don’t fear invoke anarchy
(2015) by robert graham – We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It – The First International and the Origins of the Anarchist Movement – via 231 page kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-graham-we-do-not-fear-anarchy-we-invoke-it]
notes/quotes:
3
Yet, by 1872, when the anarchist Michael Bakunin (1814–1876) and his associate, James Guillaume (1844–1916), were expelled from the International at the instigation of Karl Marx (1818–1883), a significant portion of the International’s constitutive associations had adopted an anarchist stance. Those associations reconstituted the International along antiauthoritarian lines and provided the foundation for an international anarchist movement.
bmikhail bakunin et al.. karl marx et al
The purpose of this book is to describe how this came about. I do not pretend to present a work of original scholarship. My goal is simply to present a historical narrative, which, unlike other works on the International, focuses on the anarchist currents within the organization and how, from these various currents, an international anarchist movement emerged in the early 1870s. In the process, I will be referring to some original documentation neglected in other works on the subject. My hope is to dispel some common misconceptions and sometimes misrepresentations regarding the ways in which anarchist ideas spread within the International, leading to the creation of avowedly anarchist movements, primarily in France, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, but also in Russia, Germany, and the Americas.
Consequently, I distinguish between anarchism as a body of ideas and anarchist movements.
4
Despite the focus of this book, I do not agree with the view that “anarchism” can only be conceived as a historically embodied movement or movements having a common genesis in the struggles within the International between the so-called authoritarians (Karl Marx, his allies, and the “Blanquists,” followers of the French revolutionary Auguste Blanqui) and antiauthoritarians (Bakunin and his associates). Such a “genealogical” or “historicist” approach conflates anarchism as a body of ideas with anarchism as a movement. It results not only in a Eurocentric approach to anarchism, but one that excludes from the anarchist pantheon even those European anarchists who were active prior to the founding of the International, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) and Joseph Déjacque (1821–1864)
pierre-joseph proudhon et al
In order to determine whether someone’s views, or a movement, can be described as “anarchist,” an analytical approach is unavoidable. One must come up with some identifying or defining characteristics of anarchist doctrines and movements that distinguish them from other ideas and movements. One cannot simply rely on self-identification. Just because someone claims to be an anarchist does not make it so. By the same token, just because someone never identified him- or herself as an anarchist does not mean that his or her ideas cannot be qualified as anarchist.
so let’s just not.. naming the colour ness et al
Neither can anarchism be reduced to the ideas (and actions) of particular individuals. This sometimes leads to the fallacy that anarchism is whatever particular anarchists say it is, regardless of their personal idiosyncrasies, inconsistencies, and foibles; or, worse, that anarchism is whatever these individuals said and did, before they identified themselves as anarchists (Bakunin) and after they had ceased to do so (Proudhon). If anarchism is nothing but the sum of all the ideas and actions of everyone who ever identified themselves as anarchists, then anarchism would simply be an incoherent mishmash of contradictory ideas and approaches.
5
As will be seen, the members of the International who came to describe themselves as anarchists did so on the basis of some fundamental tenets that they quite self-consciously argued distinguished them from other currents in the International. They also recognized as anarchists people who held similar views and had influenced them in coming to their own conceptions of anarchism, such as Proudhon. What, then, were those views that distinguished them, and those they regarded as their precursors, as anarchists?
During his polemics within the International against the “authoritarians” and “bourgeois socialists,” Bakunin set forth six primary grounds for distinguishing his anarchism from the views of his opponents: first, his rejection of any kind of institutional, coercive authority (antiauthoritarianism); second, his opposition to the modern state, even as a “transitional” power to abolish capitalism (antistatism); third, his opposition to any participation in existing systems of government or “bourgeois politics” (antiparliamentarianism); fourth and fifth, his advocacy of voluntary federation during the struggle against capitalism and the state and in a postrevolutionary society (federalism), so that the revolutionary means were consistent with the revolutionary ends (libertarianism); and sixth, his call for the immediate abolition of the state and capitalism through direct action, including insurrection and the expropriation of the means of production by the workers themselves (social revolution).
While Proudhon and Bakunin were both proponents of “social” revolution, Proudhon’s social revolution was conceived in gradual, pacific terms, not in insurrectionary terms, in contrast to Bakunin. Furthermore, all socialists of their era agreed on the need for some kind of “social” revolution, given the failure of the preceding “political” revolutions (the French Revolution and the European revolutions of 1848–1849). Consequently, advocacy of social revolution does not distinguish anarchism from other doctrines, such as socialism.
pierre-joseph proudhon.. mikhail bakunin..
For the purposes of this study, therefore, I will proceed on the basis that anarchism can be defined as a view that rejects coercive authority, the state, and participation in existing systems of government, and that advocates federalism (or voluntary association), libertarianism, and direct action. This is consistent with Proudhon and Bakunin’s conceptions of anarchism and, as will be seen in the chapters that follow, the views of those members of the International who came to identify themselves as anarchists and to create an international anarchist movement.
6
Arguably, some of these six defining characteristics can be derived from the others. For example, the state and government can be seen simply as specific examples of coercive authority, so that antiauthoritarianism is the primary defining characteristic of anarchism. As Sébastien Faure (1858–1942) put it, “whoever denies Authority and fights against it is an Anarchist.” Be that as it may, in historical terms, I believe that it was on the basis of these six characteristics that anarchism came to be distinguished from other political orientations. These six criteria help flesh out the content of anarchism in a more substantive sense, providing a more robust and “political” conception of anarchism as something more than mere antiauthoritarianism. To define anarchism simply on the basis of what it is that anarchists oppose fails to take into account the positive anarchist alternatives to authoritarian institutions and practices that also distinguish anarchism from other doctrines.
7
One of the main purposes of this book is to show that the so-called “First” International played a much more important role in the emergence of anarchist movements in Europe than it did in relation to Marxist ones. After the split in 1872, the antiauthoritarian wing of the International continued for several years, and it was through the debates within the antiauthoritarian International that not only anarchist movements but also the basic principles of modern anarchism were developed.
One final note regarding the front cover and title to this book: the image on the front cover is of a pétroleuse, an almost mythical figure created by the reactionaries following their suppression of the Paris Commune during the last week of May 1871, which became known as “the bloody week.” The pétroleuses were accused of setting fire to Paris while it was under attack by French army troops sent in by the national government in Versailles. Louise Michel (1830–1905) admitted at her trial before the military tribunal that she participated in the burning of Paris, as she “wanted to block the Versailles invaders with a barrier of flames,” but claimed that she had acted on her own. Some 30,000 men, women, and children were killed by the Versailles army and by enraged mobs of “bourgeois,” upper- and middle-class Parisians who despised the Communards for their modest attempts to create a more egalitarian society.
The title of this book is a quotation from Bakunin, written in 1868, three years before the Commune, as part of a polemic against those revolutionaries who believed that only a revolutionary government, imposing its own dictatorship, was capable of bringing any revolution to a successful conclusion. As we shall see, Bakunin and the anarchists disagreed
9
Chapter One: Anarchism Before the International
During the English Revolution (1642–1651), a group calling itself the “Diggers” tried to establish egalitarian communities on “waste” (unoccupied) lands. Their most eloquent spokesperson was Gerrard Winstanley (1609–1676). In his pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness (1649), he advocated holding things in common and distributing wealth according to need, achieving this through nonviolent direct action, “for the manifestation of a righteous heart shall be known, not by his words, but by his actions.”
By occupying waste lands and growing and sharing their own food, the Diggers hoped to inspire others to create a society where “the blessing of the earth shall be common to all” and “none Lord over others.
The Digger movement was small and short lived. They were driven off of the lands they occupied, their homes and furniture destroyed, and threatened with death by the local authorities and landowners should they ever return.
They believed that the only law was man’s reason and that it is “the Nature of Man to be born, and live free.”
10
Similar sentiments were expressed by the French philosophe Denis Diderot (1713–1784), who wrote in 1772 that “nature has made neither servant nor master—I want neither to give nor to receive laws… weave the entrails of the priest, for want of a rope, to hang the kings.” During the French Revolution this was transformed into the slogan “Humanity will not be happy until the last aristocrat is hanged by the guts of the last priest.
oi
They were found among those called the enragés, the most militant of the revolutionaries who allied themselves with the sans-culottes, the lower classes, the “working poor.” The enragés sought economic and political equality, not mere “legal” equality (equality before the law), pushing for popular self-government and the redistribution of wealth.
oi oi
11
(proudhon critique of jacobin.. like enrages .. authoritarian terrorism ness)
12
In July 1793, the Jacobins had taken control of the Committee of Public Safety, which under the Girondins was already creating a bureaucratic police apparatus. In September 1793, the committee undertook the direct supervision of the “revolutionary committees of the sections, which held powers of judicial police, including that of arrest,” helping turn them “into organs of the central government” and making them “mere branches of the republican hierarchy.” The Jacobin Club of Paris, the membership of which had increased ten-fold, from 800 in 1791 to 8,000 in 1793, provided a pool of “officials of the new bureaucracy… and police centres which the Government used for discovering its enemies and for getting rid of them.”
inspectors of inspectors et al .. fuller too much law et al
By the fall of 1793, the Committee of Public Safety had laws in place to justify the arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and execution of suspected “counterrevolutionaries.”
safety addiction ness et al
13
This was a point made by one of the surviving enragés, Jean Varlet (1764–1837), after the downfall of the Jacobins. He, along with thousands of enragés and sans-culottes, had participated in the insurrection of May 31–June 2, 1793, which resulted in the expulsion of the Girondin leadership from the National Convention, unwittingly assisting the Jacobins in replacing the Girondin dictatorship with a “ghastly dictatorship” of their own, “dressed up with the title of Public Safety.”
For Varlet, the Jacobins’ use of state terrorism had only succeeded in turning the people against the revolution and in centralizing power in the hands of a few. Under the arbitrary rule of the Committee of Public Safety, two thirds of citizens became “mischievous enemies of freedom” to “be stamped out,” with “Terror” being “the supreme law; the instrument of torture an object of veneration.” From a Jacobin perspective, Varlet charged, “if the executioners are no longer the fathers of the nation, freedom is in jeopardy.”
In a passage that some have described as an anarchist manifesto, Varlet denounced “revolutionary government” as a contradiction in terms:
What a social monstrosity, what a masterpiece of Machiavellianism is this revolutionary government! To any rational being, government and revolution are incompatible..
.. According to the Girondin leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot (1754–1793), what the enragés wanted was “anarchy,” the defining features of which were “Laws that are not carried into effect, authorities without force and despised, crime unpunished, property attacked, the safety of the individual violated, the morality of the people corrupted, no constitution, no government, no justice.”
Jacques Roux, as with later anarchists, recognized that there can be no freedom without equality, writing that *“Freedom is but an empty phantom if one class of men can starve another with impunity. Freedom is but an empty phantom when the rich man can through his monopoly exercise the right of life and death over his fellow men.” Although he did appeal to the revolutionary government to put an end to speculation and hoarding, **he also incited the Parisian crowds to take direct action by looting shops and called on the Parisian sections to take control of the distribution of the “necessities of life.”
*none of us are free ness
**so still a them.. to still.. none of us are free ness
14
However, it was not a French revolutionary but an English philosopher, William Godwin, who provided the most coherent and comprehensive articulation of anarchist ideas around the time of the French Revolution, William Godwin. In 1793, after Louis XVI had been executed and France had become a republic, Godwin published An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and Its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (reissued in 1795 and 1797 as An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on Morals and Happiness), which contained a penetrating critique of inequality, property rights, government, and coercive authority in general.
From an anarchist perspective, the most important parts of Godwin’s book were his critiques of representative government, revolutionary violence, coercive authority, the “rule of law”, and private property.
