Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Enemies of the State

by DAVE COULL

(an essay on the history of anarchism written in 1997)

The thoughtful student of history learns to take nothing for granted. Received "wisdom" is there to be questioned. Much of what has passed for "history" concerns the activities of kings and lords, and, later, those of professional politicians; much of what has passed for "history" is about the ruling class - about "statesmen". Much history is about states ; and the more that we learn about the history of states, the less loveable the state as an institution seems. There have been many statesmen/politicians who claimed to want to minimise the state. But has there been a historical movement which has sought the complete abolition of all states, both existing and potential, everywhere ? Has there been more than one such movement? Whether singular or plural, how should we describe such a phenomenon? Finally, does such a movement have a future? The intention of this essay is to seek to show that there has indeed been such a movement; that there still is such a movement; that "movement" - singular, not plural - is the appropriate way to describe this phenomenon; that those who are actively involved in this movement refer to it as "the anarchist movement"; and that the confidence with which this movement regards its future is not totally without foundation.

You can find movements with anti-state aspects to them in many different periods of history and in many different cultures: for instance, in ancient Greece, in Taoism, in the history of Buddhism, in early Christianity and in Christian "heresies" of the Middle Ages and 'The English Revolution'; but fully fledged anarchism as a thorough-going alternative world view involving complete rejection of all existing and all possible states first appears in the Nineteenth Century, and has a continuing existence from then on.

The English philosopher William Godwin put forward an anarchist viewpoint in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (1793) but in Godwin's day the word "anarchist" only had a pejorative meaning. Godwin's son-in-law, the poet Shelley, also advanced what would now be considered anarchistic views, yet shied away from the self-description "anarchist". "The word anarchy comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government : the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government."1

In the time of Godwin and of Shelley, it was assumed that such a "condition" would automatically be equivalent to chaos. The first person who actually said "I am an anarchist" was the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. " 'I understand, you are being satirical at the expense of government.' Not in the least. I have just given you my considered and serious profession of faith. Although I am a strong supporter of order, I am in the fullest sense of the term an anarchist."2 In a great tirade expressing the anarchist attitude towards the state, Proudhon fumed "To be governed means that at every move,operation or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped,priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorised, recommended, admonished, reformed.....exploited, monopolised, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good." 3

As well as being against the state in all its forms, Proudhon was (like all anarchists) against capitalism. His most famous saying was "property is theft".By this Proudhon meant property in a capitalistic sense. Like most anarchists ,he did not oppose all private possessions, but only those which were necessarily exploitative of other people. It was okay to own a plough; but to own the factory which produces ploughs was to be a capitalist. To begin with, Karl Marx was a fan of Proudhon, hailing him as "the proletariat become conscious of itself";but later they quarrelled, and Marx called Proudhon "petit bourgeois". This curious change from "proletarian" to "petit bourgeois" had nothing to do with class analysis, and everything to do with the fact that Proudhon opposed Marx on the question of the state !

"The communists in general are under a strange illusion: fanatics of state power, they claim that they can use the state authority to ensure, by methods of restitution, the well being of the workers who created the collective wealth. As if the individual came into existence after society, and not society after the individual." 4

Once Proudhon had breached the taboo on the word "anarchist", many other libertarian-minded people in and around the fledgling socialist and working class movements also started to describe themselves as such. These people were not just philosophers, but men (and women) of action. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many thousands of less well-known anarchists would all see the insides of various states' jails.

Proudhon expressed some unpleasant prejudices which would be unacceptable today; so did Bakunin. But then, Karl Marx's son-in-law Paul Lafargue, who was one-sixteenth Afro-Cuban, had to put up with constantly being called "*****" and "gorilla" by Marx. 5 When Lafargue showed some interest in Proudhon's, rather than Marx's, ideas, Marx commented on the need to "beat some sense into that thick Creole skull of his".6 To anarchists, the failings of supposedly "great" anarchists are merely a source of amusement; while to Marxists, criticism of the great prophets can undermine faith in their religion! Like everyone else, anarchists are the imperfect products of this society; however, as Martha Ackelsberg points out : "Along with contemporary feminists, anarchists insist that those who are defined by others have great difficulty defining themselves". 7

