevent the fatal meeting between the institution of chieftainship and the exercise of power. In primitive society, there is no separate organ of power, because power is not separated from society: society, as a single totality, holds power in order to maintain its undivided being, to ward off the appearance in its breast of the inequality between masters and subjects, between chief and tribe. . . The refusal of inequality and the refusal of separate power are the same, constant concern of primitive societies. (Clastres 1994, 91)

This point has recently been made in much greater depth by the anthropologist Christopher Boehm. He argues that egalitarian stateless societies are “the product of human intentionality” and that “the immediate cause of egalitarianism is conscious, and that deliberate social control is directed at preventing the expression of hierarchical tendencies”. (Boehm 2001, 12, 60) One of the main ways egalitarian stateless societies achieve this is through the use of horizontal decision-making processes in which the group make collective decisions through consensus between all involved. (Boehm 2001, 31, 113) Any leaders which do exist lack the power to impose decisions on others through coercion and must instead persuade others to act in a certain way through oratory skill alone. This usually goes alongside a variety of behavioural expectations which the leader has to conform to in order to remain in their position, such as the leader being modest, in control of their emotions, good at resolving disputes and generous. The emphasis on generosity can be so strong that leaders are expected to share large amounts of their possessions with others, especially those in need. This often results in leaders possessing the smallest number of things in the entire group due to them having to give so many items away. (Boehm 2001, 69-72)

Egalitarian stateless societies have, in addition to this, developed various mechanisms to respond to what Boehm labels ‘upstartism’. Upstartism includes any behaviour which threatens the autonomy and equality of the group, such as bullying, being selfishly greedy, issuing orders, taking on airs of superiority, engaging in acts of physical violence and so on. In order to implement the ethical values of the community, members of egalitarian stateless societies will respond to upstartism with a wide range of different social sanctions. This includes, but is not limited to, criticism, gossiping, public ridicule, ignoring what they say, ostracism, expulsion from the group and even, in some extreme cases, execution. Social sanctions are applied to all members of the group but leaders in particular. This is due to the fact that leaders are subject to a greater deal of public scrutiny and viewed as one of the main places where relations of domination and subordination could emerge. This, in turn, creates a situation where leaders will, in order to maintain their position and avoid being subject to sanctions, engage in the socially prescribed behaviour that is expected from them, such as sharing huge amounts of their belongings even if they would rather not do so. The system of sanctions therefore not only effectively counters acts of domination but also reproduces the horizontal structure of the group itself. (Boehm 2001, 3, 9-12, 43, 72-84)

The manner in which members of egalitarian stateless societies respond to upstartism can be subtle. Boehm gives the example of the !Kung, who have developed various ways of dealing with the problem of successful male hunters coming to think of themselves as superior to everyone else and, as a result, becoming more likely to engage in domination, especially murder. Firstly, large-game meat is shared equally among the group by the person who is credited with killing the animal. The credit for the kill does not go to the person who loosed the actual killing arrow, but instead to the owner of the first arrow to hit the animal. This will often not even be someone who went on the hunt due to the male hunters regularly trading arrows with one another. This social system ensures that credit for the hunt is randomized, unskilled or unlucky hunters are less likely to be envious of other hunters, every member of the group has access to protein, and the most skilled or lucky hunters are not able to easily use this fact to develop power and influence over others. (Boehm 2001, 46)

Secondly, the !Kung actively use humour and social etiquette to ensure that successful hunters do not put themselves on a pedestal. An unnamed member of the !Kung explains this as follows,

Say that a man has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggart, ‘I have killed a big one in the bush!’ He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks, ‘What did you see today?’ He replies quietly, ‘Ah, I’m no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all . . . maybe just a tiny one.’ Then I smile to myself because I now know he has killed something big.

Even after the hunter has deliberately acted as if they haven’t been very successful, other members of the group will make jokes about them and express their disappointment. The unnamed member of the !Kung claims that when people go to collect the dead animal they will say things like,

You mean to say you have dragged us all the way out here to make us cart home your pile of bones? Oh, if I had known it was this thin I wouldn’t have come. People, to think I gave up a nice day in the shade for this. At home we may be hungry but at least we have nice cool water to drink.

The conscious motivation behind this behaviour is explained by a healer as follows,

When a young man kills much meat, he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. In this way we cool his heart and make him gentle. (Quoted in Boehm 2001, 45)

The !Kung have, in other words, intentionally developed a complex social system based on their political philosophy which ensures the reproduction of an egalitarian stateless society and actively prevents the rise of domination within their midst. It is important to note that Boehm’s account of the !Kung draws upon research conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s. Their society has significantly changed since then. In 1975 the anthropologist Patricia Draper claimed that,

the great majority of !Kung-speaking people have abandoned their traditional hunting and gathering way of life and are now living in sedentary and semi-squatter status in or near the villages of Bantu pastoralists and European ranchers. A minority of !Kung, amounting to a few thousand, are still living by traditional hunting and gathering technique. (Draper 1975, 79)

Although people living in industrial societies do not have to develop social norms around successful hunters, we do have our equivalents. For example, successful influencers sometimes let the fame get to their head, come to think of themselves as superior to other people, and then treat others as inferior to them and engage in acts of domination. Think Jake Paul. It is of course the case that those of us currently living under the domination of capitalism, the state, patriarchy, racism, queerphobia, ableism etc are most likely a long way away from achieving anarchy at a societal level. We are not confronted with the problem of reproducing anarchy as a stateless classless society. We instead face the challenge of living under oppressive systems, whilst attempting to implement the methods of anarchism within both our intimate relationships with friends, family, partners etc and social movements aimed at the abolition of all systems of domination and exploitation.