Godwin considered representative government to be fatally flawed. In the first place, *government laws and policies are not the result of direct debate among the people, but the result of the debates of elected representatives who represent particular interests. Decisions are made by majority vote of the representatives, who invariably vote along party lines. Even when a debate is not cut short by the ruling party, the “minority, after having exposed, with all the power and eloquence, and force of reasoning, of which they are capable, the injustice and folly of the measures adopted, are obliged… to assist in carrying them into execution,” since all the representatives are required to uphold the law. **For Godwin, “nothing can more directly contribute to the depravation of the human understanding and character” than to require people to act contrary to their own reason
*same song.. makes no diff how/much.. if still any form of democratic admin
**then need to let go of any form of m\a\p
15
Despite regarding revolutions as being “necessarily attended with many circumstances worthy of our disapprobation,” *Godwin recognized that “revolutions and violence have too often been coeval with important changes of the social system.” While we should “endeavour to prevent violence,” during revolutionary upheavals we cannot simply “turn away our eyes from human affairs in disgust, and refuse to contribute our labours and attention to the general weal.” Rather, we must take “proper advantage of circumstances as they arise, and not… withdraw ourselves because everything is not conducted according to our ideas of propriety.” Godwin’s critique of revolutionary violence must not therefore be misconstrued as tacit support for the injustices that the revolutionaries sought to overturn.
*but no legit changes to date.. all same song.. why we need violence et al.. oi
**today.. (thank god) there’s a nother way.. and we’re missing it
for (blank)’s sake
Godwin argued that coercion and its positive correlate, inducements offered by those with wealth and power, distort political debate and moral discussion by causing people to evaluate a policy or course of conduct in terms of the punishments or rewards attached to them rather than on their intrinsic merits. *Coercion and inducements also have a debilitating effect on both persons in power and the people who obey or follow them. Instead of acting in accordance with their own reason, people act under the threat of punishment or the promise of some benefit, and those with the power to coerce or reward no longer need to present reasons in support of the policies or actions they seek others to follow. This constitutes “a tacit confession of imbecility,” for it “is a poor argument of my superior reason that I am unable to make justice be apprehended and felt… without the intervention of blows” or the offering of a bribe.
*rather.. only have a debilitating effect.. oi
*Godwin was therefore opposed to coercive law enforcement, for the law as an institution is “merely relative to the exercise of political force, and must perish when the necessity for that force ceases.” **Godwin recognized that force was necessary in order to protect private property and the resulting inequality in fortunes. “The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud,” Godwin wrote, “are the immediate growth of the established system of property.” With the “fruitful source of crimes” consisting of “one man’s possessing in abundance that of which another man is destitute,” property must be placed “upon an equitable basis” in order to “put an end to the system of coercion and punishment,” represented by the law and government, necessary to maintain existing inequalities of wealth and power.
*well.. not really.. if still any form of m\a\p
**yeah see.. so he wasn’t opposed to all coercive ness.. oi
16
As with the enragés and the more radical Jacobins, Godwin argued that everyone “is entitled, so long as the general stock will suffice, not only to the means of being, but of well being.” Where he differed from the enragés was in his approach to social change, preferring a process of gradual enlightenment over direct action and insurrection, frowning on collective action in general. Godwin regarded cooperation as an “evil” to be avoided, because it requires individuals to sometimes act in conformity with the views of others rather than in accordance with their own reason.
oi
Although Godwin defended English radicals accused of high treason, and argued against government suppression of freedom of speech and assembly, he criticized the radicals for fomenting “civil contention.” One of the radicals, John Thelwall (1764–1834), complained that the problem with Godwin’s approach was that “it should at once recommend the most extensive plan of freedom and innovation ever discussed by any writer in the English language, and reprobate every measure from which even the most moderate reform can rationally be expected.”
ie: a nother way
and.. wouldn’t matter if he recommended it.. we still couldn’t/wouldn’t hear it..
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
..what little was known about Godwin and his work was that he was the subject of Thomas Malthus’s attack in the latter’s “An Essay on the Principle of Population” (1798), in which Malthus argued that food production could not keep up with population growth, such that any attempt to create a more equitable society could only lead to disaster.
this is why we need a means to listen deeper.. so we can org around legit needs
*Malthus’s essay on population became notorious in radical circles, for it was used against any proposals for social change, becoming a mainstay of antisocialist propaganda. During the 1848 Revolution in France, Proudhon published an essay against “The Malthusians,” denouncing the conservatives for claiming, as with Malthus, that “at the banquet of Nature there is not room for all.” Kropotkin later argued that, contrary to Malthus, “the productive powers of the human race increase at a much more rapid ratio than its powers of reproduction,” such that it was perfectly feasible to create “well-being for all,” much as the enragés and Godwin had envisaged.
*yup.. cancerous distraction ness..
**but only if org around legit needs and let go of any form of m\a\p.. only way the dance can dance
18-20
(st simon science of humaity to comte sociology to fourier and luddite workers union ness as direct action.. oi.. to market socialism to bakunin international co op ness.. et al.. oi)
22
There was one English writer around this time who expressed ideas coming close to an anarchist position, whom Marx was later to accuse Proudhon of plagiarizing: John Francis Bray (1809–1897). In 1839, he published Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedies, or the Age of Might and the Age of Right, in which he argued that socialism could not be achieved through political reform because the existing systems of government were themselves the product of the economic system. He therefore argued that the workers should give priority instead to transforming the economic structures that were the true cause of their misery.
*oi same song if still ‘workers’ et al..
The means he proposed for doing this was the creation of workers’ “companies” that would exchange with each other, without any capitalist intermediaries, the goods they produced based on the amount of labor required to produce them—a form of “exchange without exploitation,” much like the “equivalent exchange” Proudhon was soon to advocate in France.
marsh exchange law et al.. graeber exchange law et al.. any form of tit for tat ness.. oi
However, unlike them, Bray never called himself an anarchist. The first person to do so was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a year later, in his groundbreaking work, What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.
Proudhon, like Bray and unlike Marx, came from the working class. His maternal grandfather had been a revolutionary during the French Revolution, and his family remained supporters of the republican cause. His father was a cooper and then an unsuccessful small businessman, running a cottage brewery and tavern for a time. After that, the family lived and worked on his maternal grandfather’s farm.
After his father lost a lawsuit, reducing the family to poverty, Proudhon had to quit school and find a trade. He became a printer and a compositor. By the age of twenty, he was working with Charles Fourier, reviewing with him the proofs for Fourier’s Le nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire. In this book, Fourier presented a summation of his critique of existing society and his proposed alternative, a society based on the principles of “mutual association” and “passionate attraction,” in which people would live and work in “phalansteries” or agro-industrial communes. People would rotate through a variety of jobs, on a daily basis, with each job providing an outlet for a particular talent or capacity.
23
In What is Property?, Proudhon criticized Fourier for advocating individual remuneration based on each worker’s contribution of capital, labor, and skill to production, because the source of economic value is not capital, or even superior skills, but the “collective force” of associated labor; in which case, according to Proudhon, there should be an “equality of wages” rather than wage differentials between workers.
rather.. there should be no wages.. no earn a living ness
For Proudhon, “capital can be exchanged, but cannot be a source of income.” Property, in the form of capital, was “theft” because the capitalists asserted complete control over, or exclusive ownership of, things that they had not produced by their own labor, and which naturally existed (such as land, air, and water) or were produced by others (the workers), but which the capitalists had appropriated for their own benefit. The workers’ access to the very means of production that they had created through their own collective labor was controlled by their capitalist employers, who then paid them only a portion of the economic value produced by the workers using those means of production, keeping the lion’s share for themselves.
During the 1830s, Proudhon’s life was typical of a skilled tradesman in France. He tramped around the country looking for work, survived a cholera outbreak in Paris, and had trouble supporting himself by his own labor. He saw firsthand, along with many other workers, how the 1830 July Revolution had failed to result in any benefit to the working class. When he asked the mayor of Toulon for help in finding work, the mayor’s advice to him was “to go away” and quit bothering him.
His initial involvement in socialist politics came when he was offered the editorship of a Fourierist paper, L’Impartial. Although he insisted that the paper should be unabashedly republican, he foreshadowed his subsequent anarchist views by suggesting that the paper “invite the population to make themselves capable of managing their own affairs,” dispensing “with all ministerial and constitutional hierarchy.” He resigned from the paper on his first day, after finding out that everything he wrote had to be reviewed and approved by the local prefect before it could be published.
His antipathy towards authority increased when his brother was called up for military service and ended up committing suicide when his commanding officer tried to embroil him in an embezzlement scheme. Proudhon’s family had already been financially ruined by lawsuits. He had seen the indifference of the government to the plight of workers like himself and its special concern to censor any criticisms of its role in maintaining their impoverished and subordinate status. No wonder that he later described the law as “spider webs for the rich and powerful, steel chains for the weak and poor, fishing nets in the hands of the Government.”
For Proudhon, government was “but the reflection of society.” In a society based on private property (“theft”), where “by the necessity of things, property, riches, comfort, all go on one side, poverty on the other,” the very function of government is nothing other than “the defence of the rich against the poor.” Abolish capitalism, and there will be “no further need of government.” Authority and capitalism go hand in hand, such that “the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the abolition of the government of man by man are one and the same formula.”
24
But, despite his emphasis on freedom and voluntary association, Proudhon had some affinity for the Saint-Simonian idea of replacing coercive government with “scientific” or rational administration. The rational organization of society requires a “search for the system of society… or the science of politics,” which “exists quite independently of the will of sovereigns, the opinion of majorities, and popular beliefs.” It will then be possible to create a “scientific socialism,” in which “the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of reason.” All “questions of legislation and politics” will then become “matters of science, not of opinion,” to be determined on the basis of statistical analysis. Since “the opinion of no one is of any value until its truth has been proven, no one can substitute his will for reason, — nobody is king.” Social science, just like socialism then, implied a positive kind of anarchy.
oi oi oi
But Proudhon could not accept the technocratic administrative hierarchies envisaged by the Saint-Simonians. Instead, he advocated workers’ self-management, with workers receiving a polytechnic education and rotating between jobs, in order to improve and combine their respective skills and to avoid a stupefying division of labor. Where an industry required specialized technical expertise, such experts “must be chosen from the workers by the workers themselves.” It is impossible to conceive of “a system which has all its pieces and details in place,” such that “all the rest of us have to do is implement it.” This is because “social science is infinite; no single human can ever understand it all.” Science, just as much as production, is a collective endeavor, over which no one individual can claim mastery.
oi oi
25
Proudhon himself was opposed to communism—namely, the holding of everything in common and distribution of wealth according to need. *He could not see how communism could exist without a state that would dictate the work each person was to perform and determine how goods were to be distributed. He did not think that a communist system could tolerate voluntary associations, because they would seek to exercise control over their own resources and affairs. **Communism promoted a false equality, “by placing labour and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue” on equal footing. Under communism, according to Proudhon, ***either labor would be compulsory, in order to ensure that enough was produced to satisfy everyone’s needs, or the productive members of society would be forced to share what they produced with the unproductive members of society, replacing capitalist exploitation with parasitism.
*ie: if we org around legit needs
**not any footing.. irrelevant s.. cancerous distractions.. oi
***yeah.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. how they dance
Proudhon’s exposure to the Lyon mutuellistes helped him develop a more consistent anarchist conception of social change. “The new socialist movement,” he wrote, “will begin with a fact sui generis, the war of the workshop.” The workshop was the primary locus of class struggle, because it was becoming “the constitutive unit of society” under capitalism. Just as “the family was the building block of feudal society, the workshop is the building block of the new society.” The “war of the workshop” would not be conducted through insurrectionary means, but rather by multiplying the workers’ associations, with the workers “organized among themselves, without the assistance of the capitalist… marching by Work to the conquest of the world.
oi oi oi .. mutual ism ness as co op ness.. oi
29
Stirner had no use for political revolution either, for the result is always “a new master set in the old one’s place.” Instead he called for insurrection, “a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it… The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves.” What must be avoided is the creation of new institutions to which the individual will yet again be subordinated. At most, the individual egoist can enter into temporary unions or relationships with others, and only for so long as it remains to his or her own advantage.
ie: imagine if we ness
Stirner’s book, The Ego and Its Own (1844), created a sensation among the Young Hegelians and other German radicals, prompting several of them to write refutations of his ideas.
ego and his own et al
In spite of the debates over his ideas, which continued on into 1847, Stirner found virtually no one sympathetic to them
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs.. can you hear me.. et al
37
Returning to his arguments in What is Property?, Proudhon declared that the “exploitation of man by man… is theft” and the “government of man by man is slavery,” both sanctioned by religious institutions. He therefore denounced the triumvirate of capital, religion, and the state:
Capital, which in the political field is analogous to government, in religion has Catholicism as its synonym. The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them… What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit… The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason. If socialism is to reveal its truly positive aspect, free from all mysticism, all it will have to do is denounce the idea of this trinity.