One of the most misunderstood of anarchist writers is the arch-individualist Max Stirner. Here is Max Nettlau on Stirner : "I have elsewhere published some notes to support my judgement of Max Stirner (in Vorfrühling der Anarchie pp. 169-173).His thinking, in substance, was eminently socialist. He wanted the social revolution, but, since he was sincerely anarchist, his so-called 'egoism' represented the protection,the defence which he considered it was necessary to adopt against authoritarian socialism and any statism that the authoritarians might infuse into socialism. His 'egoism' is individual initiative. His 'Verein' is the free association which accomplishes a purpose but which is not converted into an organisation or society. His method is eminently disobedience, the individual and collective negation of authority, and a voluntary association according to what a situation may need. It is the free life as against the life which is controlled and ordered by the usurpers of property and authority." 8

Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" is an anarchist classic, but Stirner himself, while certainly part of the movement, was not a central player. In contrast, Mikhail Bakunin became a formidable opponent both of all existing states and of the Marxist alternative to them. He led the opposition to Karl Marx in the International Working Men's Association, and, with the other anarchists, was expelled from the International as a result. Very much the man of action, Bakunin only wrote in response to things that other people said, and he wrote articles or pamphlets, not books; yet long after his death, Bakunin's writings would influence the development of the anarchist movements in Spain and South America; and during the resurgence of interest in anarchism of the 1960s, Bakunin was the most influential thinker. However, we must again stress that anarchists are not Bakuninists (as we can be sure Bakunin would have been the first to agree).

Bakunin's attitude towards the state was : "The State denotes violence, oppression, exploitation, and injustice raised into a system and made into the cornerstone of the existence of any society. The State never had and never will have any morality. Its morality and only justice is the supreme interest of self-preservation and almighty power - an interest before which all humanity has to kneel in worship. The State is the complete negation of humanity, a double negation: the opposite of human freedom and justice, and the violent breach of the universal solidarity of the human race." 9 Bakunin's alternative to the state was libertarian socialism, which for him was synonymous with anarchy : "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". 10

Another Russian who had considerable influence on the anarchist movement was Pyotr Kropotkin. As well as being a revolutionary anarchist, Kropotkin was a geographer/environmental scientist. "It was Darwin himself, said Kropotkin, who had shown that 'sociability' conferred an important evolutionary advantage. Therefore Thomas Huxley's insistence that mankind must struggle against a harsh,competitive 'law of nature' was unnecessary. To Kropotkin, it was social co-operation that gave a species its competitive edge. As he grew older, Kropotkin became an anarchist-nihilist, doing everything he could to undermine a social system he saw as unjust, inhumane and 'unnatural'." 11 After spells in Russian and French prisons, Kropotkin moved to London in 1886, where he helped set up the Freedom Press Group, which still exists today.

A century after being set up by Kropotkin, Freedom Press republished his essay on The State , which concludes : "Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is.....death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you !" 12

Despite having seen that the State was the bringer of war, Kropotkin was disastrously wrong about the First World War, in effect supporting the allies against Germany, and allowing the nationalistic press in both Britain and France to crow "even the anarchists say our cause is just". Yet in fact the vast majority of anarchists disagreed with Kropotkin and opposed the war. Prominent amongst opponents of the war was Errico Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist. Having fled South America with most of the governments of that continent pursuing him, Malatesta spent some years in London, where he met Kropotkin. During sixty years as an active anarchist, Malatesta wrote many articles and pamphlets. Unlike Kropotkin, between earning his living as an electrician and being involved in revolutionary activity, Malatesta never had time to write a book; yet nobody has ever had more influence on the international anarchist movement. "Uniting his theory and action with rare consistency, he combined idealism with common sense, philosophical rigour
with practical experience." 13

Since we are still living in a world of states, by definition, there has never been a successful anarchist revolution. But four years after Malatesta's death came one of the closest things to it, the Catalan Revolution of 1936. Here is George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' : "I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do.The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was in full swing". 14 Spain is one of a handful of countries (so far) where anarchism achieved the status of a mass movement, through the FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica) and the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo).

Here is a report of the CNT congress of 1936 : "Tolerance of diversity was one of the keynotes of the Congress. Every attempt was made to incorporate the many shades of anarchist opinion, from the collectivist to the individualist. It was recognised that the communes would take on many different forms, and opponents of industrial technology and advocates of nudism would be free to create their own" 15 This spirit of tolerance of diversity amongst anarchists continues to this day, as those of us who attended the Glasgow Anarchist Summer Schools of 1993 and 1996 can testify.

