Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:A.1 - Qu'est ce que l'Anarchisme ?"

L'article FAQAnar:A.1 - Qu'est ce que l'Anarchisme ? est en cours de traduction L'avancement de cette traduction est de %.

Catégorie:En traduction

A.1 Qu'est-ce que l'anarchisme ?

Voir aussi Anarchie

L'anarchisme est une théorie politique qui a pour but de créer l'anarchie, "l'absence de maître, de souverain." ^[1] En d'autres mots, l'anarchisme est une théorie politique qui à pour but de créer une société dans laquelle les individus participent librement et à égalité. L'anarchisme considère donc toutes les formes de contrôle hiérarchisé - que ce soit par l'état ou par un capitaliste - comme nocif à l'individu et _their individuality as well as unnecessary._

Ce que L. Susan Brown écrit :

Tandis que la vision populaire de l'anarchisme est celle d'un mouvement violent, anti-Etat, l'anarchisme est une tradition bien plus subtile et nuancée qu'une simple opposition au pouvoir gouvernemental. Les anarchistes s'opposent à l'idée que le pouvoir et la domination sont nécessaires, et prônent à la place plus de solidarité, et une forme anti-hiérarchique des organisations sociales, politiques, et économiques.^[2]

Cependant, "anarchisme" et "anarchie" sont sans aucun doute les idées les plus mal représentées des théories politiques. Généralement, ces mots sont utilisés dans le sens de "chaos" ou de "désordre", et donc, logiquement, les anarchistes désirent le chaos social et un retour aux "lois de la jungle".

Ce procès en diffamation a un parallèle historique. Par exemple, dans les pays qui considéraient que le gouvernement était nécessairement une seule et unique personne (les monarchies), les mots "république" ou "démocratie" ont été utilisés précisément comme anarchie, pour semer le désordre et la confusion. Ceux qui ont un intérêt capital à préserver leur status voudront évidemment montrer que l'opposition au système actuel ne peut pas fonctionner en pratique, et qu'une nouvelle forme de société peut uniquement mener au chaos. Ou, comme Errico Malatesta l'a exprimé :

puisqu'on a pensé que le gouvernement était nécessaire et que sans gouvernement il ne pourrait y avoir que désordre et confusion, il était naturel et logique que l'anarchie, qui signifie l'absence de gouvernement, sonne comme l'absence d'ordre. ^[3]

Les anarchistes veulent changer ce sens commun donné au mot "anarchie", pour que le peuple puisse voir que le gouvernement et les autres relations sociales hiérarchisées sont toutes nuisibles et inutiles :

Changer l'opinion, convaincre le public que le gouvernement n'est pas seulement inutile, mais aussi extrêmement nocif, et qu'alors le mot anarchie, parce qu'il signifie l'absence de ce gouvernement, signifie pour tout le monde : l'ordre naturel, l'union des besoin humains et l'intérêt de tous, une complète solidarité dans une complète liberté. ^[4]

Cette FAQ est une partie du processus de démolition des idées reçues dont font l'objet l'anarchisme et la signification de l'anarchie. Mais ce n'est pas tout. Autant que nous combattons ces déformations produites par le "sens populaire" de l'idée d'"anarchie" , nous nous devons de combattre les déformations dont l'anarchisme et les anarchistes ont été sujets durant des années par nos ennemis politiques et sociaux. Comme Bartolomeo Vanzetti l'a écrit, les anarchistes sont "les radicaux parmi les radicaux - les chats noirs, les cauchemars de beaucoup, de tous les dévots, exploitants, charlatans, tricheurs et oppresseurs. Par conséquent, nous sommes également les plus calomniés, les plus mal représentés, les plus mal compris, et les plus persécutés de tous."^[5]

Vanzetti savait de quoi il parlait. Lui et son camarade Nicola Sacco ont été emprisonnés par les États Unis Amérique pour un crime qu'ils n'avaient pas commis et électrocutés pour avoir été des anarchistes étrangers en 1927. Donc nous passerons du temps dans cette FAQ à corriger les calomnies et les déformations dont les anarchistes ont été l'objet de la part des média capitalistes, des politiciens, des idéologues et des patrons (sans compter les déformations de la part de nos propres compagnons radicaux d'autrefois, comme les libéraux et les marxistes). Si tout se passe correctement, une fois fini, vous devriez comprendre pourquoi ceux au pouvoir ont passé tant de temps à attaquer l'anarchisme - c'est la seule idée qui peut assurer une liberté effective pour tous et mettre un terme à tous les systèmes basé sur le pouvoir d'une minorité sur une majorité.

A.1.1 - Qu'est-ce que "Anarchie" signifie ?