39
Sounding much like Proudhon and Bellegarrigue, he (Jean-Pierre Drevet ) argued that politics “requires gendarmes, prisons… bailiffs… [and] an Army.” He therefore urged the workers “to organize production in a way to benefit themselves” instead of waiting for political reforms—something which they had been doing since the beginning of the Revolution in February 1848. In Paris alone, “some 50,000 Paris workers may have participated in cooperative ventures between 1848 and 1851. Three hundred associations were established in 120 trades.”
oi.. why co op and nika on reprap ness isn’t enough.. so.. it’s cancerous distraction
40
In General Idea of the Revolution, Proudhon set forth an anarchist conception of socialism based on voluntary association and workers’ self-management. Proudhon argued that larger collective enterprises should be owned and managed by the workers themselves. Each worker would “participate in the gains and losses” of the enterprise in which he worked “in proportion to his services.” Although there would be some wage differentials, each worker would rotate through the different positions, gaining “an encyclopedic aptitude and a sufficient income” and avoiding a degrading division of labor.
cancerous distraction
Society would be composed of a variety of functional and autonomous groups, voluntarily federated with one another, forming a complex interlocking network based on individual contracts or agreements between free and equal parties. If “one part of the citizens should find themselves, by the contract, subordinated and exploited by the others, it would no longer be a contract; it would be a fraud, against which annulment might at any time be invoked justly.” Each contract should instead “increase the well-being and liberty of every citizen,” imposing “no obligation upon the parties, except that which results from their personal promise of reciprocal delivery,” without “any external authority,” for “no matter the system of representation or of delegation of the governmental function,” there would be “necessarily alienation of a part of the liberty and means of the citizen.” Proudhon described this contractarian or mutualist conception of socialism as a positive form of “Anarchy.
oi.. bauwens contracts law et al.. any form of m\a\p
41
But if “the Revolution allows any portion of government to remain, it will soon return in its entirety.”
oi.. if only.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
42
Proudhon called for worldwide revolution, for the revolution “would perish, even in France, if it failed to become universal.” He looked forward to the time when, with “Capitalistic and propriety exploitation stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed,” and the “police, judiciary, administration, everywhere committed to the hands of the workers,” economic and industrial organization would replace “the governmental and military system in the colonies as well as in the great cities; finally, the free and universal commingling of races under the law of contract only: that is the Revolution.”
oi
Proudhon consequently condemned national governments that, “pretending to establish order among men, *arrange them forthwith in hostile camps, and as their only occupation is to produce servitude at home, their art lies in maintaining war abroad, war in fact and war in prospect.” Governments arouse and manipulate nationalist feelings, such that the “oppression of peoples and their mutual hatred are two correlative, inseparable facts, which reproduce each other, and which cannot come to an end except simultaneously, by the destruction of their common cause, government.” **The “fundamental, decisive idea” of the Revolution is therefore: “NO MORE AUTHORITY, neither in the Church, nor in the State, nor in land, nor in money… no more antagonism, no more war, no more centralization, no more governments, no more priests.”
*any form of m\a\p does that
**so sans any form of m\a\p
44
Around 1854, Déjacque published in New York a pamphlet, The Revolutionary Question, in which he called for the abolition “of government in all its guises”; religion, “be it Catholic or Jewish, Protestant or other”; private property; “the family based on marriage, the authority of father and spouse”; the laws of inheritance; and all “authority, privilege and strife.” In their place he advocated “anarchy… complete, boundless, utter freedom to do anything and everything that is in human nature.” He called on the people to take “direct possession of its sovereignty” and to “make way for the organized commune.”
added to kindle
45
As with Proudhon, Pi y Margall advocated replacing government with voluntary contracts, or “pactos,” arguing that “society based upon authority ought… to give way to society based upon contract
Echoing Proudhon, for Pi y Margall, “every man who lays hands upon another man is a tyrant.” He therefore condemned “as tyrannical and absurd all forms of government,” such that “the constitution of a society without power is the ultimate of my revolutionary aspirations.” He sought to “divide and sub-divide power” until “I shall destroy it.” Consequently, he regarded “anarchy,” in a positive sense, as the “inevitable consequence” of democracy and individual sovereignty
oi.. contracts, democracy, et al.. all part of that tyrant ness.. any form of m\a\p a cancerous distraction
46
Proudhon, and later some of his followers in the International, believed that a woman’s place was in the home as housewife and mother. Déjacque rejected those views as being inconsistent with Proudhon’s avowed anarchism, advising him to instead “speak out against man’s exploitation of woman” and not to “describe yourself as an anarchist, or be an anarchist through and through.
For Déjacque, “humanity is humanity: I do not establish hierarchic distinctions between the sexes and races, between men and women, between blacks and whites. The difference in sexual organism is no more than the difference in skin color a sign of superiority or inferiority.” In New Orleans, he “urged armed slave rebellion within hearing of the slaves themselves,” and was a great admirer of the abolitionist John Brown, whom he regarded as a “Spartacus who called the modern helots to break their chains, the blacks to take up arms.”
can’t have non binary ness (legit freedom) if still ie: taking up arms.. has to be all of us for the dance to dance..
In 1858, Déjacque began publishing a paper in New York, Le Libertaire, making him the first person to use the word “libertarian” as a synonym for “anarchist.” In addition to publishing his ambitious work on an anarchist utopia, L’humanisphere, Déjacque continued his anarchist critique of Proudhon. He rejected Proudhon’s mutualist ideas, arguing in favor of a kind of anarchist communism. He dared Proudhon to be “frankly and wholly anarchist and not one quarter anarchist, one eighth anarchist, one sixteenth part anarchist,” urging him to press “on to the abolition of contract, the abolition not merely of the sword and of capital, but also of property and authority in every guise.”
oi.. sword yet slaves can.. so .. oi.. still part\ial ness
47
Shortly before he died, Pisacane indicated his support for a form of *socialism based on contracts between free and equal parties, guaranteeing “absolute freedom to every individual.” He called for the abolition of hierarchy, authority, and “man’s exploitation of his fellow-man.” Instead, everyone should have the “right to enjoy all of the material assets available to society” and the “fruits of one’s own labours.” He therefore advocated an **“economic revolution,” and not merely a political one.
*oi.. so .. not free.. **oi.. so no legit revolution
48
Proudhon no longer believed, as he did when he wrote General Idea of the Revolution in 1851, that “political functions” could be “reduced to industrial functions,” with “social order” arising “from *nothing but transactions and exchanges.” There was **still a need for some kind of government to settle disputes between the federated groups and to provide “by common means for all matters of security and mutual prosperity.” “Anarchy” was therefore to remain a “perpetual” desideratum(needed); that is, an ideal to be guided by but which was ***unlikely ever to be achieved
*oi.. cancerous distractions.. so .. **this
so ***anarchy ness (here) not legit freedom.. and can now
49
By the end of 1863, according to Nettlau, Bakunin had abandoned any hope in national liberation movements that, even when they had democratic aims, would simply replace one ruling class with another
oi.. any form of democratic admin.. cancerous distraction.. same song
50
But it was through the debates within the International over the proper direction of the workers’ movement that anarchism was really to come into its own.
oi.. oi.. oi..
51
Chapter Two: The Founding of the International
55
The Sixty dreamt of “freedom of labor, credit, solidarity” in addition to the universal suffrage, “freedom of the press,” freedom of assembly, and the complete “separation of Church and State” desired by the “democratic bourgeoisie.” *They also wanted “free and compulsory primary education” in order to nurture and reinforce “the sense of human dignity,” the awareness of one’s rights and duties, that would enable everyone to appeal “to reason and not to force in the realization of his desires.”
left much unsettle-ings out in 50-55.. but *this.. oh my
56
The meeting at Saint Martin’s Hall was packed. There was standing room only, with some 2,000 people in attendance. Odger read out the address from the English workers welcoming the French delegation. Tolain responded on behalf of the French workers, calling for “the people’s voice” to “make itself heard on all the great political and social questions, thus letting the despots know that the end of their tyrannical tutelage has arrived.”
seat at the table ness.. oi
Tolain decried how, under capitalism, “the division of labour tends to make of each workman a machine in the hands of the high lords of industry,” with the workers being “reduced to starvation.” He urged “labourers of all countries” to unite against the division of “humanity into two classes—an ignorant common people, and plethoric and big-bellied mandarins,” for the only way for the workers to save themselves was “through solidarity.”
this is 1864.. refusal/solidarity ness.. not new/working
57
Contrary to Proudhon’s mutualist schemes, Marx argued that cooperatives, dependent on what he somewhat dismissively referred to as “the casual efforts of private workmen,” could never displace capitalism. To develop “co-operative labour” on a scale capable of supplanting capitalism required “national” (i.e., governmental) “means.” Consequently, Marx claimed, to “conquer political power has… become the great duty of the working classes.” This, in turn, would require “the political reorganisation of the working men’s party.” Thus, the seeds of the conflict in the International between Marx, the Proudhonists, and later, the anarchists, were planted by Marx himself in the Inaugural Address.
oi
58
True to his word, Marx was able to “throw out” Le Lubez’s “declaration of principles,” even though the subcommittee had endorsed the “sentiments” contained within it. All that remained were two phrases from the statutes of the Italian Workers’ Societies that Marx “was obliged” to include in the preamble to the ProvisionalRules of the International: the acknowledgment of “truth, justice and morality,” as the standard of conduct for the International and its members, and the Mazzinian slogan “no rights without duties, no duties without rights.”
oi.. red flags abound
While Bakunin advised Marx to have patience, within three years he had laid the foundations for an Italian anarchist movement. In 1868, Bakunin and his Italian associates became active in the International. Until then, the International had little or no presence in Italy. The Mazzinian workers who had joined the International in the fall of 1864 had withdrawn by “the spring of 1865,” perhaps because of Mazzini’s disapproval of Marx’s Inaugural Address, which ran counter to Mazzini’s rejection of class struggle.
59
After his meeting with Marx at the beginning of November 1864, Bakunin paid a visit to Proudhon in Paris on his way back to Italy. Perhaps they discussed the International, but all that Bakunin later recounted was that he told Proudhon that he remained “an incorrigible idealist,” by which Bakunin meant that Proudhon was too preoccupied with “metaphysical doctrine”—namely, abstract ideals—, whereas Marx at least had the virtue of being a materialist who regarded ideas as the product of material conditions. Nevertheless, Bakunin thought that Proudhon, being “a revolutionary by instinct,” had “understood and felt liberty much better than” Marx.