While most emphatically not claiming any anarchist equivalent of "apostolic succession", it is a fact that this writer first came in contact with active anarchists in 1963, and came to know such veterans as Tom Brown and Albert Meltzer quite well; they knew Emma Goldman, Emma knew Malatesta, Malatesta knew Kropotkin, Kropotkin knew Bakunin, and Bakunin knew Proudhon; so the historical continuity of the anarchist movement is complete. Some of those who organised the campaign of non-payment of the poll tax, and who rioted against Margaret Thatcher's "flagship policy" in 1990, were not a "new" anarchist movement; they were the same one !

Of course, anarchist groups and organisations come and go; but the movement has a continuing existence. "A libertarian organisation is not some tool acting in obedience to orders emanating from on high or from some central point, but rather a theater for the implementation of mutual aid and a way of blending individual endeavours, so as to bestow upon them, in so doing, greater social impact. Should that organisation be permanent, ad hoc, specific or broadly-based ? Let us answer with a statement of the obvious : it all depends on the aim." 16

The anarchist movement in Scotland dates back to around 1880, when some French refugees from the post-Paris Commune repression settled in Glasgow, and one Frenchman set up home with a Scottish woman with the surname MacTavish, and their flat in London Road became the focus of the first Glasgow Anarchist Group. While we can speak of "the anarchist movement in Scotland" or "the anarchist movement in Argentina", the movement has from its very beginnings always been consciously and deliberately internationalist. Sometimes communication has been difficult, but at all times anarchists have seen themselves as being part of one movement.

Today, anarchists are organising internationally via the internet, through various groupings such as the Anarchy-List (open to absolutely anyone) and the Organise-List (not quite so open). The 1997 speaking tour of many European cities (including Dundee), by the black American revolutionary anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, was arranged through the Organise-List.

Recently, there has been some discussion on "History of Anarchism" on the Anarchy-List. There was general agreement that Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible is the best history of anarchism - "far better than Woodcock's Anarchism , and better referenced, too"; and more up to date than, and certainly easier to read than, Max Nettlau's monumental 9-volume History of Anarchism ! Marshall's book is "an excellent resource - until such time as activists can write their own history - which may be easier with the net". 17

Another recent discussion on the Anarchy-List, involving people from many countries, has concerned the American anarcho-socialist Noam Chomsky's ideas on "expanding the floor of the cage". 18 We know the welfare state is a cage; but removing the bars while we are weak just invites the capitalist wolves to dinner. We should make living space for ourselves by "expanding the floor of the cage", until such time as we are strong enough to tear down the bars and deal with the wolves. Some anarchists agree with Chomsky; many disagree; and some just dislike Chomsky because he has become too prominent.

But, it may be objected, so far we have only considered "left-wing" or socialistic anarchists. Even arch-individualists like Stirner turn out to be in favour of solidarity and mutual aid. What about other forms of anarchism ?

What other forms of anarchism ? Oh, there are many variations, but,
essentially, we have now described the historical anarchist movement - rebels who are opposed to the state and to all forms of authority, including the authority of the capitalist boss.

What, it may be objected, about "anarcho-capitalists" like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard ? The answer is that they are not anarchists. Their ideas are really those of the so-called minimal state - a state which always turns out, on closer examination, to be not-so-minimal-after-all . Peter Marshall says "Anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp." 19

It should be added that anarchists throughout the world, whether they call themselves individualist-anarchists, anarchist-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, or just plain anarchists, are virtually unanimous in regarding the so-called anarcho-capitalists, not as friend or allies, not as fellow travellers along the road to anarchy, but as capitalists first, foremost, and always, and therefore as the sworn enemies of anarchy. The "anarcho"-capitalists' obsession with protection of property rights means that they are prepared to defend the legalistic "rights" of the rich, so they have to think in terms of "law and order"; they have to come up with some means of defending the indefensible, and essentially that means the state. Their "minimal state" would lock up the true anarchists who would be seeking to take the opportunity of a weak state to expropriate the capitalistic property of the rich.

The so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are latter-day frauds and charlatans who pretend to some spurious connection with historical anarchism in order to give a false impression of being libertarians who oppose the state. Financially, the "anarcho"-capitalists are quite rich, especially in the USA, and can well afford to spread their misrepresentations ; but in terms of numbers, they are insignificant.The anarchist movement has historically shown itself capable of becoming, in some countries, during favourable circumstances, a mass movement; that could never be said about the "anarcho"-capitalists.