L'anarchie (du grec an-, préfixe privatif : absence de, et de archos, racine : autorité, ou « ce qui est premier ») désigne la situation d'une société où il n'existe ni autorité, ni pouvoir coercitif, ni domination, ni d'une quelconque hiérarchie entre les hommes. L’anarchie peut étymologiquement également être expliquée comme le refus de tout principe premier, de toute cause première, et comme une revendication de la multiplicité face à l’unicité. Ou, comme Pierre Kropotkine le disait : "Anarchie vient du mot grec signifiant "le contraire de l'autorité" ^[6]

Alors que l'on pense souvent que les mots grecs anarchos et anarchia signifient "absence de gouvernement", la signification stricte de l'anarchisme n'était pas simplement "pas de gouvernement". "An-archie" signifie "sans dirigeant", ou plus généralement, "sans autorité", et c'est dans ce sens que les anarchistes ont tout le temps utilisé ce mot. Par exemple, Kropotkine affirmait que l'anarchisme "attaque non seulement le capital, mais aussi les principales sources de pouvoir du capitalisme : la loi, l'autorité, et l'Etat." ^[7] Pour les anarchistes, l'anarchie ne signifie pas "nécessairement l'absence d'ordre, comme on le suppose généralement, mais l'absence de règles." ^[8] David Weick l'a très bien résumé :

L'anarchisme peut être compris comme l'idée politique et sociale qui exprime la négation de tout pouvoir, souveraineté, domination, et division hiérarchique, et la volonté de les dissoudre [...] L'anarchisme est toutefois plus que l'anti-étatisme [...] [même si] le gouvernement [l'état] [..] est, raisonnablement, le point central de la critique anarchiste." ^[9]

Pour ces raisons, plutôt que d'être purement anti-gouvernement ou anti-etat, l'anarchisme est principalement un mouvement contre la hiérarchie. Pourquoi? Parce que la hiérarchie est la structure organisationnelle qui comporte l'autorité. Comme l'état est la plus haute forme de hiérarchie, les anarchistes sonr, par définition, anti-état; mais ce n'est pas une définition suffisante de l'anarchisme. Cela signifie que les vrais anarchistes sont opposés à toute forme d'organisation hiérarchique, pas seulement l'état. Comme l'a dit Brian Morris :

Le terme anarchie vient du grec, et signifie essentiellement 'pas de dirigeant'. Les anarchistes sont les personnes qui rejettent toutes formes de gouvernement ou d'autorité coercitive, toutes formes de hiérarchie et de domination. Ils sont donc opposés à ce que l'anarchiste mexicain Flores Magon appelait la 'trinité sombre' - état, capital et Eglise. Les anarchistes sont ceux qui s'opposent tant au capitalisme et à l'état, qu'à toutes les formes d'autorité religieuse. Mais les anarchistes cherchent aussi à établir ou à provoquer, par divers moyens, les conditions de l'anarchie, c'est à dire une société décentralisée sans institutions coercitives, une société organisée à travers une fédération d'associations volontaires."^[10]

La référence à la "hiérarchie" dans ce contexte est un développement assez récent - les anarchistes "classiques", comme Proudhon, Bakounine et Kropotkine utilisait ce mot, mais rarement (ils préféraient généralement "autorité", qui était utilisé à la place d'"autoritaire"). Cependant, il apparait clairement de leurs écrits que c'était une philosophie contre la hiérarchie, contre toute inégalité de pouvoir ou de privilèges entre les individus. Bakounine parlait de cela lorsqu'il attaquait l'autorité "officielle" mais défendant l'"influence naturelle", et lorsqu'il disait :

Vous voulez qu'il devienne impossible à quiconque d'oppresser son compagnon? Alors assurez-vous que personne ne puisse posséder de pouvoir.^[11]

Comme Jeff Draughn le note, "alors qu'il a toujours été une part latente du "projet révolutionnaire", le concept d'anti-hiérarchie n'a émergé que récemment pour un examen plus minutieux. Néanmoins, sa racine apparait clairement dans les origines grecques du mot "anarchie"." ^[12]

Nous soulignons que cette opposition à la hiérarchie n'est, pour les anarchistes, aucunement limitée à l'état ou au gouvernement. Cela inclus toutes les relations autoritaires de type économique ou social, aussi bien celles politiques, en particulier celles associées à la propriété capitaliste et au travail salarié. On peut le voir dans l'argument de Proudhon, à savoir que "le Capital [..] dans la sphère politique est analogue au gouvernement [..] L'idée économique du capitalisme, les politiques des gouvernements ou des autorités, et les idées théologiques de l'Eglise sont trois idées identiques, liées en différents points. Attaquer l'une d'entre elles revient à les attaquer toutes [..] Ce que le capital est au travail, l'Etat l'est à la liberté, l'Eglise à l'esprit. Cette trinité d'absolutisme est aussi funeste en pratique qu'elle l'est comme philosophie. La signification la plus concrète de l'oppression des individus serait d'emprisonner simultanément leur corps, leur volonté, et leur raison." ^[13] Ainsi nous trouvons chez Emma Goldman l'opposition au capitalisme comme le fait "qu'un homme [ou une femme] doit vendre son travail" et donc, "que sont inclinaison et son jugement sont subordonnés à la volonté de son maître." ^[14] Quarante ans après que Bakounine aie fait la même remarque quand il soutenait que dans le système actuel "le travailleur vendait sa personne et sa liberté pour un temps donné" aux capitalistes en échange d'un salaire. ^[15]

