pure freedom

pure freedom – The Idea of Anarchy, History and Future – (2007.. first translation to english 2025) by horst stowasser via 58 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/horst-stowasser-pure-freedom]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Stowasser: Horst Stowasser (* 7 January 1951 near Wilhelmshaven ; † 30 August 2009 in Ludwigshafen am Rhein ) was a German author and anarchist . Horst Stowasser spent part of his youth in Argentina , where he attended school and encountered historical anarchism , became politically active, and was arrested several times. After graduating from high school in Argentina, he began studying agriculture and Romance languages and literature in Germany . He undertook several trips around the world, establishing contacts throughout the globe.. Due to a newspaper article (1980) with the statement “Every soldier is a professional, trained murderer…” (see also Tucholsky quote ” Soldiers are murderers “), he was sentenced to a fine of 3,500 DM for insulting soldiers in general, but was then acquitted on appeal on the grounds that expressions such as “soldiers are murderers” are permissible as long as they refer to all armies in the world (and not specifically to an individual or a manageable group of people such as the Bundeswehr).. In 1985, he published a book in which he proposed a new form of “project anarchism.” This so-called Project A aimed to embed libertarian projects in the everyday life of a small town. This idea was put into practice in 1989. Implementation began in Neustadt an der Weinstraße , where Stowasser himself worked, as well as in two other locations and abroad. Following a crisis in the mid-1990s, discussions are currently underway to continue the project. Stowasser continued to live there and built a housing and living project that would also house the AnArchiv.

notes/quotes:

4

Foreword

Paradoxically, the collapse of the communist dictatorships seems to have signaled the end of social utopias — even though state socialism was never truly a real alternative. The short-winded triumph of the Western market economy cannot obscure the fact that no current system is capable of offering a way out of the ecological and economic madness in which we live. Therefore, the coming decades are likely to bring a turning point that will force all of us into a serious search for new models..t

to legit get out.. need a legit nother way.. one that gets to the root of problem

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 measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..

ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

This development is reviving interest in social visions that have so far remained in the shadows. In his new book, Horst Stowasser presents the most compelling of these “forgotten utopias”: anarchism..t

from what i’ve seen/read (in the shadows).. anarch\ism ness still not deep enough

Anarchy — a word that has always evoked fear and horror — reveals itself, upon closer examination, as a fascinating grab bag of wonders. Its essentially simple structure claims nothing less than to be a new grammar of human organization. It seeks to replace the “brutal chaos” of our society with the “gentle chaos” of interconnected, horizontal societies, in which the domination of human beings over one another and over nature becomes meaningless..t

aka: people telling other people what to do (any form of m\a\p) as irrelevant s

Vividly narrated, clearly written, and broadly conceived, this book has every prospect of becoming a political standard work. Alongside a critical introduction to the world of libertarian ideas and a journey through the surprisingly rich history of anarchist experiments, the author also explores future scenarios — culminating in the thesis:
“The social form of the coming millennium will be an anarchic one.”

Horst Stowasser, born in 1951, lives as a freelance author in a libertarian project in southwestern Germany. He earned his high school diploma in both Argentina and Germany and studied agriculture and Romance studies. He has traveled the world. Since 1969 he has been active in the anarchist movement, participating in major international meetings and congresses and holding membership in various organizations. He was politically persecuted into the 1980s and imprisoned multiple times.

In 1971 he founded the anarchist documentation center “Das AnArchiv”, an extensive collection of documents, magazines, and literature on international libertarian themes, with a focus on German-language anarchism. He is the editor of various magazines and journals and the author of numerous books, essays, and studies on social and political topics.

11

Preface: Why This Document Exists

I FIND IT HARD TO REMEMBER where and when exactly I first became aware of this book, which actually only appeared ten years ago (1995) and very soon thereafter was marked as “out of print and no longer available.” Around 1996/97, Freiheit pur (“Pure Freedom”) circulated among a part of my circle of friends, and I probably borrowed it at that time—perhaps even from the Munich City Library, where there was a copy (which eventually got stolen…).