In order to do so we must establish horizontal social relations which are, as far as is possible, the same as those that would constitute anarchy. In so doing we can simultaneously (a) construct the world as we wish it was during our struggle against the world as it is and (b) develop through a process of experimentation in the present the real methods of organisation, decision-making and association that people in the future could use to achieve the states of affairs that characterise anarchy. If, as Malatesta argued, “tomorrow can only grow out of today” (Malatesta 2014, 163) then we must build organisations based “upon the will and in the interest of all their members” not only “tomorrow in order to meet all of the needs of social life” but also “today for the purposes of propaganda and struggle”. (Malatesta 2019, 63) We must, in other words, engage in prefigurative politics or, to use historical anarchist language, build “the embryo of the human society of the future”. (Graham 2005, 98. For more on prefigurative politics see Raekstad and Gradin 2020)

The pockets of freedom we manage to create within class society are of course not anarchy. Anarchy is a social system in which all forms of class rule have been abolished and socialism has been achieved. Anarchy cannot therefore be said to exist just because a horizontal association has been built within the cage of capitalism and the state. (Malatesta 2016, 358-60) Although horizontal associations within class society are not anarchy, they are the means through which anarchy can be achieved. That is to say, horizontal associations should be organs of class struggle which unite workers together in order to both win immediate improvements, such as higher wages or stopping the fossil fuel industry, and ultimately overthrow the ruling classes. Horizontal associations should, at the same time, be social structures which are constituted by forms of activity that develop their participants into the kinds of people who are both capable of, and driven to, establish and reproduce anarchy. For example, a group of workers form a tenant union, use direct action to prevent their landlord from evicting them, and at the same time learn how to make decisions within a general assembly. In changing the world, workers at the same time change themselves.

Given the insights of both historical anarchist theory and modern anthropology, a crucial aspect of laying the foundations from which anarchy could emerge in the future is establishing effective methods for maintaining the horizontality of a group. This includes at least,

(a) Deliberately structuring organisations so as to ensure that they are self-managed by their membership, such as making decisions through general assemblies in which everyone has a vote, co-ordinating action over a large scale via informal networks or formal federations, electing instantly recallable mandated delegates to perform specific tasks etc.

(b) Consciously developing a system of social sanctions which effectively and proportionally respond to situations where a member engages in what Boehm terms upstartism. This is especially necessary for when people attempt to establish themselves in positions of power at the top of an informal hierarchy or engage in an act of domination. One of the most important situations which a group must effectively respond to is when a member emotionally, physically or sexually abuses another person. It is, in addition to this, very important than any sanction system which is implemented is not itself a new form of domination disguised as mere opposition to the domination of others.

In summary, anarchy is a form of living together in society which must be consciously and intentionally produced and reproduced by human action. A crucial part of doing so is developing social structures and relations which maintain the horizontality of groups and prevent new forms of domination and exploitation from arising. Given modern anthropological evidence on how really existing stateless societies reproduce themselves, this will include developing social sanctions to respond to what Boehm terms upstartism. Although we do not currently live under anarchy, we must establish horizontal associations which engage in class struggle against the ruling classes and prefigure the methods of organisation, decision-making and association which would exist in a free society. This includes developing effective sanction systems which proportionally respond to behaviour that threatens the horizontality of the group. Doing so will, just like under anarchy, require a process of experimentation with different forms of life in order to figure out which solutions actually work and are compatible with anarchist goals and values.

In 1899 Malatesta wrote that “Anarchy cannot come but little by little – slowly, but surely, growing in intensity and extension. Therefore, the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchy today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward Anarchy today, tomorrow and always.” (Malatesta 2014, 300) Through the process of walking towards anarchy we must learn how to live as equals within a free horizontal association and in so doing become fit to establish a society with neither masters nor subjects. I am sure that we will make mistakes along the way, but these mistakes must be treated as opportunities to learn and develop, rather than reasons to abandon the march towards anarchy. In the words of the Spanish anarchist Isaac Puente,

Living in libertarian communism will be like learning to live. Its weak points and its failings will be shown up when it is introduced. If we were politicians we would paint a paradise brimful of perfections. Being human and being aware what human nature can be like, we trust that people will learn to walk the only way it is possible for them to learn: by walking. (Puente 1932)

Bibliography

Boehm, Christopher. 2001. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clastres, Pierre. 1989. Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology. New York: Zone Books.

Clastres, Pierre. 1994. Archeology of Violence. Semiotext(e).