This brief look at the history of anarchism shows that a movement of principled opposition to the State - to all states, and to all possible states - first appeared in the Nineteenth Century. Though there were many religious and other movements with anti-state aspects to them in earlier centuries, these can be seen as preludes to anarchism. Since its beginning, the anarchist movement has been, as well as anti-State, also anti-capitalist ; indeed , anti- all forms of authority ; and since its beginning the movement has been internationalist.

There are many different groups and factions within the anarchist movement - sometimes it can seem there are as many anarchisms as there are anarchists - but they all consider themselves to be part of one movement. "Movement" is also the correct term for non-anarchists to use, because, even if there might appear to be little actual "motion" for considerable periods of time, nevertheless, the word fits better than any other. The anarchist movement is not just a "school" of philosophical or political thought, but the sum of all those who actively seek, individually and collectively, to put that thought into practice. Nor is the anarchist movement a political "party" in the sense that the SNP or the Liberal Democrats are parties, because it does not seek governmental power, it does not have leaders, and it does not have a manifesto.

As to the future, with the failure of Marxist communism (as predicted by Bakunin as long ago as 1870), the greatest challenge to the untrammelled power of the capitalistic states comes from the anarchist movement. Anarchists are constantly adapting to changing circumstances, have established a formidable intellectual and organisational presence on the internet, and are the fiercest opponents of all attempts to control the net. The new International which is evolving consists not just of talk, but of action too, for it consists of activists involved in a wide variety of struggles. While a census is of course quite impossible (one hundred per cent non-co-operation guaranteed) there are probably more anarchists world-wide today than at any previous time in history. In short, people in the anarchist movement feel that they have some reasons for looking to the future with a certain amount of confidence. Anarchists are proud of the fact that, at all times, in all countries, they are "enemies of the state" . So far as they are concerned , history most definitely remains (to quote the title of a 1990s Class War pamphlet) "Unfinished Business" .

Footnotes to Enemies of The State

1. Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, (London : Freedom Press, 1974), p. 11.

2. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Stewart Edwards (ed.), translation Elizabeth Fraser, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, (London : Macmillan, 1969), p. 88.

3. Daniel Guerin (quoting from Proudhon's "Idée Générale de la Révolution au 19ieme Siècle") Anarchism : From Theory to Practice, (New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970), pp. 15-16.

4. Edward Hyams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works, (London : John Murray, 1979), pp. 85-86.

5. Robert Payne, Marx, (London : W.H. Allen, 1968), p. 391.

6. Franz Mehring, Karl Marx : The Story of His Life, (London : Allen and Unwin, 1951), p. 345.

7. Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women, (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 20.

8. Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, (London : Freedom Press, 1996), pp. 54-55.

9. Michael Bakunin (ed. G.P. Maximoff), The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, (New York : Free Press, 1953), p. 224.

10. Michael Bakunin (as above, pp. 373, 269)

11. Richard Milner, The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity's Search for its Origins, (New York , Oxford : Facts on File, 1990), p. 259.

12. Peter Kropotkin, The State : Its Historic Role, (London : Freedom Press, 1987),p. 56.

13. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, (London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 361.

14. George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, (London : Secker & Warburg, 1967), p. 2.

15. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, (London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 460.

16. Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective : Les Anarchistes et L'Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours (Paris : Skirda, 1987) Chapter 20.

17. David Barsamian, "Expanding the Floor of the Cage : An Interview with Noam Chomsky"from the pages of Z magazine , available on-line at:
http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/mar97barchom.htm

18. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism,(London : Fontana Press, 1993) 565.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackelsberg, Martha
Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women
Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991.

Bakunin, Michael (ed. G.P. Maximoff)
The Political Philosophy of Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism
New York : Free Press, 1953.

Barsamian, David
"Expanding the Floor of the Cage: An Interview with Noam Chomsky"
Z Mag (March 97)
Boston : Z Magazine, 1997.

Godwin, William
An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness
London : G.G. & J. Priestley, 1793.

Goldman, Emma
Anarchism and Other Essays
New York : Dover, 1969.

Guerin, Daniel
Anarchism : From Theory to Practice
New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970.

Hyams, Edward
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works
London : John Murray, 1979.

Kropotkin, Peter
The State : Its Historic Role
London : Freedom Press, 1987.

Malatesta, Errico
Anarchy
London : Freedom Press, 1974.