Ainsi donc "anarchie" signifie plus que simplement "absence de gouvernement", cela signifie l'opposition à toutes les formes d'organisations autoritaires et à la hiérarchie. Comme Kropotkine le disait, "les origines de la conception anarchiste de la société [...] [résident dans] la critique [...] des organisations hiérarchiques et des conceptions autoritaires de la société; et [...] l'analyse des tendances que l'on retrouve dans les mouvements humanistes." ^[16] Pour Malatesta, l'anarchisme "est né d'une révolte morale contre les injustices sociales" et du fait que les "causes spécifiques des maux de la société" peuvent être trouvé dans "la propriété capitaliste et dans l'Etat." Quand l'opprimé "cherche à anéantir l'Etat et la propriété - alors l'anarchisme était né." ^[17]

---

Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.

While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I, Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as they can.

A.1.2 - Qu'est ce que "Anarchisme" signifie?

---

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.

While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details), there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists "on the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.

More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority. As Voltairine de Cleyre summarised:

"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be the heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her] product, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State." [Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 23-4]

So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, "[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy" [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]

Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty, equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2.

Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his pre-anarchist days) pointed out, "the urge to destroy is a creative urge." One cannot build a better society without understanding what is wrong with the present one.

However, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs of people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To quote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:

"Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

"Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature. Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a way as to make politicians, governments, states and their officials superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be . . .

"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

"Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels of both individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places." [My Granny made me an Anarchist, pp. 162-3]

Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by doing this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.

It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation, fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and bosses, the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to strengthen these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full fruition. As we discuss in section J, anarchists apply their ideas in many ways within capitalism in order to change it for the better until such time as we get rid of it completely. Section I discusses what we aim to replace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.

A.1.3 - Pourquoi est-ce que l'anarchisme est aussi appelé socialisme libertaire?

---

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

A.1.4 - Les anarchistes sont-ils socialistes?

---

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]

Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) -- called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced capitalism as a system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring the latter's exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks," which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not]

Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings. [Anarchism, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81]

So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was "the exemplification of gaining freedom by association" and that "[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of his employer than he is with it." [Different Phases of the Labour Question]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism." [Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 779]

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of equals.

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchists reject Marxism (what most people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist objection to the identification of Marxism, "central planning" and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in section H.

It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce confusion, most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller discuss of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see section F).

A.1.5 - D'où vient l'anarchisme?

Voir aussi Précurseurs de l'anarchisme

---

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management.

"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses.

"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself." [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, "the proof" of his mutualist ideas lay in the "current practice, revolutionary practice" of "those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been formed in Paris and Lyon . . . [show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was "close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

"There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectual idea. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership." [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]

In Kropotkin's eyes, "Anarchism had its origins in the same creative, constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past all the social institutions of mankind -- and in the revolts . . . against the representatives of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used them for their own advantage." More recently, "Anarchy was brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to Socialism in general." Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism, "lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State." All anarchist writers did was to "work out a general expression of [anarchism's] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings" derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged at the end of the eighteenth century . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for example, that "from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Anarchism, pp. 158-9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution -- the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian 'Sections' during the French Revolution, the workers' councils and factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin's The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals. 1

Notes et références

1. ↑ P-J Proudhon, What is Property, p.264
2. ↑ The Politics of Individualism, p.106
3. ↑ Anarchy, p.16
4. ↑ Oouvrage cité, p.16
5. ↑ Nicola Sacco et Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p.274
6. ↑ Anarchisme, p.284
7. ↑ Ouvrage cité, p.150
8. ↑ Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p.13
9. ↑ Reinventing Anarchy, p.139]
10. ↑ "Anthropology and Anarchism", pp.35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, n°45, p.38
11. ↑ The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p.271
12. ↑ Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement
13. ↑ cité par Max Nettlau, dans A Short History of Anarchism, pp.43-44
14. ↑ Red Emma Speaks, p.50
15. ↑ Op. Cit., p.187
16. ↑ Op. Cit., p.158
17. ↑ Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p.19