Draper, Patricia. 1975. “!Kung Women: Contrasts in Sexual Egalitarianism in Foraging and Sedentary Contexts” in Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. R. R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Graham, Robert. 2005. Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939. Montréal: Black Rose Books.

Malatesta, Errico. 1995. The Anarchist Revolution: Polemical Articles 1924-1931. Edited by Vernon Richards. London: Freedom Press.

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

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

Malatesta, Errico. 2019. Towards Anarchy: Malatesta in America 1899-1900. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.

Puente, Isaac. 1932. Libertarian Communism.

Turcato, Davide. 2012. Making Sense of Anarchism: Errico Malatesta’s Experiments With Revolution, 1889-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Raekstad, Paul, and Gradin, Sofa Saio. 2020. Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.

When Malatesta Got Shot

During the 1890s there was an intense debate in the Italian anarchist movement between organisationalists, who advocated formal organisations like federations, and anti-organisationalists, who only advocated affinity groups and thought formal organisation was incompatible with anarchist values and strategy. In the United States the main debate occurred between Errico Malatesta, who edited La Questione Sociale and advocated formal organisation, and Giuseppe Ciancabilla, who edited l’Aurora and rejected formal organisation. (Turcato 2012, 190-7)

Prior to this debate with Ciancabilla occurring, Malatesta attended a meeting of anarchists at the Tivola and Zucca Saloon in West Hoboken, New Jersey on 3rd September 1899. West Hoboken was one of the main areas where anti-organisationalist anarchism was popular. During the meeting Malatesta explained his organisationalist ideas and this greatly angered an anarchist barber called Domenico Pazzaglia, who was an anti-organisationalist. According to Armando Borghi, Pazzaglia was “unknown to most of the comrades and ignored by the few who knew him.” (Quoted in Malatesta 2015, 238) Pazzaglia became so enraged during Malatesta’s speech that he drew his revolver and shot Malatesta in the leg. Pazzaglia was then disarmed by Gaetano Bresci, who would go onto assassinate the king of Italy in 1900. The police arrived on the scene and decided to arrest Malatesta, the victim of the shooting. Malatesta responded in a truly anarchist fashion and refused to tell the police who had shot him. Upon being released from police custody, Malatesta decided to not publish an account of the shooting in the paper he edited, La Questione Sociale. (Malatesta 2019, xxiii. Nettlau claims the shot missed Malatesta but both Fabbri and Borghi claim he was shot in the leg)

The newspaper Il Progresso Italo-Americano published an article on September 6th in which they claim that,

Enrico Malatesta has proven he is a great soul again on this occasion. Not only has he refused to name the assailant, but he has also declared that he has forgiven him from the bottom of his heart.

‘I am sure – Malatesta said – that by now he regrets his actions.’ (Malatesta 2019, 258)

Shortly after the shooting Ciancabilla began the publication of l’Aurora on 16th September and launched a polemical campaign against Malatesta’s organisationalists ideas. Malatesta responded to this by writing a series of articles critiquing his opponents’ arguments. Even though Ciancabilla did not express public regret over the fact that Malatesta had been shot by an anti-organisationalist, Malatesta did not bring up the incident during the debate and focused on the arguments for and against formal organisation. Although it should be noted that Ciancabilla does appear to have been privately opposed to Pazzaglia’s actions. (Malatesta 2019, xxiii; Malatesta 2015, 238)

The one-time Malatesta did mention the shooting occurred when news of it spread from America to Italy. In response to the coverage of the events in the Italian socialist press, Malatesta published a brief note in La Questione Sociale on October 28th. It said,

Comrade Errico Malatesta – considering the protests being published in the Italian newspapers, as well as others that have reached us directly, regarding the slight accident that happened to him and which we believe is not even worth talking about – thanks the friends who have in such a manner expressed their sympathy with him, but begs them… to let that be the end of it. (Malatesta 2019, 120)

I have been unable to find many details about what happened to Pazzaglia after he shot Malatesta. According to Luigi Fabbri, the paper “L’Adunata dei Refrattari of New York (no. 5 of January 28, 1933) clarifies that Malatesta’s shooter had been an outcast who was not given any consideration among comrades; some Pazzaglia, who disappeared immediately after the movement and died a few years later.” (Fabbri 1936)

Malatesta could have used him being shot by an anti-organisationalist to wage a polemical war against his political opponents within the anarchist movement. He could have sought revenge and attempted to shoot Pazzaglia in retaliation. He instead chose to forgive his assailant and move on from these events. In other words, Malatesta killed the cop in his head. Have you?

Bibliography

Fabbri, Luigi. 1936. Life of Malatesta.

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

Malatesta, Errico. 2019. Towards Anarchy: Malatesta in America 1899-1900. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.

Turcato, Davide. 2012. Making Sense of Anarchism: Errico Malatesta’s Experiments with Revolution 1889-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fun Kropotkin Facts

Peter Kropotkin was an anarcho-communist revolutionary. He is perhaps now most famous for developing the theory of mutual aid and writing the conquest of bread aka the bread book. In this video I’m going to go through some fun facts about him.