Marshall, Peter
Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism
London : Fontana Press, 1993.

Mehring, Franz
Karl Marx : The Story of His Life
London : Allen & Unwin, 1951.

Meltzer, Albert
The Anarchists in London, 1935-1955
Sanday, Orkney : Cienfuegos Press, 1976.

Milner, Richard
The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity's Search for its Origins
New York, Oxford : Facts on File, 1990.

Nettlau, Max
A Short History of Anarchism
London : Freedom Press, 1996.

Orwell, George
Homage to Catalonia
London : Secker & Warburg, 1967.

Payne, Robert
Marx
London : W.H. Allen, 1968.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (ed. Stewart Edwards, trans. Elizabeth Fraser)
Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
London : Macmillan, 1969.

Rothbard, Murray N.
For a New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto
New York : Collier, 1978.

Skirda, Alexandre
Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective :
Les Anarchistes et L'Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours
Paris : Skirda, 1987.

Stirner, Max (trans. Steven T. Byington)
The Ego and its Own
London : Rebel Press, 1982.

Woodcock, George
Anarchism : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements

RadgeJougal · Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject:

Thus saith the Lord.

But when it comes down to it, you will order the rest of us around.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Radge Jougal wrote "when it comes down to it, you will order the rest of us around".

I'm not the one who closes down forums in order to suppress free and open debate about matters of principle.

And I'm not the one ordering other people to change their style of writing.

agentmancuso · Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject:

All very charming, Mr Coull, but it doesn't appear to answer my oft-repeated question about the nature of libertarian socialism:

Marxist socialism consists in giving the state the untrammeled power and license to create Fairy Land, before magicking itself out of existence. I've been told 'libertarian socialism' means a desire to arrive in Fairy land without the intermediate step.

How can this be possible?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Agentmancuso wrote "Marxist socialism consists in giving the state the untrammeled power and license to create Fairy Land, before magicking itself out of existence. I've been told 'libertarian socialism' means a desire to arrive in Fairy land without the intermediate step".

Marxists do say that eventually the State will "wither away", but that a "transitional" stage of "dictatorship of the proletariat" is necessary. During this "transitional" stage, all power will be put in the hands of the state, which will be controlled by a single political party (all others being banned) claiming to be the "Vanguard of the Proletariat".

Libertarian Socialists say of course the state won't "wither away", and putting all power into a single political party will simply lead to them exercising a dictatorship over the proletariat. (As predicted during Karl Marx's day by Bakunin, and as has in fact happened many times in many countries). Libertarian socialists do indeed aim at going straight for the abolition of the state, without any "transitional" stage.

"How can this be possible?" - there was a time when I would have answered that question with complete confidence. But of course I was a lot younger then. Even ten years ago, in 1997, when this essay was written, I could conclude on an optimistic note. But I am less sure of the answer than I was. I don't think this is just a case of me getting older. I think it is also a recognition of some objective factors which were not so obvious in the past. Of course we have had the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism as an alternative world view, but I don't see that as being as important a challenge to capitalism, in the long run, as libertarian socialism. No, the problem which has become more evident than formerly is global climate change. I thought that achieving a libertarian socialist society might take a long time, but we were certain to get there in the end, given enough time. I still think we would be certain to get there in the end if we had enough time, but, unfortunately, global capitalism is making such a mess of the planet, the very future of human life is at risk within the lifetimes of people alive today. I still think global capitalism has to be challenged, if only in order to try to slow down the destruction of our planet, and I still think this has to be done in a libertarian socialist way. But nowadays, even though I am a natural optimist, the massive cumulation of scientific evidence seems to me to point to objective reality being grounds for some pessimism, not just about libertarian socialism, but about the future of the human species. Hopefully we will survive somehow, despite having made such a mess of things. And hopefully we will move in a libertarian socialist direction. But as for producing some sort of "blueprint" of how we do this, libertarian socialists have never been as keen as Marxists on producing blueprints, and there is even less reason for producing libertarian socialist blueprints now.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:32 am Post subject:

carol · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:45 am Post subject:

Radge you naughty boy Laughing

I found Dave's behaviour very controlling

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

The subject of libertarian socialism was first mentioned here on this forum by Gus A. Since that thread has been "locked", and yet there did appear to be some genuine interest in the subject, I decided to start a new thread, by posting an essay which I had written in 1997. That essay of three thousand four hundred words, not counting the references and the bibliography, is probably as good an introduction to the subject of libertarian socialism, for those unfamiliar with the subject, as you are likely to find anywhere. (Yes, Iain Mackay's FAQ is better in some ways, but it is also about a thousand times LONGER.) I suppose I kinda hoped that posting the essay might lead to some genuine discussion on its actual content, which, whatever faults it might have, at least has the advantages of being very knowledgeable on its subject, well researched, and well referenced. Unfortunately, Radge Jougal responded in his usual fashion, with a personal attack on the author, rather than any comment on the content of the essay.