I’m not a materialist, but I always believed—probably like the thief—that you simply have to own the truly great books. Either to be able to lend them to others, or to have immediate access to the information yourself. (And then there are books whose content stands in such sharp contrast to the present that it’s better to buy them while they’re still legal.)

Already during my first reading, it was clear to me that Freiheit pur belonged in the category of books one absolutely must own.

So how was I supposed to get my hands on a copy of this fascinating work?
I called Eichborn Verlag: no luck! — of course, all stock had long since been depleted. And although Freiheit pur had sold well, a new edition was not being considered there — for reasons that remain unclear.

I visited antiquarian bookshops and political bookstores, spent hours on the phone, and somehow even managed to find Horst Stowasser’s phone number. He was very kind but immediately said that if I managed to track down any leftover copies, I should call him again — he himself only had one single copy of his book left.

You’d think I’d be satisfied.

But after reading it again — as exciting and enlightening as ever — I increasingly found myself in situations where, after a great conversation, I really wanted to recommend this book to someone… if only it would’ve made any sense. And of course, I couldn’t lend out my sacred copy to everyone at once — especially since many borrowers tend to eagerly borrow something at first, only to be put off soon after by the length of what seems like a “dry” nonfiction book.
And so it often ends up that, after months or even half a year, you finally recover a dusty, unread book…

12

It was too sad, because by then I was more convinced than ever of the relevance and potential of Stowasser’s book.

I once gave my copy to my mother (who, like most mothers, is not easily persuaded to adopt unconventional ideas) as reading material for a trip. I hoped that the wise words of the author might help her better understand my own worldview and way of thinking. And indeed, when she returned, she seemed genuinely impressed; she even admitted to me that after finishing it, she had started reading it again…

Around that time, I was attending — as an unofficial guest student — a political science seminar on “Anarchism” at the university. Apart from a peace-loving punk, I seemed to be the only person in the room with any prior knowledge of the subject. Most of the actual enrolled students were quietly disinterested, and especially the elderly professor — who did approach the topic in a well-meaning way, but with a rather naïve attitude — clearly had no real understanding of the subject he was teaching.

I don’t remember exactly why I kept showing up every week — probably out of solidarity with the battered idea of anarchism — but I do remember one thing very clearly:
How much I would’ve loved to recommend a good bibliography to the lecturer — something that could have brought him a bit closer to the libertarian spirit: this very book, Freiheit pur!

In 1998, I finally moved from Munich to a small intentional community in a tiny village on the Baltic Sea near Poland. Although the people in Klein Jasedow didn’t explicitly refer to anarchist ideas, life there was — quite naturally — permeated by principles, an ethic, a structure, and not least a spirit that felt deeply familiar to me from reading Freiheit pur.
In my own life, dreams and utopian theory had become, at least in part, a bit of practice.

But I am becoming increasingly aware of how privileged a little island I find myself on — while the vast majority of the world seems more and more to be going up in flames.
Since September 11, 2001, and the rise of the anti-globalization movement, the prevailing conditions have at least occasionally been called into question in public, and more and more people are beginning to look for viable ways out of the planetary catastrophe.

has to be all of us for the dance to dance

I, too, have felt renewed energy for political engagement since then. At one point, I was even determined to somehow produce a new edition of my favorite book, even if it meant self-exploitation and dipping into my modest personal savings.

After all, isn’t the world practically crying out for signs of a new societal path?
Everywhere, the system’s crises are plainly visible — and yet, no compelling political vision or even a seriously developed alternative can be heard of..t In this context, a good book about the never-disproven idea of anarchism might just offer one or another valuable inspiration for a general discussion — which hopefully will emerge on a broader level soon!

need problem deep enough via mechanism simple enough in a system open enough.. so that we don’t need compelling ness and seriously developed ness.. aka: org around legit needs that every soul already craves..