Proudhon continued to advocate the creation of a mutualist economy based on reciprocal obligations and guarantees meant to ensure the equivalent exchange of products and services between the workers, thereby eliminating capitalist exploitation. Although he recognized that adjustments would have to be made to accommodate children, women, the sick, and the elderly, in contrast to the “equality of wages” that he had advocated in the 1840s, Proudhon was now of the view that workers with greater skills and higher productivity should “receive a greater salary”—a position closer to that of Fourier and his followers.
oi.. same song
60
Parallel to mutualist economic institutions and contractual relationships of equivalent exchange would be a political federation of communes based on voluntary association, with each commune being “free to quit” the federation “at will.” The federated communes would create a federal council, made up of recallable delegates “subject to re-election,” with mandates from their respective communes. Any executive positions created by the delegates would also be “subject to recall.” Society would then be composed of interconnected federations of self-managed enterprises and institutions, at the economic and political levels, with the federated groups and individuals being free to join or secede from the constitutive groups and federations. Therefore, the political “abstraction of people’s sovereignty” would be replaced by the “effective sovereignty of the labouring masses which rule and govern” through their associations, trades bodies, exchange networks, self-managed enterprises, communal assemblies, and federations.
again.. 1864.. not new/working.. oi.. to co op part\ial ness.. oi
66
The program set forth in more detail the ideas that Bakunin had begun publishing in Italy in the fall of 1865. His guiding principle was liberty and equality for all, since “Man is truly free only among equally free men.”.. t Bakunin argued that political and economic organization must therefore be based on “free association and free federation.” Rejecting “any principle of authority and of raison d’État [reasons of State],” Bakunin argued that “Order in society must be the outcome of the greatest possible development of all local, collective and individual liberties.”
bakunin legit free law (even though his ideas were part\ial ness)
none of us are free ness.. has to be all of us (berners-lee everyone law) for the dance to dance.. et al
need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
In political terms, this meant the abolition not only of official state-sanctioned religious institutions but also of “the custodial, transcendental, centralist State” itself, the “lackey and alter ego of the Church, and as such the permanent source of poverty, degradation and subjugation among the people.” This would require the abolition of national banks and “all other State credit institutions… all central administration, bureaucracies, standing armies and State police.” Bakunin argued that members of the Revolutionary Brotherhood “must therefore renounce the so-called principle of nationality,” which was used by monarchs, oligarchies, and the bourgeoisie “to deceive the people and to set them at loggerheads so as to further enslave them.”
has to be sans any form of m\a\p
However, at this time Bakunin did not advocate the complete abolition of governmental institutions. Rather, he called for “a free federation of autonomous communes” based on “the majority vote of all of the inhabitants—adult men and women alike.” The communes would federate into regional, provincial, national, and ultimately international federations. At each level there would be a federal “parliament” with representatives from each of the federated groups (at the regional level, representatives from each of the federated communes; at the national level, representatives from each regional federation and directly elected representatives from each commune; and so on). At this stage in the development of Bakunin’s ideas, his conception of federalism was not significantly different from Proudhon’s.
yeah.. can’t be bakunin legit free law.. w/any part\ial ness
For Bakunin, the solution was to remove the “unequal line drawn between intellectual and manual labour… When the thinker works and the worker thinks, free, intelligent labour will emerge as humanity’s highest aspiration.”
nah.. intellect ness as cancerous distraction
It was on economic and social issues that Bakunin was beginning to part company with Proudhon. Bakunin called for the “Abolition of class, rank, privilege, and distinction in all its forms” and “Complete equality of political rights for all men and all women.” Proudhon had never advocated the complete abolition of classes, nor did he advocate equal rights for men and women.
again.. matters little what all you do ‘abolish’.. as long as any form of m\a\p
67
For Bakunin, the land, natural resources, and the means of production belonged to all, but each individual must “earn his living by his own work, or run the risk of being considered a parasite, an exploiter of the wealth (i.e. the labour) of others, and a thief.” Bakunin was articulating the same “collectivist” position that was to be adopted two years later by a majority of the delegates at the International’s 1868 Brussels Congress—a position based on a notion of just entitlement derived from the view, shared by Bakunin, that labor “is the sole producer of wealth” in society
again.. can’t be bakunin legit free law.. w/any part\ial ness.. oi
Consistent with the positions previously articulated by Déjacque, Proudhon, and the French anarchist refugees in London, Bakunin argued that only an all-encompassing social revolution was capable of liberating the people.
so.. on right track: bakunin legit free law.. cancerous distraction: part\ial ness
we need to let go of any form of m\a\p.. otherwise.. wack a mole continues..
70
Bakunin had taken a similar position in his program for the Revolutionary Brotherhood. While children “belong neither to their parents nor to society but to themselves and their future liberty,” society “has the right and duty to tend to them because its own future depends on the intellectual and moral guidance they receive.”
oi
72
Chapter Three: The Debates on Property
76
The French mutualists put forward their view of the limited role of the state in a liberated society, echoing the views developed by Proudhon in The Principle of Federation. Essentially, the state was to have an executive power only, upholding the reciprocal obligations of the people that they freely assumed through mutual contracts and guarantees between organizations under their direct control.
if two/any peopl eneed contract.. doing it wrong.. doing/gathering from non itch in soul.. oi
77
As Bakunin later summarized his position, for peace to be achieved, the existing system of centralized, bureaucratic, and militarist states must be replaced “by a new organization based solely upon the interests, needs and inclinations of the populace… owning no principle other than that of the free federation of individuals into communes, communes into provinces, provinces into nations, and the latter into the United States, first of Europe, then of the whole world.”
oi.. there’s always a cancerously distractive but
78
To obtain a lasting peace, “it is necessary to do away with laws that oppress labour, and to turn all citizens into a single class of working people; in a word, to accept the social revolution with all its consequences.”
mid last sent 1p.. single calss working people .. read bakunin?
working ness.. still cancerous distraction.. oi
voluntary federations
oi.. still cancerous distraction
Following the September 1867 Geneva Congress of the League of Peace and Freedom, Bakunin began preparing an essay, “Federalism, Socialism and Anti-Theologism,” which set forth in more detail the ideas he had expressed at the congress. The essay develops a number of important themes that were to form the basis of Bakunin’s anarchism.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-federalism-socialism-anti-theologism
have on kindle to read mikhail bakunin.. for more on whay bakunin legit free law.. yet he didn’t let go enough to be legit free
79
Bakunin praised Proudhon for his anarchist conception of socialism, “based on individual and collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations, obeying no other laws than the general laws of social economy… excluding all governmental regimentation and State protection.”
oi.. any form of m\a\p
In addition, state socialism and state communism required a top-down organization that would prescribe and impose a particular conception of socialism, a form of social organization “alien to the utmost liberty of individuals and associations,” without which true equality could not be achieved. Bakunin therefore declared that “liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, and… socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”
Socialism was to be implemented by the people themselves through their own associations rather than through the “regulatory authority” of the state, by which Bakunin meant not only cooperatives, credit unions, trade unions, and mutual aid societies but also “the international league of workers of every land”—namely, the International itself. To achieve the revolution, Bakunin looked to “the factory and urban workers” in Western Europe; and, in Eastern Europe, “to the peasantry.” The petite bourgeoisie had “become too fearful, too timid and too sceptical to take any decisive step on their own account.”
oi.. if ‘decisive step’ ness.. then not legit free.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p.. aka: curiosity (itch in soul) over decision making et al
81
the principle points of Bakunin’s program of “Russian Socialist Democracy” were presented to the delegates, in which Bakunin called for the abolition of the right of inheritance, the complete equalization of the political and social rights of women with men, and the abolition of marriage as a religious, political, legal, and civil institution.
marriage\ing.. nika & silvia on divorce.. et al
82
according to De Paepe, the purpose of trade unions and strike activity was not merely to improve existing working conditions but to abolish the wage system. This could not be accomplished in one country alone, but required a federation of workers in all countries, who would replace the capitalist system with the “universal organization of work and exchange.”
needs to be all of us.. and needs to be sans any form of m\a\p
At the Brussels Congress, De Paepe tied these ideas regarding the prefigurative and transformative role of the workers’ societies and unions to the concept of integral education, which would constitute the point of departure for the “intellectual transformation” that would go hand in hand with the transformation of society, replacing “ignorance” and “the domination of capital” with science, work, and mutual exchange.
oi
83
The delegates again debated the eight-hour day. The French delegate Émile Aubry (1829–1900), from Rouen, argued that the only viable way to reduce the length of the working day was to create producers’ cooperatives that would “be able to reduce the hours of work” within those cooperative enterprises, which would eventually replace capitalist companies, thereby reducing working hours across the board. In response to this essentially Proudhonist position, Richard suggested that reducing the workday would give “the worker time to prepare his own emancipation.” Another French delegate argued that industrialization provided the basis for reducing the workday because machines enabled the worker “to produce more in less time.”
oi.. been trying part\ial ness forever.. need to try something legit diff.. as infra
The way to prevent the employers from instead laying off employees, lowering wages, and replacing skilled workers with “unskilled labor” was for the workers to form unions to protect themselves from wage and manning reductions. Marx’s spokesman, Eccarius, chimed in that *machines increased productive power to the point where socialism would become possible. The congress ultimately accepted “the necessity of mechanization,” but also that “the only way workers could come to possess machines was through mutual credit funding the creation of cooperatives.” In order to prevent the development of “an exploitative caste of bourgeois, property owning workers” who maintained control of the cooperatives by imposing excessive membership fees on new members, the delegates adopted a recommendation that “all workers’ organizations eschew profits on capital” and that the International’s members get involved in the cooperatives to keep them on the right path
*not the issue.. already have enough.. just need to grok and org around legit needs
84
The German delegates recommended that the workers read Marx’s Capital, in keeping with Marx’s wish that Capital would free the workers, especially in France, from Proudhon’s “erroneous” petit bourgeois views
According to Marx’s theory, nonprofit cooperative enterprises are simply incapable of creating the material abundance necessary for the transition to communism. . Nonprofit workers’ cooperatives are not only incapable of competing against capitalist enterprises, they are incapable of creating the massive increase in productive capacity that would make socialism and communism possible, and capitalism obsolete.
again.. not about how much (already enough) .. about org-ing around legit needs
The Brussels Congress also passed a resolution against war, calling for a general strike by European workers to prevent war—a proposition that Marx described as “Belgian idiocy” but that was to become a basic tenet of later anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movements.
oi
85
Reclus spoke in favor of the federalist position championed by Bakunin, but emphasized that federations should not be based on existing geographical units, such as the communes and provinces created and imposed by the state, but upon “the autonomy of productive associations and groups formed by these associations.” That is, people would be free to form a variety of voluntary associations through which they would coordinate their collective endeavors; a horizontal network rather than an inverse pyramid organized “from the bottom up,” as Proudhon and Bakunin liked to put it.
voluntary.. implies decision.. and need curiosity (itch in soul) over decision making for the dance to dance.. voluntary compliance et al.. oi
Bakunin himself had suggested in his 1866 program for the Revolutionary Brotherhood that it was “highly probable that eventually, bursting the bounds of the present-day communes, provinces and even States,” the workers’ associations would “provide the whole of human society with a new constitution, no longer divided into nations but into different industrial groupings.” It was this more fluid and dynamic conception of federation as an ever-changing and evolving network of voluntary associations that was later to be adopted by anarchist communists, like Kropotkin, during the debates within the antiauthoritarian International regarding the federalist structure of a future free society.
we need to let go of dividing/grouping ness.. marsh label law et al.. otherwise not legit free
Consequently, when Bakunin called at the Bern Peace Congress for “the destruction of all states” in order to achieve lasting “freedom, justice and peace,” he now proposed in their place “a *world federation of free productive associations of all countries.” Bakunin had come to the view that it was only through international organizations of workers, such as the International, that a global federation could possibly be achieved. Bakunin therefore argued, consistent with the position of many internationalists, **that social and economic equality was necessary for securing peace.
*does have to be all of us.. but sans the productivity ness.. sans any form of m\a\p
**oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
86
At the time, communism was conceived by both its proponents and opponents as something that could only be achieved and maintained through the power of the state.