1. Kropotkin was born into the Russian nobility. His family were large landowners who exploited almost 1200 serfs. (Kropotkin 1989, 24) Due to this Kropotkin inherited the title of prince. This didn’t mean he was a member of the royal family. Prince was a rank in the Russian nobility. As a child Kropotkin abandoned the title of prince in response to the influence of his tutors. He recalls in his autobiography that,

The title of prince was used in our house with and without occasion. M. Poulain must have been shocked by it, for he began once to tell us what he knew of the great Revolution. I cannot now recall what he said, but one thing I remember, namely, that ‘Count Mirabeau’ and other nobles one day renounced their titles, and that Count Mirabeau, to show his contempt for aristocratic pretensions, opened a shop decorated with a signboard which bore the inscription, ‘Mirabeau, tailor.’ (I tell the story as I had it from M. Poulain.) For a long time after that I worried myself thinking what trade I should take up so as to write, ‘Kropótkin, such and such a handicraft man.’ Later on, my Russian teacher, Nikolái Pávlovich Smirnóff, and the general republican tone of Russian literature influenced me in the same way; and when I began to write novels — that is, in my twelfth year — I adopted the signature P. Kropótkin, which I never have departed from, notwithstanding the remonstrances of my chiefs when I was in the military service. (Kropotkin 1989, 43-4)

As an adult anarchist Kropotkin did not like being called a prince. Emma Goldman writes in her autobiography Living my Life,

I remembered the anecdote he had told us about his stay in Chicago, when his comrades had arranged for him to go to Waldheim to visit the graves of Parsons, Spies, and the other Haymarket martyrs. The same morning a group of society women, led by Mrs. Potter Palmer, invited him to a luncheon. ‘You will come, Prince, will you not?’ they pleaded. ‘I am sorry, ladies, but I have a previous engagement with my comrades,’ he excused himself. ‘Oh, no, Prince; you must come with us!’ Mrs. Palmer insisted. ‘Madam,’ Peter replied, ‘you may have the Prince, and I will go to my comrades.’ (Goldman 1970a, 361)

2. Kropotkin rode a penny farthing. His nephew Nicholas Alexeivich visited Kropotkin in 1886 as a child and later recalled in a 1931 article that, “I remember that our uncle astonished us with his adroitness in physical exercises, in bicycling, when that was still new in England”. Kropotkin rode a “penny-farthing”, “the wheel in front was enormous and the rear one very small”. (Quoted in Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 212)

3. Kropotkin spoke English in a Russian accent and mispronounced words. That Kropotkin spoke English in a strong accent is claimed by several eyewitness accounts, such as Philip Snowden and Roger Baldwin. (Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 226, 284) The longest description I’ve been able to find is by H.W. Nevinson. He writes that,

Anarchists do not have a chairman, but when enough of us had assembled a man stood up and began to speak. His pronunciation was queer until one grew accustomed to it (‘own’ rhymed with ‘town’, ‘law’ with ‘low’, and ‘the sluffter fields of Europe’ became a kindly joke among us). He began with the sentence, “Our first step must be the abolition of all ‘low’. I was a little startled. I had no exaggerated devotion to the law, but, as a first step, its abolition seemed rather a bound. Without a pause the speaker continued speaking, with rapidity, but with the difficulties of a foreigner who has to translate rushing thoughts as he goes along . . . (Quoted in Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 235-6)

Kropotkin was himself aware of the difficulties he had when speaking English. He writes in his autobiography that upon first moving to Edinburgh in 1876,

I may say that I had learned English in Russia, and, with my brother, had translated Page’s ‘Philosophy of Geology’ and Herbert Spencer’s ‘Principles of Biology.’ But I had learned it from books, and pronounced it very badly, so that I had the greatest difficulty in making myself understood by my Scotch landlady; her daughter and I used to write on scraps of paper what we had to say to each other; and as I had no idea of idiomatic English, I must have made the most amusing mistakes. I remember, at any rate, protesting once to her, in writing, that it was not a “cup of tea” that I expected at tea time, but many cups. I am afraid my landlady took me for a glutton, but I must say, by way of apology, that neither in the geological books I had read in English nor in Spencer’s ‘Biology’ was there any allusion to such an important matter as tea-drinking. (Kropotkin 1989, 355)

4. Kropotkin is sometimes depicted by later authors as a saintly figure or gentle sage. In reality he was a hardcore anarcho-communist revolutionary. This can be seen in several primary sources. For example, in 1881 he wrote that workers must “seize all of the wealth of society, if necessary doing so over the corpse of the bourgeoisie, with the intention of returning all of society’s wealth to those who produced it, the workers”. (Kropotkin 2014, 305) Decades later in 1914 he wrote that, “two things are necessary to be successful in a revolution . . . an idea in the head, and a bullet in the rifle! The force of action – guided by the force of Anarchist thought”.  (Ibid, 207)

Kropotkin’s hardcore militancy can also be seen in his actions. In 1877 a small armed band of twenty-six Italian anarchists, which included Malatesta, roamed the Matese mountains attempting to spread anarchist ideas through deeds. After failing to accomplish much beyond entering two small towns, burning some official government documents, and giving speeches to peasants on the need for a social revolution, the anarchists were arrested without firing a shot. (Pernicone 1993, 121-6) In response Kropotkin wrote a letter to Paul Robin where he said,