I responded, and Radge Jougal now continues his personal attacks, accusing me of having asked him not to use a pseudonym.

The truth is, Radge, that I have on several occasions expressed distaste for your behaviour, but I have not "asked" you to do anything. The fact is, you have no consistent, principled, views of any kind. You deal only in personal trivia. This has been proved yet again by your response to my essay. I have expressed distaste for your behaviour, but I haven't "asked" you to do anything. And even if I had, there is a very big difference between "asking" and "ordering". If you had never sniped at me with personal abuse from your hidey-hole, I would never have given a damn whether you used a pseudonym or not.

Seeing that a discussion which had started off with a 3,400 word essay is now sinking to her level, right on cue, Carol (another stranger to matters of principle) says she found my behaviour very controlling.

The problem with that kind of remark is that it is entirely subjective. Only objective matters are capable of being proved one way or the other. Here is some objective reality: all libertarians, including that recent convert to libertarian socialism KW, are agreed that closing down the members forum of Independence First was an authoritarian action. Carol enthusiastically supported that authoritarian action.

The essay on libertarian socialism at the start of this discussion was the product of many weeks of research and many years of experience. I regret that the discussion which started off on a high note has so swiftly sank to the level of personal trivia, and would welcome anybody making a serious response to my essay "Enemies Of The State", whether they agree with me or not.

carol · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:

staying on topic Dave, I thought your behaviour stemmed from you being an anarchist, no respect for authority, structure etc, as well as no respect for individuals who did not follow your line of thinking.

Holebender · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:46 am Post subject:

A controlling anarchist? What a strange beast that must be.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Carol wrote (about me) "no respect for authority"

Yes, it is true that I have no respect for authority. I may sometimes have some respect for particular individuals who happen to be in a position of authority, but, if I do, then it is the individual who has earned my respect, I am not respecting their position as such.

"structure"

No, it is not true that I have no respect for "structure". Take a look at the 3,400 word essay at the top of this topic. That essay has structure, it is not just a chaotic mish-mash. It has an introduction which sets out the questions to be answered, it has a main part which is structured more or less along chronological lines, it has a conclusion which states the answers to the questions posed by the introduction, it has references, and it has a bibliography. That is structure. What you and I disagreed about was the KIND of structure that we wanted for the campaign for a referendum on independence which I had suggested. Quite simply, you wanted a very authoritarian structure, along the lines of political parties, while I wanted the campaign to have a more libertarian structure. The constitution which was adopted at the inaugural meeting of Independence First was a bit of a compromise between these two positions. You got your way over a lot of things, but I got agreement to things like rotating the chairing of meetings.

Holebender wrote "A controlling anarchist? What a strange beast that must be".

Well, theoretically, Christians are supposed to be loving and forgiving, but there are plenty who aren't. Liberal Democrats are supposed to be liberal and democratic, but some of them are neither. With any category of people, you always get plenty who fall short of the ideal. Historically speaking, there have been quite a lot of well known anarchists who could sometimes be quite "controlling" in their behaviour. One obvious example is Mikhail Bakunin, who, despite being dead right about where Karl Marx's ideas would end up, could himself act in quite an authoritarian manner at times. Another example is Emma Goldman. In the early stages of the Spanish Civil War, she was due to speak at a big rally in London in solidarity with the Spanish anarchists. A lot of folk (including young Albert Meltzer) went to that meeting all set to volunteer to fight alongside their anarchist colleagues in Spain. But Emma told the meeting that the decision was that they should stay in their own countries and act in solidarity from there. This caused uproar at the meeting. She told the crowd "Well, whether you like it or not, that is the decision".