Bakunin distinguished collectivism from communism after expressing his astonishment that Gustave Chaudey (1817–1871), a delegate to the peace congress and Proudhon’s literary executor, did not understand the difference:
I am not a communist, because communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the State, whereas I want the abolition of the State, the final eradication of the principle of authority and patronage proper to the State, which under the pretext of moralizing and civilizing men has hitherto only enslaved, persecuted, exploited, and corrupted them. I want to see society and collective or social property organized from below upwards, by way of free association, not from above downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatever
88
Chapter Four: Bakunin and the Alliance
89
Ironically, Bakunin’s secret societies had much the same structure and relationship to their members as the General Council of the International eventually had toward the groups and individuals belonging to the International, with the major difference being that the central committees Bakunin envisaged for his secret societies were always to be elected from and by the membership.
yeah.. everything to date.. same song
In another program for the International Brotherhood from 1868, Bakunin explained that the brotherhood would act as “a kind of revolutionary general staff” that would guide the insurgent people through “the thick of popular anarchy which will constitute the very life and all the energy of the revolution.” Acting “as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct,” the Brotherhood would provide that “unity of revolutionary thought and action” *necessary to ensure “the triumph of **revolution over reaction.”
*not necessary.. rather.. cancerous distraction what we ie: need is a means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
**we do need a means to quit reacting to everything.. (which is all we’ve really done to date).. so again.. need a means to get to that itch-in-8b-souls first thing everyday.. and use that data to connect/detox us
90
While Bakunin regarded the Alliance as being “the necessary complement to the International,” he emphasized that the two organizations were to “perform different functions.” The function of the International was “to unify the working masses… regardless of nationality and national boundaries or religious and political beliefs.” The “Alliance, on the other hand, tries to give these masses a really revolutionary direction.”
actually same cancerously distractive song.. oi
91
In contrast, Bakunin and his associates did “not fear anarchy, we invoke it.” Defining “anarchy” as “the unrestricted manifestation of the liberated life of the people,” Bakunin envisaged the “popular revolution” being organized “from the bottom up, from the circumference to the center, in accordance with the principle of liberty, and not from the top down or from the center to the circumference in the manner of all authority.”
if only..
needs to be from inside (itch-in-8b-souls).. everyday
The physical extermination of the aristocracy “proved particularly ineffective… since power resides less in men themselves than in the circumstances created for men of privilege…
hari rat park law et al
92
Although the Paris branch excluded intellectuals from membership, which would have meant that Marx himself would have been excluded had he lived in Paris, that did not prevent the Paris branch from affiliating with the International, nor was it contrary to the International’s statutes.
intellect ness and membership ness.. both/all cancerous distractions
97
Chapter Five: The 1869 Basel Congress and the Syndicalist Consensus
98
Credit unions would be transformed into banks of exchange, as proposed by the Belgian delegates at the Brussels Congress, providing the basis for the equal exchange of products and services by the federated groups and their members.
not enough ie: marsh exchange law.. graeber exchange law.. groups.. members.. oi
The federal councils would act as facilitators between the federated groups and assist in the rational reorganization of work based on the interests of all; first, on a communal basis, and then, by means of countrywide and international federations of the various groups.
need global detox leap first.. all else irrelevant s
102
*Bakunin was an advocate of integral education based on scientific, industrial, and practical instruction that would enable each person to engage in both intellectual and manual work so “that there should no longer be either workers or scholars but only human beings.” .. tHe believed that without an equal integral education for all, the “one who knows more [would] naturally rule over the one who knows less; and if between two classes just this one difference in education and upbringing existed, it would be enough to produce all the others in short order, and the human world would find itself in its present state, divided anew into a large number of slaves and a small number of rulers, the former working for the latter, as is the case now.” Those with greater education would become the experts, planners, and directors of the workforce. The technobureaucrat would take the place of the capitalist employer, and the worker would continue to have to obey a master above him.
*oi.. any form of m\a\p renders us not legit/free human beings..
intellectness as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
What the workers were lacking was “only socialist thought.” *While education and propaganda were “excellent means,” they were “insufficient” to inspire the workers to overthrow existing society. Rather, it was “through practical action,” the “workers’ solidarity in their struggle against the bosses” by means of “trade-unions, organization, and the federation of resistance funds,” that workers would become conscious of their own power to create a society that would provide them with **“a fully human existence in terms of material well-being and intellectual development.”
*1\ saying opp of last p.. oi.. and 2\ still not enough.. need legit global detox leap fist..
oi.. to mb’s shares on intell ness
**intellectness is cancerous distraction.. legit use of tech
103
When the workers saw that through their own collective action they could reduce their working hours and increase their wages, engaging in a “wholly material struggle,” they would “very soon abandon every preoccupation with heaven,” and socialism would come to replace religion in their minds. As the workers became “delivered from religious oppression,” they would recognize their “true enemies: the privileged classes… and the State, which exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those classes.” Through “the progressive expansion and development of the economic struggle” then, each worker would come to “recognize himself to be a revolutionary socialist, and he will act like one.”
red flag.. has to be all of us for the dance to dance..
As for participation in bourgeois politics, even when allied with bourgeois revolutionaries, Bakunin argued, as had Proudhon, that the workers would simply be assisting bourgeois radicals in achieving power, *“leaving economic and social relations as before.” Bakunin pointed to the experience of 1848 to show that even with significant political changes, such as the institution of universal male suffrage, the workers would still lack “**the material resources necessary to make political freedom a reality.”
*any form of m\a\p will do that.. no matter how much other stuff we do
**need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
It must from now on contribute only to the victory of the people’s cause, the cause of everyone who labors against everyone who exploits labor.”
oi.. again.. with the us & them ness.. oi
As workers obtained higher wages and shorter hours, they would then see that through their collective action they could transform society, with their improved economic conditions and leisure time providing them with the kind of resources that would enable them to do so.
not enough.. need global detox leap.. otherwise.. wack a mole with legit needs..
104
Cooperatives in which all workers were equal members would serve three important purposes. “First,” Bakunin wrote, cooperatives would accustom the workers “to organize, pursue, and manage *their interests themselves, without interference either by bourgeois capital or by bourgeois control.” Second, worker-controlled cooperatives would provide an **economic infrastructure that would enable “society [to] pass from its present situation” of capitalist control and exploitation “to one of equality and justice without too many great upheavals.” Finally, worker-controlled cooperatives could generate additional income for the workers’ “resistance” funds and provide the workers with credit during strikes. Similar proposals were promoted by the internationalists in France.
*but still have the deeper interference of being in sea world.. of any form of m\a\p.. cooperatives as cancerous distraction
**perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence w/ubi as temp placebo.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring
112
Thus, Bakunin was correct to later claim that, according to Marx’s theory, *“the most advanced countries, and consequently those most capable of producing social revolution, are the ones where modern capitalist production has reached its highest point of development.” .. t As Marx wrote in the General Council’s address to the Romande Federation, because “the material conditions” for the destruction of “landlordism and capitalism” were “the most mature” in England, that is where the revolution would begin, and from which it would spread across the globe
*oi.. we don’t need more production.. we need a legit global detox leap.. intellectness as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
113
Varlin described the position adopted “almost unanimously” by the delegates at the Basel Congress as “collectivism, or non-authoritarian communism,” which was to be achieved by a “European social revolution.” In November 1869, Varlin advised Richard that it was *imperative to “begin right now to study the means of organizing labor just after the revolution takes place,” so that after the “suppression of all institutions that stand in our way… we will be completely ready in such a way that by suddenly substituting a much better organization for the one we will sweep away, even the most incredulous and stubborn individuals will immediately be on our side.”.. t
*we need to org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w 8b today.. gershenfeld something else law et al
we need a problem deep enough to resonate w/8bn today.. a mechanism simple enough to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough to set/keep 8bn legit free
ie: org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w/8bn today.. via a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough (aka: sans any form of m\a\p) to set/keep 8bn legit free
114
we must admit that the only alternative is for the workers themselves to have the *free disposition and possession of the tools of production… through **co-operative associations in various forms.”
*won’t happen if any form of m\a\p.. ie: **cooperatives as form of map.. a cancerous distraction
Trade unions, being collective organizations, “accustom people not only to get along with one another… but also to organize themselves, to discuss and to reason from a collective perspective.” Consequently, trade unions “form the natural elements of the social edifice of the future; it is they [that] can be easily transformed into producers associations” on the day of the revolution
rather.. perpetuate same song
intellectness (reason/collective-persepctive et al) as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
Malon agreed that through strikes, even when unsuccessful, the workers acquire “the sentiment of solidarity and liberty,” preparing them “for the social revolution.” Bakunin had expressed views very similar to those of Varlin and Malon in his articles on strikes and the organization of the International in the spring and summer of 1869.
but still/esp us & them ness (like arnold s on news today.. talking about being like a sports team to counter israel/gaza et al)…. and refusal ness.. so cancerous distraction.. need a nother way.. a discrimination as equity way
115
The translated article described the International as containing “within itself the seeds of social regeneration… it holds the embryo of all future institutions
perhaps .. but institution ness is cancerous distraction.. so embryo of cancer
116
The workers could begin now to make those changes themselves through collective action, such as strikes, and in the process create self-managed, working-class organizations, such as cooperatives, mutual aid societies, credit unions, societies of resistance, and trade unions, which would eventually become *strong enough to replace capitalism and abolish nation-states, instead of trying to achieve **the impossible—the transformation of the coercive, hierarchical and bureaucratic state apparatus into horizontal federations of democratic and egalitarian workers’ associations. This is what De Paepe and the Belgian internationalists had advocated in “The Present Institutions of the International in Relation to the Future” and what Bakunin and his associates were also proposing.
but rather.. *’strong enough to perpetuate’.. oi.. **this too would be (is) perpetuating same song of violence
and the collectivization of large undertakings and services, such as mines, canals, railways, and banks.
serving who/what?.. not legit free people
117
Although the delegates to the founding congress recognized that cooperatives, on their own, would never displace capitalism, they agreed that cooperatives encouraged “cooperative habits” and “a spirit of mutual aid among the workers” that would help provide the basis for a future socialist society.
oi
118
“By virtue of its relative well-being.. These more privileged workers, who “are semibourgeois” by reason of “self-interest and self-delusion,” naturally “oppose the Revolution because they fear that the Revolution will ruin them.”
on seeming comfort blinding us to the cage we’re all in
121
In distinguishing this approach from the much more authoritarian schemes of the young Russian revolutionary Sergei Nechaev (1847–1882), Bakunin argued that “the sole object of a secret society must be not to create an artificial force outside the people, but to arouse, unite and organize spontaneous popular forces.” The “chief aim and purpose” of “social revolutionary anarchists” hence was to “help the people towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality and the fullest human freedom in every direction, without the least interference from any sort of domination, even if it be temporary or transitional, that is without any sort of government control.”
that would be sans any form of m\a\p.. which no one has yet tried
The secret society would guide “the people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its members, who have not the slightest power, are scattered in an unseen web throughout the regions, districts and communes, and, in agreement with each other, try, in whatever place they may be, to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards the plan that has been discussed beforehand and firmly determined… the plan for the organization of popular liberty.
and this is why we have not yet gotten to legit global equity/freedom.. we can’t seem to let go enough.. agree? plan? direct? determined? firmly? .. oi
123
Chapter Six: The Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune
130
The Communards assured the people of France that the “political unity which Paris strives for is the voluntary union of all local initiative, the free and spontaneous cooperation of all individual energies towards a common goal: the well-being, freedom and security of all.” The Commune was to mark “the end of the old governmental and clerical world; of militarism, bureaucracy, exploitation, speculation, monopolies and privilege that have kept the proletariat in servitude and led the nation to disaster.”
if only paris commune et al
Around the same time in Le Creusot, a “socialist-republican” committee called for support for the Commune. Albert Leblanc (1844–?), an anarchist from Lyon, declared that “the Commune is the suppression of ministers, Prefects, and the Police. No more soldiers, only an armed citizenry.” National army troops were sent in, there were mass arrests, and “large numbers of workers” were sacked from their jobs as punishment.