You can imagine how angry we are with the Italians. Seeing that they have allowed themselves to be surprised and have not defended themselves, I propose a vote for their exclusion from the International. The republic of [17]93 was quite capable of guillotining its generals when they gave proof of ineptitude. In my view, by allowing themselves to be surprised, to take fright, and by delivering up their weapons and ammunition to 42 men they have acted as cowards. (Quoted in Cahm 1989, 103)

Kropotkin may have changed his mind after James Guillaume wrote a letter explaining that the Italian anarchists had been unable to use their old rifles because heavy rain had made it too damp to fire. (ibid). In 1877 Kropotkin had himself attended a demonstration in St Imier, Switzerland armed with a “loaded revolver”. He was ready, in his own words, to “blow out the brains” of the police if they attacked. (Cahm 1989, 102, 104) Decades later in 1905 Kropotkin, who was in his 60s, responded to news of the Russian revolution by practising shooting with a rifle in case he returned to Russia and needed to participate in street fighting. (Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 365-6)

5. When living in England Kropotkin refused to toast the king. He recounts in a letter that,

A month ago I was invited to a banquet of the Royal Geographical Society of London. The chairman proposed, ‘The King’! Everybody rose and I alone remained seated. It was a painful moment. And I was thunderstruck when immediately afterwards the same chairman cried, ‘Long live Prince Kropotkin!’ And everybody, without exception, rose. (Quoted in Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 227)

6. Kropotkin called everything a prison before Foucault made it cool. Kropotkin argued in 1887 that insane asylums were prisons. He wrote,

There was a time when lunatics, considered as possessed by the devil, were treated in the most abominable manner. Chained in stalls like animals, they were dreaded even by their keepers. To break their chains, to set them free, would have been considered then as a folly. But a man came – Pinel – who dared to take off their chains, and to offer them brotherly words, brotherly treatment. And those who were looked upon as ready to devour the human being who dared to approach them, gathered round their liberator, and proved that he was right in his belief in the best features of human nature, even in those whose intelligence was darkened by disease. From that time the cause of humanity was won. The lunatic was no longer treated like a wild beast. Men recognized in him a brother.

The chains disappeared, but asylums – another name for prisons – remained, and within their walls a system as bad as that of the chains grew up by-and-by. (Kropotkin 1991, 369)

A decade later Kropotkin argued in 1899 that authoritarian schools were prisons. He wrote that in Germany “the Kindergarten . . . has often become a small prison for the little ones” where “teachers often make of it a kind of barrack in which each movement of the child is regulated beforehand”. (Kropotkin 1902, 193-4)

7. Kropotkin loved gardening. A wholesome example of this is Goldman’s description of her visit to Kropotkin during the Russian revolution. She writes,

we had visited Peter in July and had found him in good health and buoyant spirits. He seemed then younger and better than when we had seen him the previous March. The sparkle in his eyes and his vivacity had impressed us with his splendid condition. The Kropotkin place had looked lovely in the summer sunshine, with the flowers and Sophie’s vegetable garden in full bloom. With much pride Peter had spoken of his companion and her skill as a gardener. Taking Sasha and me by the hand, he had led us in boyish exuberance to the patch where Sophie had planted a special kind of lettuce. She had succeeded in raising heads as large as cabbages, their leaves crispy and luscious. He himself had also been digging in the soil, but it was Sophie, he had reiterated, who was the real expert. Her potato crop of the previous winter had been so large that there was enough left over to exchange for fodder for their cow and even to share with their Dmitrov neighbours, who had few vegetables. Our dear Peter had been frolicking in his garden and talking about these matters as if they were world events. Infectious had been the youthful spirit of our comrade, carrying us along by its freshness and charm. (Goldman 1970b, 863)

8. Kropotkin was apparently good at playing with kids. His nephew Nicholas Alexeivich claims that during his 1886 visit to Kropotkin, “[h]e taught us all the rules of fortification (a science to which he referred with great respect, regarding it indispensable for a revolutionary) and made fortifications in the snow. We arranged desperate battles with our comrades, little English boys, with my uncle’s benevolent assistance”. (Quoted in Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 212)

E.M Heath visited Kropotkin’s home as a child and recalled that “Kropotkin was gay and brimming over with life and interest in everything – very warm and affectionate. His vast knowledge, his vast experience and his great powers of thought, I was quite oblivious to them. It was enough for me to listen to his stories and play the delightful game he taught me, where he was a bull-fighter and I the bull, hurling myself in vain on him”. (Quoted in Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 222)

9. Kropotkin never met Michael Bakunin, who was one of the most influential anarchist theorists in the 19th The reason why is as follows. In 1872 Kropotkin visited Switzerland in order to meet socialists of various persuasions and learn about the 1st International. He initially met state socialists in Geneva, including one of Bakunin’s main opponents Nicholas Utin. After Utin attempted to stop workers from going on strike in order to protect the election of a bourgeois candidate, Kropotkin left in disgust and headed for the Jura Mountains. During his stay in the Jura he came into contact with anarchists for the first time and soon came to consider himself one. (Kropotkin 1989, 255-67) He attempted to meet Bakunin but Guillaume advised against this on the grounds that Bakunin was old and overwhelmed by the on-going conflict in the International with Marx and his supporters. (Cahm 1989, 27)