I'm no saint, and I've never made any claim to sainthood. I can be difficult, of course I can. But whenever a matter of PRINCIPLE is at stake, I usually go for the libertarian option. So far as Independence First is concerned, I was a consistent advocate of rotating the chairing of meetings, right from the start. I consistently said that I didn't want to be a "leader", but I certainly wasn't going to be anybody's "follower", so the only acceptable way of running things was on the basis of equality. I consistently said that a single-issue campaign was a very different thing from a political party, and there could be no "party line" which we were all expected to follow. Of course I was against having the Leader of a Political Party as convenor of IF, that was just totally ridiculous. And of course I was completely opposed to the closing down of the members forum, that was just blatant political censorship. While it is quite probable that, so far as personal relations are concerned, I may often have been less than perfect, on every major issue of principle I took the more libertarian stance.

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject:

For one, I believe Libertarianism generally refers to a certain strand of Minarchism.

This version which Dave Coull is pontificating about seems to me to be rather more Socialist Anarchism than Socialist Libertarianism.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Aventinian wrote "I believe Libertarianism generally refers to a certain strand of Minarchism".

That is, as you say, your BELIEF. Beliefs are subjective. They do not necessarily relate to objective facts.

"This version which Dave Coull is pontificating about"

It's not a case of Dave Coull "pontificating", it's merely a case of Dave Coull re-stating ideas which have been, and are, held by millions of folk throughout the world. The fact that these ideas happen to be unfamiliar to you and that you happen to be hearing about them through Dave Coull doesn't make them Dave Coull's ideas.

"seems to me to be rather more Socialist Anarchism than Socialist Libertarianism".

A distinction without a difference.......

Regarding "socialist anarchism", there is an old joke about sectarianism in either Glasgow or Belfast (depending on who is telling it) which does along the lines of some follower of the Sikh religion being asked "But are you a Protestant or a Catholic Sikh?" The point of the joke is that, by definition, all protestants, and all catholics, are Christians, but some of the more ignorant sectarians know so little about either protestantism or catholicism, they do not realise this. Well, saying "socialist anarchism" is like saying "Christian Protestantism", or "Christian Catholicism". The first word ought to be superfluous.

Agentmancuso wrote "We're still no nearer to having the faintest clue how this would - or even could - happen".

Although libertarian socialists, unlike Marxists, tend not to be too keen on "blueprints", and although there are a number of different ways in which libertarian socialism could "happen", some of the ideas on this are set out in the Anarchist FAQ, which, nowadays, as an insurance against any particular website in any particular country getting closed down, can be found on a number of different websites, such as www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html . The very first time I ever heard of the idea for producing an Anarchist FAQ, the question which I immediately asked was "what does FAQ mean?" , and it turned out that FAQ means "Frequently Asked Questions". The Anarchist FAQ was initiated by Iain Mackay, originally from Glasgow, but right from when the idea first came up, the project has been both international and collective, with many different people from many different countries contributing. The FAQ has been continually growing as more people came up with more questions. It is finally due for publication by AK Press as a book, or rather as a two-volume set of books, possibly even in time for Christmas, but even then it will probably continue to grow.

Like I already explained, libertarian socialists always did take the view that the kind of society they wanted might take some time to achieve, and so far as I personally am concerned that used to seem okay. The problem now, for me, is that nowadays I tend to feel that, because of human induced climate change, we may not have "some time". Nevertheless, to give just one example of an idea propogated by libertarian socialists, there is the social strike. Here, quoting from the Anarchist FAQ, is what the Mayor of Seattle (an opponent of strikes) said about a general strike in that city in 1919. "The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact. The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of the industrial system; here first, then everywhere . . . True, there were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat, doesn't need violence. The general strike, as practised in Seattle, is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the entire life stream of a community . . . That is to say, it puts the government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt -- no matter how achieved."

Agentmancuso also wrote (about libertarian socialism) "there seems no valid claim to use 'libertarian' in the context at all".

That is like saying that Marxists have no valid claim to be Marxists. The justification for their claim is historical: Marxists have been calling themselves Marxists since the days of Karlo Marx himself. You can argue about whether or not a particular Marxist sect truly follows the gospel according to Saint Karl or not, and they frequently do argue with each other about this, but the justification for the use of the term "Marxist" to cover followers of Marx in general is the historical one that folk have been doing this since the latter half of the 19th century. The justification for anarchists calling themselves libertarian is the same: they always have done, since anarchism/libertarian socialism first appeared. It is the right-wing pro-capitalist "libertarians" whose use of the word is, historically speaking, more recent, dating just from the second half of the 20th century. In the 19th Century, pro-free-market-capitalism-with-minimal-state folk tended to get called liberals, not libertarians.