I dare to hope for nothing more, but also nothing less…

After I had already begun forming concrete plans to champion Stowasser’s book on my own, a surprising turn occurred on July 5, 2002: during one of my sporadic online searches for Freiheit pur copies in antiquarian bookstores, I stumbled upon the website of Olf Dorlach from Zwickau, who, at http://www.utopie1.de, offers dozens of full online editions of important books on the topic of “social utopias.”

It was unbelievable: the search engine had automatically directed me to the homepage of my long-sought favorite book, and at first, I couldn’t believe it was really there — in its entirety, down to the last letter, freely accessible and completely free of charge!
I immediately wrote a letter to Olf Dorlach, thanking him for his good idea and the clever implementation.

following all his suggestions.. and no luck

13

Still, it has to be said: despite the eye-friendly font on utopie1.de, no reasonable person will read a 400-page book on a computer screen. The printed version also turned out to be unfortunately unreadable, so I took the time and effort to reformat the text into a version that prints and reads well.

On a website of my own, I now make the PDF file available to the interested public.

I wish all living beings on Earth a life free from unnatural constraints!
— Jochen Schilk,
Klein Jasedow, October 2005
(Contact via Mama-Anarchija.net)

none of these get me anywhere (ie: to pinterest shopping.. oi)

Addendum, March 2006:
Since the beginning of the month, the long-awaited revised edition, now with an extensive photo section, has finally been published by Nautilus Verlag. The book is now titled “Anarchie! – Idee, Geschichte, Perspektiven”, and this new print edition is in fact based on the digital version that has been available for download from Mama-Anarchija.net since November 2005.

For about a year, I’ve been in active correspondence with Horst Stowasser on the topics of anarchism and matriarchal research. The fruits of this exchange can be found both in relevant Kurskontakte articles (also available on the website), and in the Anarchie! chapters 9 (“The Patriarchy”) and 20 (“Mama Anarchija – On the Feminine Origin of Freedom”).

I’ve come to an agreement with Horst Stowasser and Nautilus Verlag that I may continue to offer the older version of the book — expanded to include the matriarchal chapters — as a free download on this website. We assume that any enthusiastic reader will want to own the beautifully bound print edition of the book once their appetite has been whetted by this online version.

So do yourself and all of us a favor — and honor the wonderful new printed edition as well:
Ask for Anarchie! at the bookstore of your choice!

can’t find it anywhere.. dang

14

A Kind of Introduction: On Rage and Freedom

“Anarchy is not a matter of demands, but of life itself.”
— Gustav Landauer

IN THE BEGINNING WAS RAGE.
The unspeakable, unrestrained, and unpredictable rage that sometimes overtakes the slave and drives him to either smash his master’s skull or run away.
Rage that one human being is allowed to command another.
Fury at servitude and oppression.
Hatred for the arrogance of power that humans wield over one another.

Rage, rebellion, escape — an ancient driving force in human history, a vicious cycle whose boundaries even a rebellious slave five thousand years ago may have come to know. In this dead-end street with no destination moved a Spartacus*, just as much as Michael Kohlhaas or “Che” Guevara*, for all of them sooner or later had to face the question:
What is the goal of rebellion?

Freedom, of course!

won’t get to legit freedom via rebellion


But what exactly is that? Where could it be found? Could one go somewhere and find it?
Did escaping authority — the mere absence of the oppressor — automatically mean the presence of freedom?
And doesn’t all experience show that freedom is a deceptive hope? Isn’t one form of domination always just replaced by another?
Above all: Is the human being even capable of freedom?