Kropotkin later wrote in his autobiography that “Bakunin was at that time at Locarno. I did not see him, and now regret it very much, because he was dead when I returned four years later to Switzerland.” (Kropotkin 1989, 267) What Kropotkin didn’t realise was that Bakunin had rejected him. Guillaume revealed to Max Nettlau that Bakunin had decided to not meet Kropotkin for what strike me as extremely bizarre reasons. Bakunin associated Peter Kropotkin with his politically moderate brother Alexander Kropotkin who was an associate of Peter Lavrov, one of Bakunin’s rivals. Bakunin was, in addition to this, suspicious of the fact that Kropotkin had stayed with Utin in Geneva for several weeks. (Cahm 1989, 27) At the time Bakunin, who was an antisemite, was convinced that Utin was part of a Jewish state socialist conspiracy against him that had been masterminded by Marx. As a result, Bakunin may have mistakenly believed that Kropotkin had sided with Utin or was being manipulated by him in some way. Unlike Bakunin we now know from Kropotkin’s memoirs that he disliked Utin and that this was a key reason why he had gone to meet the anarchists in the Jura.

10. Kropotkin didn’t only look like Santa Claus he was also aware of the fact. According to Ruth Kinna, Kropotkin contemplated dressing up as Santa Claus in order to expropriate toys from shops and give them away to children for free. Kropotkin wrote on the edge of one page, “[i]nfiltrate the stores, give away the toys!”. On the back of a postcard he wrote,

On the night before Christmas, we’ll all be about
While the people are sleeping, we’ll realise our clout
We’ll expropriate goods from the stores, ‘cos that’s fair
And distribute them widely, to those who need care.

Bonus Fact

Kropotkin was not born with a large beard. Here is a picture of him from 1861. (Woodcock and Avakumovic 1990, 96)

Kropotkin 1861

Bibliography

Goldman, Emma. 1970a. Living My Life Volume 1. New York: Dover Publications.

Goldman, Emma. 1970b. Living My Life Volume 2. New York: Dover Publications.

Cahm, Caroline. 1989. Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-1886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kropotkin, Peter. 1902. Fields, Factories and Workshops: Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work. New York: G.P Putnam’s Sons.

Kropotkin, Peter. 1989. Memoirs of a Revolutionist. Montréal: Black Rose Books.

Kropotkin, Peter. 1991. In Russian and French Prisons. Montréal: Black Rose Books.

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

Pernicone, Nunzio. 1993. Italian Anarchism 1864-1892. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Woodcock, George, and Ivan Avakumović. Peter Kropotkin: From Prince to Rebel. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1990.

What Did Bakunin Think About Religion?

The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin is one of the most famous atheists of the 19th century. Almost a century and a half before rational men on youtube ruined anti-theism for everyone else Bakunin was advocating “the abolition of [religious] cults” and “the substitution of science for faith” (Bakunin 2016, 33). He argued that “if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him” (Bakunin 1973, 128) Why did Bakunin think this and what were his views on religion?

For Bakunin religion was based on human beings subordinating themselves to a divine power which they themselves had imagined and attributed distinctly human characteristics to. Borrowing heavily from the German philosopher Feuerbach Bakunin wrote,

All religions, with their gods, their demigods and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the credulous fancy of men who had not attainted the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but a mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovers his own image, but enlarged and reversed – that is, divinized. The history of religions, of the birth, grandeur and decline of the gods who have succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind. As fast as they discovered, in the course of their historically progressive advance, either in themselves or in external nature, a power, a quality, or even any great defect whatever, they attributed them to their gods, after having exaggerated and enlarged them beyond measure, after the manner of children, by an act of their religious fancy. Thanks to this modesty and pious generosity of believing and credulous men, heaven has grown rich with the spoils of the earth, and, by a necessary consequence, the richer heaven became, the more wretched became humanity and the earth. God once installed, he was naturally proclaimed the cause, reason, arbiter, and absolute disposer of all things: the world thenceforth was nothing, God was all; and man, his real creator, after having unknowingly extracted him from the void, bowed down before him, worshipped him, and avowed himself his creature and his slave. (Bakunin 1973, 124)

The genuine belief in this metaphysical subordination was then exploited by God’s self-proclaimed representatives on earth to justify their very real material oppression of others. He wrote,

God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, once recognized as the representatives of divinity on earth, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds. Slaves of God, men must also be slaves of Church and State, in so far as the State is consecrated by the Church. (Bakunin 1973, 124-5)