none of us are free if one of us is chained/armed).. oi
131
The federalist and antiauthoritarian internationalists felt that the Commune represented “above all a social revolution,” not merely a change of rulers. As the Proudhonist journalist Auguste-Jean-Marie Vermorel (1841–1871) put it, the “error of preceding governments must not be continued, that is to say there must not be a simple substitution of workers in the places occupied previously by bourgeois… The entire governmental structure must be overthrown with the aim of reconstructing one according to a new plan based upon principles of justice and science.”
if on justice and science.. same song.. oi
For the federalist internationalists, this did not mean state ownership of the economy, but collective or social ownership of the means of production; that is, the associated workers themselves would be running their own enterprises. The typographical workers called for the workers to “abolish monopolies and employers through adoption of a system of workers’ cooperative associations. There will be no more exploiters and no more exploited. We will thrive working or we will die fighting.” The mechanics and metal workers’ unions took a similar position, advocating “the formation of workers’ associations, which alone can transform our position from that of wage-earners to that of associates.” In April 1871, the Paris Federation of the International “called upon [the Commune’s] Commission of Labor and Exchange” to facilitate the formation of “trade unions for taking over workshops abandoned by their owners.”
oi.. to michel.. why sweetbridge/cooperatives/platform coops.. whatever.. not enough for legit change as long as any form of m\a\p .. which they all (and everything to date) has/had
136
For Bakunin, what made the Commune important was “not really the weak experiments which it had the power and time to make,” but “the ideas it has set in motion, the living light it has cast on the true nature and goal of revolution, the hopes it has raised, and the powerful stir it has produced among the popular masses everywhere, and especially in Italy, where the popular awakening dates from that insurrection, whose main feature was the revolt of the Commune and the workers’ associations against the State.” Bakunin’s defense of the Commune against the attacks of the veteran Italian revolutionary patriot Giuseppe Mazzini played an important role in the “popular awakening” in Italy and the rapid spread of the International there.
need to wake up more.. and now have means.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
138
Chapter Seven: From Out of the Ashes: The Defeat of the Commune and the Rise of the International in Italy and Spain
For Bakunin, and the Italian revolutionaries who began flocking to the International, Mazzini’s denunciation of the Commune, less than two months after its fall, was unforgivable. As Bakunin wrote, at “the very moment when the heroic populace of Paris, in its noblest hour, was being massacred in its tens of thousands, women and children and all, in defence of the most humane, the most just and highest cause that history has ever seen, the cause of the emancipation of workers all over the world; at the moment when the hideous coalition of all the obscene reactionaries who today are celebrating their victorious blood-bath at Versailles, not content with the mass-murder and imprisonment of our brothers and sisters of the Paris Commune, is also spewing out all the slanders which only a boundless viciousness can imagine,” Mazzini “has the audacity to deny not only the justice of their cause but also their sublime, heroic dedication, and portrays the people who gave up their lives for the deliverance of all the world as a common mob.”
139
on bakunin saying that mazzini based his pious patriotism on several false principles: ..and “that passion for uniformity which they call unity and which is the graveyard of liberty.”
Showing the degree to which Bakunin was influenced by Marx’s economic theories, *Bakunin claimed that “the development of economic forces has always been and still continues to be the determinant of all religious, philosophical, political and social developments.” He then connected this view to the Rules of the International, arguing that because “the economic subjection of the man of labour to the monopoliser of the means of labour… lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms,” the “economic emancipation of the working classes is the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a simple means”—a close variant of the English-language version of the Rules.
142
In “God and the State,” Bakunin set forth his most sustained argument against the principle of authority, which he argued originated in religious belief. Religion, particularly Christianity, creates an imaginary “Supreme Being,” extrapolating from the forces of nature, which then becomes the imaginary creator of the universe. This “God” is omnipotent and omniscient, the original cause of everything, who determines what is right and wrong, issuing commandments from on high that everyone must obey or be condemned to eternal damnation. People must love and obey the “Lord” above, because without him they would be literally nothing, unable even to distinguish right from wrong.
relition yeah.. but not legit god ness
143
The use of violence in human affairs requires some sort of religious or moral sanction; otherwise, it would constitute brute force, with one purveyor of violence having no more legitimacy than another. The masses therefore “must be induced to morally recognize” those who wield power over them. Religion, being the basis of “morality,” provides that sanction for the earthly authorities who rule over the people in the name of God.
structural violence.. spiritual violence.. any form of people telling other people what to do.. oi
As society becomes more secularized, so do the justifications for authority, culminating in secular theories of the state that mirror religious justifications of authority. As Bakunin explained in an earlier essay, according to these theories, *without state authority there is nothing to prevent people “from killing each other, plundering each other, insulting each other, and in general from hurting each other.” Prior to the creation of the state, it was claimed that “the distinction between good and evil did not exist.” **Only the state, through its laws, has the authority to determine what is right and wrong, what is permissible and impermissible, imposing a secular order that mirrors the hierarchical order imposed by the church. In both cases, the institutions of the church and the state provide the basis for their own justification, and morality is reduced to “whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power” of them.
*myth of tragedy and lord.. we have no idea what legit free people are like
**steiner care to oppression law et al.. graeber violence in care law et al
“This explains why,” Bakunin wrote, “the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes,” for from this perspective there is “no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: ‘for reasons of state’.”
daniel maté ness
In “God and the State,” Bakunin also developed a critique of secular justifications for authority based on claims to scientific knowledge and technical expertise. This critique was aimed at the “positivist” followers of Auguste Comte, who had purported to develop a scientific theory of society (“sociology”), by which state laws and government policy would be determined, and of Marx, the creator of the “doctrinaire school of German Communism,” with all its scientific pretensions.
science scientifically et al
That Marx and Engels regarded their theory of socialism as a scientific theory is scarcely debatable. Let us recall Marx’s denunciations of Proudhon’s “Charlatanism in science” and the scientific ignorance of his followers, with the implication being that Marxism, unlike Proudhonism, was scientific. It was no coincidence that Engels later described Marxism as “scientific socialism” in his essay “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” in order to emphasize its alleged superiority over other conceptions of socialism, including anarchism. Marx wrote the introduction to the 1880 French edition of “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” which he commended as “an introduction to scientific socialism,” and praised Engels for formulating “certain general principles of scientific socialism” as early as 1844
oi
144
Bakunin’s solution to these problems was “not to destroy science—that would be *high treason to humanity—but to remand it to its place.” This would be achieved through the integral education advocated by him and other members of the International. With everyone, male and female, receiving both a practical and scientific education, “the masses, ceasing to be flocks led and shorn by privileged priests,” would be able to “take into their own hands the direction of their destinies.”
*oi.. science scientifically et al
**intellectness as cancerous distraction et al.. any form of people telling other people what to do
145
The third aspect of liberty is the reciprocal awareness and recognition of the freedom of each other. As Bakunin put it, “I cannot truly call myself free until my liberty, in other words my dignity as a man, and my human right, which consists in not obeying any other man”—a kind of negative freedom (2nd) —and in “behaving only in accordance with my own convictions”—a kind of positive freedom (1st) —, “are reflected in the equally free awareness of all men and return to me confirmed by the assent of all the world.”
oi
the third freedom ness et al..
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
148
Chapter Eight: Very Real Splits in the International
151
After he was corrected, he then dismissed the proposal as “a pious wish” that could never be achieved,
oi.. unjustifiable strategy ness et al
153
[marx sure spent a lot of energy debunking bakunin]
162
It should come as no surprise that the term “Marxist” was first used by the subjects of Marx and Engels’s vitriolic attacks to describe the group Marx and Engels had gathered around themselves to combat Proudhonist, federalist, and anarchist tendencies within the International by any means necessary, instead of being used simply to identify those who agreed with Marx’s theoretical views.
170
Bakunin was unable to attend the Hague Congress. If he had tried traveling to The Hague either through France or Germany, he would have faced almost certain arrest. Learning of his and Guillaume’s expulsion from the International, Bakunin began developing a more incisive critique of Marxism that went beyond simply criticizing Marx and Engels’s underhanded tactics and dealt with the theoretical underpinnings and limitations of Marx’s theories. In the process, Bakunin began to more clearly demarcate the theoretical differences between anarchism and Marxism.
[author sure spent a lot of energy debunking marx]
171
But, for Bakunin, Marx’s conception of proletarian political power was itself a “sham.” The urban proletariat, consisting of “tens or hundreds of thousands of men,” would never be able “to wield [political] power effectively.” Instead, power would be wielded over them by “a group of men elected to represent and govern them,” leaving the workers to be the “slaves, puppets and victims of a new group of ambitious men.” Foreseeing the quality of life in the future Soviet Union, Bakunin described a “workers’ state” as “a barracks regime for the proletariat, in which a standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live by rote.”
since forever.. because all in sea world since forever..
Since the urban proletariat could not exercise collective political power directly, but only through its so-called representatives, Bakunin predicted that a socialist government, even a “transitional” one—whether an elected assembly or a revolutionary dictatorship—would be controlled by a “new class” of intellectuals, bureaucrats, and political functionaries, based on “a new hierarchy of real or bogus learning,” and the world would be “divided into a dominant, science-based minority and a vast, ignorant majority. And then let the ignorant masses beware!”
oi.. intellectness as cancerous distraction et al
Bakunin attacked the very notion of central planning, which in his view was based on a simplistic view of science. No one man or “group of intellectuals, no matter how great their genius,” would be “able to embrace and understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities” necessary to plan, coordinate, and direct the postrevolutionary economy or the revolutionary movement.. t
unjustifiable strategy ness et al.. and again.. intellectness as cancerous distraction et al
172
The idea that it is not enough to abolish capitalism to create a free society has remained a central anarchist tenet to this day.
but still not letting go enough.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
174
As Malatesta later put it, the “most powerful means for defending the revolution remains always that of taking away from the bourgeoisie the economic means on which their power rests, and of arming everybody… and of interesting the mass of the population in the victory of the revolution.. t
1\ if arming.. not for all (berners-lee everyone law; none of us are free; et al) and 2\ if have to interest anyone.. then it’s people telling other people what to do.. oi
oi
175
Chapter Nine: The Antiauthoritarian International and the Emergence of the Anarchist Movement
176
‘strike as precious weapon’
oi
185
As for Marx’s claims that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was merely “a necessary transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people” while “anarchy, or freedom, is the goal,” Bakunin noted the contradiction that “for the masses to be liberated they must first be enslaved.” Bakunin argued, to the contrary, that “no dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the workers from below upward.”
186
Although Bakunin was a militant atheist, he recognized that religious belief was “not so much a mental delusion as a protest of life, will and passion against the unbearable burden” of existence by the impoverished masses. The church was therefore “a kind of celestial tavern, just as the tavern is a sort of celestial church on earth. In church and tavern alike [the masses] forget, at least momentarily, their hunger, their oppression, and their humiliation”—a view similar to Marx’s that religion is “the opium of the people.”..t Bakunin thus argued that “the people’s religiosity [could] be eliminated only by a social revolution, and not by the abstract, doctrinaire propaganda of the so-called free-thinkers.”
hari present in society law.. and maté addiction law.. et al..
hari rat park law.. for (blank)’s sake
In his discussion of the Russian peasant commune, the mir, Bakunin pointed out its limitations as a patriarchal institution founded on the “despotism of the husband, the father, and the elder brother.” Anticipating Reichian psychoanalysis, Bakunin argued that an individual “[h]abituated to obedience within the family” will continue “to obey and to bend with the wind in society as well.”.. t If someone “is the head of a family, he will be an unlimited despot at home but a servant of the mir and a slave of the tsar.”
steiner care to oppression law et al.. nika & silvia on divorce et al..