Outrage, fury, rebellion — these are negative values. They only tell us what should not be, but not how it could be otherwise, or better.
Hatred is not constructive*; it is destructive — how could it be otherwise?
Of course, it would be absurd to expect a slave, who rebels in his moment of greatest torment, to already have a fully formed plan for a free society.
Liberation has always been, and still is, primarily a reaction to unfreedom. But if it stops there, it can never become constructive. And that means: Liberation, ultimately, does not lead to freedom.

It is within this tension between rage and freedom that humanity gave birth to an idea as old as the history of domination itself: the dream of anarchy — or to put it plainly, freedom from rule.
At the heart of this idea lies the question: How can rage overcome itself and give rise to freedom?
Undoubtedly, hatred and fury are poor guides. And it is equally clear that freedom cannot be created through means of unfreedom.

thurman interconnectedness law et al


But it is also true that it was often rage that first sparked the thought of a “society of freedom,” and more importantly, the will to act on it.
Theorists of modern anarchism have called this the “creative power of indignation”, while tirelessly insisting that freedom can never be achieved if we stop at that point.

15

Thus, anarchism — as a liberating struggle and as the doctrine of a society without domination — was born into this contradiction from the very beginning and remains entangled in it to this day:
How can destructive rage be transformed into constructive liberation?
For what would be the use of every uprising against unfreedom, if it did not lead to freedom in the end?
It would bring only new oppression — unless our thoughts move beyond this spontaneous outrage, beyond feelings like revenge and fury.

to itch-in-the-soul ness

Indignation, then, needs an idea — one that leads toward a positive utopia; in a word: a goal.

This goal is what defines the nature of that movement known as “anarchism”, which has always provoked both enthusiasm and fear.
As colorful, bizarre, and contradictory as freedom itself can be — enticing to some, the embodiment of evil to others — it has run like a bright thread through the history of humanity for centuries.
Between the most radical peacefulness and desperate violence, this idea of hope unfolds, still capable of inspiring people today, and perhaps still with its true future ahead of it.

That is what this book is about.

It asks whether anarchy is an unrealistic dream or a blueprint yet to be realized.
It attempts to untangle the knot of ideas that make up this radical philosophy of freedom, and to trace some of its threads.
It tells of failed and successful attempts to make that dream real.
Above all, it tries to look ahead — to sketch out a scenario and examine the thesis put forward by some contemporary thinkers, namely:
The social form of the coming millennium will be an anarchic one — or humanity will perish.

The roots of modern anarchism are very old.
Its origins are lost in the mists of human history — if only because two or three thousand years ago, hardly any chronicler* considered the “history of uprisings” worth recording.
What we now call “modern anarchism,” on the other hand, is only about 150 years old.
Paradoxically, though well documented, it remains almost completely unknown.

Its search for a future society has given rise to an almost endless series of revolts, ideas, and practical experiments. All of them are full of tension and relevance, and in nearly every case, rebellion preceded philosophy.

Even in personal development, rage usually comes before utopia for most anarchists.
Very few people come to the desire for a society without domination through analytical reasoning or philosophical exercises.
Experiencing oppression, domination, and injustice firsthand has been — and still is — the most common and powerful motive for committing to such an idea.

Seen this way, the potential for rebellion is endless.
Almost every self-aware person knows this kind of rage.
Maybe you have asked yourself at some point why there are people above you, people who get to give you orders and decide your life and your future — a whole system of hierarchy, which we all know doesn’t work very well.

16

But that doesn’t mean that everyone who suffers under authority is automatically an anarchist.
Anarchism always involves a search for alternatives and visions of the future.
And today, new ideas for the future seem more urgent than ever.
The global chain of crises on our planet forces us to find new solutions — ones capable of replacing outdated notions of centralism, hierarchy, concentration, and the obsession with growth.

In that search, the rich trove of anarchist experience can offer intriguing suggestions — both good and bad.
But it is good for only one thing not: blind imitation.
Ideology*, dogmatism*, and fanaticism* contradict the very essence of anarchy.

Because that essence — put simply — is: pure freedom.