The harm of religion so understood was profound. For Bakunin religions destroy people’s

reason, the principle instrument of human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the essential condition of their slavery. They dishonor human labour, and make it a sign and source of servitude. They kill the idea and sentiment of human justice, ever tipping the balance to the side of triumphant knaves, privileged objects of divine indulgence. They kill human pride and dignity, protecting only the cringing and humble. They stifle in the heart of nations every feeling of human fraternity, filling it with divine cruelty instead. All religions are cruel, all founded on blood; for all rest principally on the idea of sacrifice – that is, on the perpetual immolation of humanity to the insatiable vengeance of divinity. In this bloody mystery man is always the victim, and the priest – a man also, but a man privileged by grace – is the divine executioner. (Bakunin 1973, 126)

Bakunin did not, however, blame workers and peasants for believing in God but held it was a product of the society they lived in. According to Bakunin,

Nothing is more natural than that the belief in God, the creator, regulator, judge, master, curser, savior, and benefactor of the world, should still prevail among the people . . . The people, unfortunately, are still very ignorant, and are kept in ignorance by the systematic efforts of all the governments, who consider this ignorance, not without good reason, as one of the essential conditions of their own power. Weighted down by their daily labour, deprived of leisure, of intellectual intercourse, of reading, in short of all the means and a good portion of the stimulants that develop thought in men, the people generally accept religious traditions without criticism and in a lump. These traditions surround them from infancy in all the situations of life, and artificially sustained in their minds by a multitude of official poisoners of all sorts, priests and laymen, are transformed therein into a sort of mental and moral habit, too often more powerful even than their natural good sense. (Bakunin 1973, 117-8)

One of the main reasons why workers and peasants clung to religion was because it enabled them to escape from “the wretched situation to which they find themselves fatally condemned by the economic organization of society in the most civilized countries of Europe.” They were “reduced, intellectually and morally as well as materially, to the minimum of human existence, confined in their life like a prisoner in his prison, without horizon, without outlet, without even a future.” (Bakunin 1973, 118) Religious people should therefore not be blindly attacked but empathized with since their belief in God was grounded in “a deep discontent at heart” and “the instinctive and passionate protest of the human being against the narrownesses, the platitudes, the sorrows, and the shames of a wretched existence.” (Bakunin 1973, 123)

Bakunin was nonetheless an anti-theist who advocated the abolition of religion. In so doing he was not arguing that people should be forced to be atheists. In 1872 he advocated “the most profound and sincere respect for the freedom of conscience of all” and “the sacred right of all to propagate their ideas”. This of course also included his right to “attack the divine idea in its every manifestation – religious, metaphysical, political and juridical”. (Bakunin 2016, 218) Nor did Bakunin think that the socialist movement should exclude believers in God. He explicitly argued that the 1st International should not be officially committed to atheism because it had to attract the millions of workers who believe in God in order to become a genuine mass movement capable of overthrowing capitalism and the state. (Bakunin 2016, 211)

Bakunin instead held that the abolition of religion could only occur through transforming society as a whole because what people thought was a product of their daily experiences and the social structures they were a part of or effected by. He wrote, “thinking flows from life, and to modify thinking, one must transform life. Give a people a broad and humane life and it will astound you by the profound rationalism of its ideas.” (Bakunin 2016, 14) Given this, Bakunin argued that the abolition of religion could only be achieved by a social revolution which abolished capitalism and the state in favour of the free association of free producers. (Bakunin 1973, 123)

This is what Bakunin thought but what should we as modern anarchists make of Bakunin’s views on religion? I myself am an atheist and have been my entire life but I think Bakunin makes too strong a case. Religion does regularly coincide with authoritarianism but it can also result in emancipatory politics, as can be seen in the history of liberation theology in Latin America or, to give an earlier example, the true levelers in England who used the bible to advocate the abolition of class society in the 17th century hundreds of years before the anarchist movement even emerged. Nor am I convinced that religion would be abolished after a social revolution. This is because even under an anarchist society where suffering was greatly reduced people would still be drawn to religion in response to the inescapable suffering of human existence, such as death, heartbreak, and existential terror.

Bibliography

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

Bakunin, Michael. 1973. Selected Writings. Edited by Arthur Lehning. London: Jonathan Cape.

How Would Anarchism Work?

I’m an anarchist which means I want to abolish capitalism and the state in favour of the free association of free producers. In response to this people often ask me questions about how an anarchist society would solve all kinds of different social problems. People in the comment section be like hey anarchopac how will anarchism organise healthcare? How would an anarchist society respond to people who go drunk driving? How would an anarchist society deal with scientology or other dangerous cults? What would happen to murderers? And so on and on.

All these are very sensible questions and raise problems any society will have to overcome if it is function and guarantee human well-being. But I can’t answer these questions by myself. I’m just a nerd who has spent far too much time reading books on anarchism. If you want to know what anarchists historically argued on a certain topic I can tell you but I don’t have all the answers. I can’t tell you how people in the 21st century should solve all kinds of really complex problems like how to effectively organise public infrastructure because I myself know basically nothing about public infrastructure. These are the kinds of question which can only really be answered in practice by lots of different people with different kinds of expertise and life experiences who are organised on the ground. They’re not going to be solved by an anarchist youtube philosopher sitting in their room thinking about the topic. To suggest otherwise is to put myself on the pedestal and act as if everyone else should just listen to me.