187
The most significant *debate was the one over public services..t De Paepe, on behalf of the Belgian internationalists, argued that if public services were turned over to the workers’ associations, or “companies,” the people would simply “have the grim pleasure of **substituting a worker aristocracy for a bourgeois aristocracy,”.. t since the worker companies, “enjoying a natural or artificial monopoly… would dominate the whole economy.” ***Neither could all public services be undertaken by local communes, since “the most important of them,” such as railways, highways, river and water management, and communications, “are by their very nature fated to operate over a territory larger than that of the Commune.” Such intercommunal public services would therefore have to be run by delegates appointed by the federated communes. De Paepe claimed that the “regional or national Federation of communes” would constitute ****a “non-authoritarian State… charged with educating the young and centralizing the great joint undertakings.”
*need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
**happens w any form of m\a\p ie: cooperatives ness
***all we need would be fine if we legit knew (and org’d around) what we truly need.. ie: railways, highways et al.. not most important.. oi
****and we won’t know.. (and this isn’t non authoritarian) if still people telling other people what to do
188
The most vocal opponent of De Paepe’s proposal was Schwitzguébel from the Jura Federation. He argued that the social revolution would be accomplished by the workers themselves “assuming direct control of the instruments of labor”; thus, “right from the first acts of the Revolution, the practical assertion of the principle of autonomy and federation… becomes the basis of all social combination,” with “all State institutions”—the means by “which the bourgeoisie sustains its privileges”—foundering in the “revolutionary storm.” The various trades bodies will then be “masters of the situation,” and the workers, having “banded together freely for revolutionary action,” *will stick “to such free association when it comes to organization of production, exchange, commerce, training and education, health, and security.”
*all already cancerous distractions.. so not going to be legit free.. oi
190
Chapter Ten: From Collectivism to Communism and Propaganda by the Deed
In March 1876, Malon made clear that, in his view, the individual worker should be *entitled to the product of his or her labor in order to guarantee individual liberty; ..as he agreed with De Paepe that the provision of public services **required an “administrative apparatus” above the workers’ associations and local communes. Anarchist opponents of De Paepe’s position referred to this as the ***“public service state.”
***inspectors of inspectors et al
In 1874, Guillaume prepared an essay called “Ideas on Social Organization,” in which he suggested that after the revolution, when “production comes to outstrip consumption,” it “will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods.”..t Instead, everyone “will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities,” and the communist principle of distribution according to need would be substituted, *“to the greatest possible extent,”..t for the collectivist principle of distribution according to one’s individual labor.
*ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
191
In their criticism of Malon’s position in favor of the “public service” state and the consequent need to guarantee to individual workers a right to the product of their labor in order to ensure their independence, the Jura Federation indicated they *preferred to be called “collectivists,” although they could also be described as “non-authoritarian communists,” so as to distinguish themselves from the “authoritarian communists” of “the school of Marx and Blanqui.” A contributor to the federation’s Bulletin argued that Malon’s distinction between “collective property” and the “richesses,” or “products of social labour,” to which individual workers were to be **entitled, was incoherent.
*label(s) ness would be irrelevant if legit free
**oi
In October 1876, the Italian Federation adopted an anarchist communist position on the basis that “the notions of mine and yours have no reason for being” in a free society—a position markedly similar to the views expressed by Gerrard Winstanley during the English Revolution. Malatesta later explained that the Italian internationalists concluded that, *because of the difficulty of distinguishing between collective and individual property, and in determining each person’s rightful share, “the only solution that can realize the ideal of human brotherhood and eliminate all the insoluble difficulties of measuring the effort made and the value of the products obtained is a communist organization” of production and distribution. Following the Bern Congress of the antiauthoritarian International in late October 1876, Cafiero and Malatesta expressed the Italian position as follows: “The **contribution by all towards the meeting of each and everyone’s needs” is “the only rule of production and consumption compatible with the principle of solidarity.”
*aka: org around legit needs .. sans any form of m\a\p
**cancerous distraction to the dance legit dancing
“Propaganda by the deed” was an idea that had been developing for some time. The Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane had stated in his “political testament” in 1857 that “ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around.”..Bakunin wrote that “from this very moment we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda
graeber model law et al
192
During the uprisings in Spain in the summer of 1873, La Solidarité Révolutionnaire in Barcelona described “revolutionary action” as the most advanced form of “revolutionary propaganda”: *when the people do battle at the barricades with the “mercenaries of reaction,” it forces the attention of others, such that they can no longer remain indifferent. Thus, even when unsuccessful, revolutionary uprisings like the Paris Commune and Sanlúcar constituted powerful examples that would **serve to inspire the masses in the future.
**we don’t need to be inspired.. need a means to listen deep
He advised the Italian internationalists “to reject false theories such as the spontaneity of the masses.
in sea world .. yeah.. but legit if all legit free.. graeber unpredictability/surprise law
193
Both Malatesta and Guillaume made clear that, in rejecting the state, even in a “transitional” role, they were not advocating the abolition of public services, as De Paepe implied, but their reorganization by the workers themselves.
good on that.. but if still ‘workers’ .. won’t be free enough to hear/org around legit needs
the social democrats, who focused their energies on periodic political campaigns, watering down their demands in order to gain the support of the middle class.. also had to compromise any commitment they had to social revolution by publicly limiting themselves to working within the existing political system. Eventually, as was already happening in France, they would abandon any commitment to social revolution in favor of piecemeal legal reforms.
any form of m\a\p.. part\ial ness is killing us .. ffor (blank)’s sake
194
The German-speaking anarchist Friedrich August Reinsdorf (1849–1885) argued that, if the “people’s state” maintained the same kind of coercive apparatus, like the criminal justice system, to enforce its laws as was relied upon by the capitalist class, then it would be a “police state” rather than a “people’s state” that the Social Democrats would be creating.
again.. any form of m\a\p (to tomorrow’s m of care – oct 26 23 what is the state)
Malatesta warned of the dangers of English-style trade unionism, which he regarded as a “reactionary institution.” The problem with English trade unionism was that the unions limited their aims to improving wages, benefits, and working conditions instead of seeking to abolish capitalism and the state by means of social revolution.
need to let go of any form of m\a\p.. including creative refusal et al
196
Nevertheless, Malatesta rejected the “Bakuninist” label, because he and his comrades did “not share all Bakunin’s theoretical and practical ideas, and because above all, we follow ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle in a man.”
need to let go of principle ness as well.. any form of m\a\p
Before they were captured, Malatesta, Cafiero, and about two dozen other anarchists were able to enter only two villages, where they burned tax records, land titles, and other official documents at the town halls, while urging the peasants to collectivize the land.
like internet’s own boy.. deed ness not enough if reaction ary ness.. we have means today for legit leap..
ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox leap so we can org around legit needs
197
Brousse also extolled the Benevento affair as an example of propaganda by the deed, writing in his article on that subject that the Italian internationalists “from Benevento went one better” than the Bern demonstrators: “They did not bother to demonstrate just one self-evident fact to the people. They took over two small communes, and there, by burning the archives, they showed the people how much respect they should have for property.” By returning their taxes “and the weapons that had been confiscated from them” by the authorities, the Italian internationalists “showed the people the sort of contempt they should have for government.” For Brousse, it did not matter that such exemplary instances of direct action were unsuccessful, for the “idea will have been launched, not on paper, not in a newspaper, not on a chart… having sprung to life, it will march, in flesh and blood, at the head of the people.”
returning arms? then not diff.. and again.. if any form of m\a\p.. not diff.. ie: direct action ness
198
Jacobin and Blanquist majority in the Commune had discredited the very idea of state socialism, as the “revolutionary government” of the Commune had proven itself incapable of making the social revolution, trying instead to impose “simple palliatives” by decree. For the social revolution to have been achieved, the people in arms needed to destroy the existing order and then, freed of their chains, create for themselves a new society based on “individual autonomy, autonomy of groups, of artels, of [workers’] corporations.”
if still arms ness.. then not free.. cancerous distraction
200
Guillaume suggested that “different solutions for the distribution [of goods] will be arrived at within the groups themselves” during the revolutionary process. This position, leaving the particular form of economic organization to be worked out by the participants themselves, later came to be known as “anarchism without adjectives.” It was popularized by the Spanish anarchists as a way of surmounting the ideological conflicts between the anarchist collectivists, who still believed that wealth should be distributed on the basis of each person’s labor, and the anarchist communists, who advocated distribution according to need.
need deeper.. need to org around legit needs
203
He foresaw that, in a postrevolutionary society, *“production will exactly meet needs,” with “the distribution of all wealth between men” being “taken away from the exploiter and carried on through the normal functioning of the whole of society.” Brousse supported this communist approach, arguing that “with each one working according to strength, that is to say **as long as the work remains ‘attractive’ for him, there will be such an increase of wealth that without depriving his neighbours, each one will be able to take from it whatever he needs.” However, Brousse now regarded ***communism as a long term goal, not something that could be immediately achieved.
*needs/begs to be via no one.. just let the dance dance..
**if need ‘attraction’.. already doing it wrong
***perhaps not then.. but now we have the means..
ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
204
To replace L’Avant-Garde, Kropotkin organized the publication of a new paper, Le Révolté, in February 1879, with Dumartheray and George Herzig (1856–1923), a young Genevan anarchist. Kropotkin felt that “the chief duty” of Le Révolté was to “make one feel sympathy with the throbbing of the human heart all over the world, with its revolt against age-long injustice, with its attempts at working out new forms of life,” for it “is hope, not despair, which makes successful revolutions.”
if has to be gotten from outside.. doing it wrong.. it’s about listening.. not telling
205
These comments were in a paper called “The Anarchist Idea from the Point of View of Its Practical Realization,” which Kropotkin presented at the October 1879 congress of the Jura Federation in La Chaux-de-Fonds.
can’t find in anarchist library..
207
Kropotkin said that what distinguished “anarchist socialism” from the other schools of socialist thought was that the latter did not believe that a social revolution was immediately possible, whereas the anarchists did.
if only they did.. but too.. now have means for legit detox leap
He therefore argued that “products owed to the labor of all should be the property of all, and each person should be free to avail of his portion in order to consume it as he sees fit, with no regulation other than that emanating from the solidarity of interests and the mutual respect between associates.”
need to stop at.. w no reg.. those ‘other-than’s always get us back to myth of tragedy and lord ness..
Cafiero defined “communism” as “the taking of possession, in the name of all humanity, of all the wealth existing in the world,” which would then be shared by all “according to the principle: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS FACULTIES, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.” He then expressed this communist principle in more libertarian terms: “FROM EACH AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO *HIS WILL,” making clear that in an anarchist communist society, people would **freely choose how they would contribute to the common wealth.
*need global detox leap.. currrenlty we have no idea what our legit needs are..
ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
**oh my.. already not legit free.. if assuming some contribution ness.. oi
208
Cafiero argued against this “common wealth” being put in the hands of any government “representatives,” “trustees,” or “intermediaries” of any kind, for they would soon “end by representing only themselves.” Instead, “the land, the machines, the workshops, the houses, etc.,” would be held and made use of “in common” by the people directly, with everyone enjoying the “right to a share of the human wealth,” regardless of where they came from or their individual contribution to production.
need to model a sabbatical ish transition
209
Cafiero challenged the distinction drawn by the Marxist Social Democrats between “values of use and values of production. Use values are those which we use to satisfy our own personal needs: the house we live in, the food we consume, clothes, books, etc.; whereas production values are those we use for production: the factory, the stores, the stable, shops, machines and instruments of labour of every kind.” The Social Democrats argued that only “values of production,” not the “means of consumption,” should be considered collective property. Cafiero replied that there was no coherent distinction between use values and values of production. Houses, clothing, and gardens were as necessary for production as machinery, stables, and meadows, for without food and shelter people would be unable to produce anything.
we need to quit calculating and even thinking about any of it.. for the dance to dance
And when Dumartheray, Malatesta, Reclus, Kropotkin, Cafiero, and other anarchists moved from a collectivist to a communist position, it was largely because it was impossible to devise any way to determine fairly the value of each person’s contribution to the common wealth and to avoid the inequality that would result, as Marx himself acknowledged, under any wage system
any form of m\a\p.. a cancerous distraction
210
Chapter Eleven: The End (of the International) and the Beginning (of the Anarchist Movement)
The Italian Federation held its last congress in Chiasso, Switzerland, in December 1880. By then, Cafiero had adopted an extreme stance. In his article “Action,” published in Le Révolté that same month, he wrote that “our action must be permanent rebellion, by word, by writing, by dagger, by gun, by dynamite, sometimes even by the ballot when it is a case of voting for an ineligible candidate… Everything is right for us which is not legal.” This doctrine later came to be known as “illegalism.”
cancerous distraction
211
He was sure that Bakunin himself would have rejected individual acts of terrorism (as indeed he had) and instead “would have said: The bomb is too little to destroy the autocratic colossus.” What was needed was a widespread, peasant-based social revolution whereby the dispossessed would seize the land and workplaces to manage them for the benefit of all.
still wouldn’t work.. need something every sou already craves to org around.. otherwise we keep on playing wack a mole
218
In 1884, the Italian Federation adopted a program crafted by Malatesta that “accepted collectivism as a *transitional phase” in the attainment of an anarchist communist society. The program incorporated much of the International’s original statutes, retaining the reference to “truth, justice and morality,” as the basis for revolutionary conduct, and the Mazzinian slogan **“No rights without duties, no duties without rights,” expressing the anarchist commitment to moral reciprocity and responsibility.
not *this.. if **this.. oi
219
The Chicago anarchists regarded trade unions as fighting organizations that would not only work toward the social revolution but would also struggle for immediate improvements for the workers. At the beginning of May 1886, the Chicago anarchists and several unions in which they were involved were on strike for the eight-hour day. On May 3, 1886, there was a scuffle outside a factory where the owner had brought in “scabs,” or “blacklegs,” to replace locked-out workers. The police attacked the crowd, killing four to six workers and injuring many more. The Chicago anarchists called for a protest meeting the next day. As it was coming to a close, the police again attacked the crowd. Someone threw a bomb, several policemen and demonstrators were killed, either by the bomb or by the police indiscriminately shooting into the crowd, and many more were injured.
Several leading anarchists, including Parsons, were arrested and then framed for the bombing. Parsons and three other anarchists—August Spies (1855–1887), George Engel (1836–1887), and Adolph Fischer (1858–1887)—were executed on November 11, 1887. Louis Lingg (1864–1887) cheated the hangman by committing suicide in prison on the eve of the executions. They became known as the Haymarket Martyrs. Their executions helped to establish May 1st as the international day of the workers, and they inspired a new generation of radicals, such as Emma Goldman (1869–1940), to embrace the anarchist cause. However, their executions and the subsequent general repression of the anarchist movement in the United States seriously reduced the influence of anarchists within the American labor movement for decades. It was not until the Industrial Workers of the World was founded in Chicago in 1905 that anarchists were again to play a prominent role in the United States labor movement.
220
As a result of the sometimes acrimonious disputes between the anarchist collectivists and the anarchist communists, some of the Spanish anarchists began to develop the idea of “anarchism without adjectives.” The phrase is attributed to the Cuban-born anarchist Fernando Tarrida del Mármol (1861–1915), who argued in the late 1880s that, “to advance the revolutionary cause… it was not necessary for one to adopt either a collectivist or a communist perspective; rather one had only to subscribe to the general principles of anarchism.” Tarrida regarded this approach as being more consistent with the anarchist commitment to individual freedom, for any anarchist worthy of the name “could never impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone.”
221
For a brief period of time after Malatesta left Argentina in 1889, the “antiorganizationalists” became the most prominent anarchist tendency in Argentina. The antiorganizationalist stance can also be traced back to the International, for it was the transformation of the International’s original General Council from an administrative body into a governing one that had convinced some of the internationalists that even “correspondence bureaus” contained the seeds of authoritarianism, such that any permanent forms of organization should be rejected in favor of more fluid, ad hoc groups of like-minded individuals. The ease with which the police could infiltrate and suppress more public anarchist organizations and their membership also had its effect on moving some anarchists toward an antiorganizationalist position
huge to yesterday w johan.. in regard to sans any form of m\a\p ness..
But, with the arrival in Argentina in the early 1890s of several “Spanish anarchists who had participated in labor activism through the Spanish Workers’ Federation,” including Pellicer Paraire, a “significant impetus” was again given to the anarchist “pro-organizationalists” in Argentina. Following the example of the original Spanish internationalists, the Argentine anarchist movement “inserted itself into Argentine society through the creation of institutions for workers’ self-defense,” such as “resistance societies, countless centers and cultural circles, schools, libraries, and newspapers,” becoming “the most significant oppositional force in Buenos Aires in the first decade of the twentieth century.”
if response/defense ness then a form of m\a\p ness.. oi
223
One of the key points made by the anarchists in the International was the need for revolutionary organizations to mirror the society that they hoped to achieve. In order for any revolution to succeed in liberating people and to avoid one ruling class simply replacing another, the organizational structures used to transform society must be voluntary, nonhierarchical, noncoercive, and self-empowering. Hence, the anarchist insistence that means be consistent with ends and that everyone should have an equal voice. Instead of party- or governmental-type organizations with bureaucratic hierarchies and “representatives” who at best represent the interests of a few, the anarchists insisted on individual autonomy, voluntary association, and the use, only when necessary, of recallable delegates subject to imperative mandates, with no independent policy-making powers of their own.
oi.. seat at the table ness.. not vision of legit free ness.. oi
224
Tensions and disagreements arose among the anarchist themselves within the International regarding exactly which types of organization, if any, were conducive to achieving an anarchist society (or “anarchy,” in a positive sense). Bakunin, and since his time, the platformists, have argued in favor of “dual organization,” with dedicated groups of anarchists sharing a common platform or program forming their own organizations, which then work within broader-based organizations or movements, such as the International itself, to steer those movements and organizations in an anarchist direction. Others, particularly the antiorganizationalists, objected that such organizations created an elite group of revolutionaries, or vanguard, which would act as the de facto leadership of these broader-based movements and organizations, assuming control of them instead of fostering the self-empowerment of the people.
yeah.. will happen.. with any form of m\a\p
A middle course was sketched out by Malatesta, who was critical of the platformists but rejected the extreme position of the antiorganizationalists.
All of the various factions within the International, whether Proudhonist, Marxist, Blanquist, or anarchist, “*tried to force events rather than relying upon the force of events.” The International could not be “simultaneously a society for economic resistance, a workshop of ideas, and a revolutionary association.” While Malatesta clearly saw a role for specific anarchist organizations, he felt that workers’ organizations should be independent of any particular political group, including anarchist ones. **It was up to the workers to find their own path, with anarchists fighting alongside them instead of dragging them along behind them. The adoption of an anarchist approach should “happen freely and gradually, ***as consciences expand and understanding spreads,” rather than the anarchists striding ahead alone under “the illusion that the masses understood and [were] following them,” or, worse, trying to foist their views on others.
*perhaps lets even let go of the idea of events ness
**all need to do their own thing.. ie: undisturbed ecosystem ness.. no paths..
***today we have the means for that to happen in the blink of an eye.. for a global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake
Malatesta also pointed out the limitations of workers’ congresses and majority rule. In practical terms, “congresses are attended by whoever wishes and can, whoever has enough money and who has not been prevented by police measures.” Consequently, they are not even truly representative bodies. The only congresses compatible with anarchist values are those that do not attempt “to lay down the law”; any decisions emanating from them must not be “obligatory rules but suggestions, recommendations, proposals to be submitted to all involved,” which “do not become binding and enforceable except on those who accept them, and [only] for as long as they accept them.”
still a form of m\a\p.. so whalespeak.. oi.. so cancerous distraction
and as ie to john.. trying same thing you suggest/imagine.. but didn’t.. and hasn’t worked.. need a legit nother way
225
But, what should the relationship be between anarchist groups and broader-based social movements? Recalling the International slogan that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves, Malatesta reminded his fellow anarchists that they were “not out to emancipate the people; *we want to see the people emancipate themselves.” What anarchists therefore needed to do was to **foster “all manner of popular organizations” in order to accustom people to act for themselves, without relying on people in positions of authority to act for them.
*oi.. all need emancipation.. no us & them ness.. even in ‘nice’ terms..
**oh my.. that’s still people telling other people what to do.. oi
226
The two most prominent anarchist currents that emerged from the antiauthoritarian International were anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. The anarcho-syndicalists advocated the transformation of society by means of revolutionary trade unions that would provide the basis for a postrevolutionary society. The anarchist communists advocated interlocking networks of ever-changing voluntary associations to meet people’s multifarious needs and wants. For the most part, the disagreements between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarchist communists were not over libertarian communism, as most of the anarcho-syndicalist organizations eventually adopted programs in favor of communism, as opposed to collectivism. *The disagreement was over how to achieve anarchist communism and what an anarchist communist society would look like
*ie: a nother way
227
But this concept can also be traced back to the International, for it was the federalists, antiauthoritarians, and anarchists in the International who *insisted that the workers’ own organizations, including the International itself, should be directly democratic, voluntary federations freely federated with one another, for they were to provide the very basis for the future free society. Contemporary anarchists have simply **developed more sophisticated ways of implementing these ideas and preventing movements from being co-opted and transformed into top-down organizations.
makes no diff if you **amp up *same song.. oi
What is different about contemporary anarchist approaches to organization is that they bridge the gap between the affinity group, popular assemblies, and the broader networks of similar organizations and movements *in a way that nineteenth-century anarchist communist groups were unable to do, without relying on the more permanent forms and institutions utilized by the anarcho-syndicalists in their federalist organizations.
*there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. something legit diff than anything we’ve ever tried.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
228
In many ways, these contemporary forms of anarchist organization mirror the anarchist communist vision of a society in which, in Kropotkin’s words, “ever modified associations… carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms which *answer best to the multiple aspirations of all.” By making these kinds of organizations, **like affinity groups, the basis of their horizontal networks, contemporary anarchists have created nonhierarchical organizations that not just prefigure but realize, in the here and now, the organizational forms consonant with an anarchist communist future, within the context of broader movements for social change.
*again.. perhaps.. but.. until now.. today we have a legit diff means.. a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
**need deeper.. so everything to date.. still hierarchical et al..
229
Malatesta criticized those “comrades who expect the triumph of our ideas from the multiplication of acts of individual violence,” arguing that “bourgeois society cannot be overthrown” *by bombs and knife blows, because it is based “on an enormous mass of private interests and prejudices, and sustained, more than it is by the force of arms, by the inertia of the masses and their habits of submission.” Malatesta felt that such tactics isolated anarchists from the people. He instead called on anarchists to “live among the people and to **win them over… by actively taking part in their struggles and sufferings,” for the anarchist social revolution can only succeed when the people are ***“ready to fight and… to take the conduct of their affairs into their own hands.”
**this.. is still *this.. ie: ***this is still war/same song.. oi
1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people
_________
________
________
________
- anarch\ism
- accidental anarchist
- anaculture
- anarchism and markets
- anarchism and other essays
- anarchism or rev movement
- anarchist communism
- anarchist library
- anarchists against democracy
- anarchy after leftism
- anarchy and democracy
- anarchy in manner of speaking
- anarchy works
- annotated bib of anarchism
- art of not being governed
- at the café
- billionaire and anarchists
- constructive anarchism
- david on anarchism ness
- don’t fear invoke anarchy
- enlightened anarchy
- fragments of an anarchist anthropology
- freedom and anarchy
- goal and strategy for anarchy
- graeber anarchism law
- inventing anarchy
- is anarchism impossible
- kevin on anarchism w/o adj
- krishnamurti for anarchy
- nika on anarchism
- on anarchism
- post scarcity anarchism
- spiritualizing anarchism
- that holy anarchist
- two cheers for anarchism
________
______
be you. 