17

PART 1 THE IDEA

18

Chapter 1: Some Notes on Confusion

“The word ‘utopia’ alone suffices to condemn an idea.”
— Jack London —

19

Now, anarchists by no means see this diversity as a flaw; on the contrary, they see it as an opportunity and enrichment — a foreshadowing of the diversity they seek in a future society. Indeed, anarchism claims to be the only social structure that takes into account the fact that people are very different.

But what then do anarchists actually have in common? Is there even any justification for speaking of “anarchism” and “anarchists” if everything is so wonderfully arbitrary?
For simplicity’s sake, let us try a preliminary brief definition that limits itself to the commonalities:

Anarchists strive for a free society of equality *in which there is no longer any domination of people over people. The members of such a society are to be empowered and encouraged to take their private and social needs into their own hands without hierarchy and paternalism, with a minimum of alienation*. This is meant to create a different order in which principles such as “free agreement,” “mutual aid,” and “solidarity” could replace today’s realities like laws, competition, and selfishness. Authoritarian centralism would be replaced by federalism: the decentralized networking of small and manageable social units. Misanthropic and environmentally destructive gigantomania* would then be absurd; in its place would arise free associations of purpose, in which people enter into direct relationships **on the basis of equal rights and duties. Particularly original about these ideas is the notion that in a geographic area there would no longer be only one society, one state equally binding for all, but a variety of parallel* existing social formations. “Anarchy is a society of societies of societies,” as the anarchist philosopher Gustav Landauer once put it.
In short, and put a bit more simply: Anarchy is not chaos*, but order without domination.

*then needs to be sans any form of m\a\p.. to get to the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

**cancerous distraction

“Nice, but naive,” this could sum up the tenor of all well-meaning critics.
“That may be a beautiful pipe dream, but it’s not achievable. Human beings aren’t made for that; they are selfish, they need authority and the strict hand of morality, law, and order. And even if they could live like that — the rulers would never allow such a system, and since they cannot be defeated, it will remain a dream.”

rather.. this is not ridiculous

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

20

Of course, none of this exists anymore, and many of these large and small experiments fell far short of anarchism’s high ideals in practice. But it is also true that not a single one of them collapsed because of its own contradictions—they were all crushed militarily. Truly a “striking” proof; however, not one that could prove the impossibility of an anarchist society.

but nothing yet to date an ie of letting go enough to see/try the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

Today anarchism exists only as a concept*, as a social movement, and in modest practical approaches. The final proof of whether anarchy is a functional structure is therefore still pending; likewise, whether it is a desirable way of life. Ultimately, only those people living in it could answer that.

21

Part 2: The Past

22

Chapter 20: Mama Anarchija: On the Feminine Origins of Freedom

23

Women shaped the fundamental consensus of communal life—but without actually ruling.

w/o seeming to be ruling.. a raised eyebrow ness et al

From their values emerged a kind of “social grammar” that didn’t need to be enforced through violence because it was universally accepted and naturally structured daily life. And it was exactly these values that made the difference.

At the heart of this female-centered ethics were not domination, oppression, or violence, but life itself.

deeper: org around legit needs.. rather than: label ing who’s in charge.. because still curriculum ing

24

It was clear: collective cohesion in a solidarity-based community was the best way to ensure both the physical preservation of life and material survival.

exactly.. preserve/survive.. not deep enough for alive ness.. ie: life over survival ness et al

But Why Do We Still Call These Forms of Life “Matriarchal”, When That Implies “Rule by Mothers”?