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject:

However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

trying to comprehend libertarian socialism and anarchism came across the above from the following link http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13

interesting reading ......

agentmancuso · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Agentmancuso wrote "anarchists have a reasonable claim to be called anarchists when their particular vision of the future is one without any government which they aim to achieve by smashing things up and assassinating the Czar" that is a biased and inaccurate version of what anarchism is about. So far as "assassinating the Czar" is concerned, well, here is the next installment of your history education. The number of Czars who have been assassinated by anarchists is precisely zero. Most of the assassinations and attempted assassinations of Czars were in fact carried out by Liberals. However, Leon Czolgosz did assassinate an American president, President McKinley, and Czolgosz may indeed have been a genuine anarchist. One definitely genuine anarchist assassin, or rather would-be assassin, was Alexander Berkman, who attempted to assassinate an American capitalist, Henry Clay Frick, during a big steelworks strike in Pennsylvania. Berkman spent a long time in the Pennsylvania state penitentiary for that crime, and it was there that he wrote his great "ABC of Anarchism", which has been published and re-published in dozens of languages in many different countries. By the way, while never an advocate of total non-violence, Berkman did say that he had come to the conclusion that assassinations were counter-productive.

However, although I have just given one or two examples of anarchist assassins (or would-be assassins in the case of Berkman) it is a mistake to associate anarchists in general with assassination. In actual fact, if you study the statistics on assassination, you will find that very, very few have been carried out by anarchists. Until recently, the vast majority of assassinations had been carried out by extreme Nationalists of one kind or another. The most famous example is Gavril Princip, the Serbian Nationalist who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand, and so precipitated the crisis which led to the First World War. But there have been scores of other Nationalist assassins of various nationalities. Earl Mountbatten, for instance, was assassinated by Irish Nationalists. There have also been Liberal assassins, who carried out their acts because they just wanted a liberal-type parliamentary democracy. Like I said, most of the assassinations and attempted assassinations of Czars were in fact carried out by Liberals. Some assassinations have been carried out by Conservatives, and some by reactionaries. For instance, John Wilkes Booth who assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Southern Conservative. President Kennedy was apparently assassinated by a Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald, although there are numerous conspiracy theories implicating LBJ, the Freemasons, etc etc. Then there are the religious fanatics. Guy Fawkes and his colleagues didn't succeed, but, if they had, then that would have been a very large number of religious assassinations. And of course in recent years we had the Al-Qaeda-type suicide bombers, who certainly did kill a lot of people in the Twin Towers and other instances. No, the truth is, hardly any assassinations have had anything to do with anarchism.

"As 'libertarian socialism' is neither socialist, in the accepted sense, nor libertarian, in the accepted sense"

"Accepted"? By who? By right-wingers ? By opponents of any kind of socialism ? There is, of course, no general "acceptance" of your idea of the meanings of either "socialism" or "libertarianism". .

Back in the distant days when it used to claim to be "socialist", the Labour Party had printed on their membership cards that their aim was "to secure for the workers, by hand and by brain, the full fruits of their labours". That is, in fact, a socialist aim, and note that there is no mention of the state in that aim. Karl Marx said that the principle of socialism was "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Again, note that there is no mention of the state in that. Now, of course, in practice, both the Labour Party and the Marxists ARE statists, but my point is, there is nothing intrinsically statist in the aims of socialism as such. Socialism comes in many different varieties. And one of the fundamental divisions amongst socialists is the one between authoritarian socialists and libertarian socialists. Of course, the authoritarians don't call themselves authoritarians. They never do. They just take the attitude that their authoritarian way of doing things is simply "natural".

"then why bother calling it libertarian socialism at all? It's completely pointless. Why not just anarchism, if that's what's intended?"

Well, why not libertarian socialism, if that's what is intended? There are numerous instances where there is more than one description for much the same thing. One very obvious example is that the words "liberty" and "freedom" mean much the same thing. You may prefer one of these two words. but what if somebody was to tell you that you can only use one of them? What if you were told that, from now on, the word "freedom" is banned, you must always use "liberty"? Or vice versa? The fact is, historically speaking, folk who considered themselves anarchists and who also considered themselves libertarian socialists have been using these terms more or less interchangeably since the anarchist/libertarian socialist movement first appeared. Okay, so you have a problem with that. But you may as well get used to it.