Anarchist theory doesn’t tell you exactly how to solve social problems. Instead anarchism advocates a system of self-organisation through which people come together to solve the problems which arise in their specific situation. It proposes that people horizontally associate as equals and make decisions as a group through a system of direct democracy in which everyone has a vote and an equal say in decisions which affect them. These groups then associate with other groups to form federations at a regional, national and international level in order to co-ordinate action over a large area through regular congresses. These congresses would be attended by instantly recallable mandated delegates that councils had elected to represent them. Crucially, delegates would not be granted the power to make decisions independently and impose them on others. Decision making power would remain in the hands of the group who had elected them. This system of decision making isn’t something I invented in a study. It’s how anarchists and syndicalist trade unions with memberships in the hundreds of thousands actually organised in real life since the 19th century to the present. We know it works because it already has.

What decisions these groups make isn’t something anarchist theory can give you all the answers to. Instead they’ll have to work things out for themselves and decide on what they think the best course of action is. In other words, anarchist theory doesn’t tell you what decisions to make. It only indicates a method through which to make decisions yourselves and the values which these decisions should seek to promote, such as freedom, equality and solidarity.

This idea was explained in-depth by the Italian anarchist theorist Malatesta in his 1891 pamphlet anarchy, which you should read if you haven’t already. According to Malatesta,

All that you have said may be true, say some; Anarchy may be a perfect form of social life; but we have no desire to take a leap in the dark. Therefore, tell us how your society will be organised. Then follows a long string of questions, which would be very interesting if it were our business to study the problems that might arise in an emancipated society, but of which it is useless and absurd to imagine that we could now offer a definite solution. According to what method will children be taught? How will production and distribution be organised? Will there still be large cities? or will people spread equally over all the surface of the earth? Will all the inhabitants of Siberia winter at Nice? Will every one dine on partridges and drink champagne? Who will be the miners and sailors? Who will clear the drains? Will the sick be nursed at home or in hospitals? Who will arrange the railway time-table? What will happen if the engine-driver falls ill while the train is on its way? And so on, without end, as though we could prophesy all the knowledge and experience of the future time, or could, in the name of Anarchy, prescribe for the coming man what time he should go to bed, and on what days he should cut his nails!

Indeed if our readers expect from us an answer to these questions, or even to those among them really serious and important, which can be anything more than our own private opinion at this present hour, we must have succeeded badly in our endeavour to explain what Anarchy is. We are no more prophets than other men, and should we pretend to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the life of the future society, we should have indeed a curious idea of the abolition of government. We should then be describing a government, dictating, like the clergy, a universal code for the present and all future time. (Malatesta 2014, 139-40)

Anarchists can instead only indicate a method through which society would be organised and decisions would be made. For Malatesta the method of anarchism is

the free initiative of all and free agreement, when, after the revolutionary abolition of private property, every one will have equal power to dispose of social wealth. This method, not admitting the reestablishment of private property, must lead, by means of free association, to the complete triumph of the principles of solidarity.

Thus we see that all the problems put forward to combat the Anarchistic idea are on the contrary arguments in favor of Anarchy; because it alone indicates the way in which, by experience, those solutions which correspond to the dicta of science, and to the needs and wishes of all, can best be found.

How will children be educated? We do not know. What then? The parents, teachers and all, who are interested in the progress of the rising generation, will meet, discuss, agree and differ, and then divide according to their various opinions, putting into practice the methods which they respectively hold to be best. That method which, when tried, produces the best results will triumph in the end. And so for all the problems that may arise. (ibid, 142)

What Malatesta said was true in the 19th century and I think its only become more true in the 21st century. Society is larger and more complex than it used to be. I can’t create a detailed blueprint for how an anarchist society would function but I don’t need to. Anarchism isn’t about me telling you exactly how you will live in my ideal society. Its you and everyone else deciding for yourselves how you shall live through a decentralised system of self-management, rather than doing what a tiny minority of rulers, like bosses or politicians, tell you to do. I don’t have all the answers but collectively we can pool our shared knowledge, skills and experiences to solve the problems which we will have to overcome in an anarchist society. We won’t always make the best or the right decisions but it doesn’t have to be perfect, only better than what we currently have – which is an oligarchy that is currently driving all 7 billion of us towards total environmental collapse in order to make short term profits.

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walt, Lucien van der. 2016. “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.

 

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: 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.

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. (ibid, 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?” (ibid, 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!’ (ibid, 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. (ibid, 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,’. (ibid, 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”. (ibid, 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. (Ibid, 160)

Or as Reclus says elsewhere, vegetarians seek to make other animals “neither our servants nor our machines, but rather our true companions. (ibid, 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. (ibid, 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.” (ibid, 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. (ibid, 233)

Bibliography

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

Reclus, Elisée. 2013. Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: Selected Writings of Elisée Reclus. Edited by John Clark and Camille Martin. Oakland, CA: 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, 60) 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, 15)

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, 19)

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, 18)

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, 16)

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, 17)

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, 110)

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. Oakland CA: 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. London: Freedom Press.

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

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

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

Turcato, Davide. 2012. Making Sense of Anarchism: Errico Malatesta’s Experiments With Revolution, 1889-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.