Quite simply, because we don’t have a better word for it. We lack the vocabulary to describe something we no longer know.

rather.. need to let go of words/labels/defns/naming the colours ness.. otherwise same song

26-29

Once it was accepted that Çatalhöyük represented a completely different kind of society, one free from power and dominance, everything suddenly fell into place—a coherent mosaic.

notes here: çatalhöyük

30

Chapter 21: Early Forms of Anarchy

31-33

Tao

notes here: tao ness

34

assemblies often resembled more a show than a place of serious political decision-making.

serious political decision making is a show.. oi

No matter how democratic we may consider ancient Athens to have been — all this has little to do with “anarchy.”

any form of democratic admin .. has little to do w legit free ness

36

The Stoics are positioned even closer to anarchism. For Kropotkin, Zenon of Kition (4th and 3rd centuries BCE) was “the best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece.” No wonder, since he opposed Platon’s state communism with the ideal of a free commune without government. Zenon recognized—just like his Russian admirer—that humanity has both the instinct of self-preservation, which manifests as egoism, and the social instinct, which leads to cooperation. Both tendencies are in free play, with social cooperation increasing as humans align themselves with their “natural needs.” Coercive institutions would then become unnecessary.

ie: if org around legit needs.. the dance will dance.. and so much will become irrelevant s

In all this, Stoicism strongly resembles the ideals of the Enlightenment, just as it shares the nearly boundless belief in the goodness of man, provided he can develop “naturally” — a belief, by the way, that has lost much of its persuasiveness since Rousseau and is now seen more critically in anarchism. 

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

39

Already in the second century AD, the church used the word for the crime of “arbitrary human opinion” and henceforth denoted a “deviant” from the divine truth, which, naturally, was defined by the church. And deviation was considered a grievous sin worthy of death.

yet/rather.. already on each heart.. need a means to listen that deep.. no prep.. no train..

47

Chapter 22: The Time is Ripe

to (virus) leap et al

“Communication is the essence of freedom.
Coercion cannot convince.
Make people wise,
and you make them free.”
– William Godwin –

yet.. ‘make people wise’ is coercion.. the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

48

With unshakable persistence, he explores how humanity might achieve the greatest possible happiness. Along the way, he rejects patriotism, positive law, and material wealth, as well as religion, oppression, and servility. In the end, he calmly concludes that such happiness *could only be realized under one condition: in a society without government. He deals not only with issues of philosophy, human nature, and ethics but also with economics, education, administration, law, punishment, violence, sexuality, and even ecology. Naturally, he also asks by what means this new society should be pursued and established, and under what structures people might live in it. **His approach is thoroughly rationalist in the spirit of the Enlightenment: Godwin places great hope in human reason; the capacity for intellectual and moral development, he argues, grows with the freedom of its conditions. To that exact degree, authority—and thus the state—would become obsolete. ***Even in his own lifetime, Godwin had to revise some of this unwaveringly rational faith in humanity in favor of acknowledging the irrational side of human character, thus anticipating modern anarchism, which no longer bases itself on the expectation of reason either.

*deeper.. 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 measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

**reason/intellectness as cancerous distraction.. still not deep enough

***beyond rational/irrational ness.. ie: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

*Pedagogy was Godwin’s lifelong passion. Accordingly, he saw this development as a long **process of maturation, not something that could be achieved through a sudden, violent upheaval of society. For Godwin, revolution was a sequence of steps. Unlike conventional reformists, however, he already regarded political parties as entirely incapable of truly changing society—200 years ago. Much like Landauer later, he saw no future within state structures. Instead, he recommended a network of small, independent circles meant to inspire their surroundings by example—a vision remarkably close to modern libertarian organizational theory and its catalytic affinity groups. Although Godwin advocated a nonviolent strategy and was a declared opponent of Jacobin revolutionary terror, he was not an absolute pacifist: **violence, he believed, might become unavoidable or necessary in certain situations to prevent greater harm.

*strike 1: ed.. pedagogy ness as huge form of people telling other people what to do

**strike 2: violence.. etc.. oi..

His claim that in a well-organized free society, the working day could be reduced drastically—to just half an hour per day, he estimated—sounds downright visionary.

49

A free society, Godwin believed, should not destroy or imprison criminals, but treat them “with kindness and gentleness.” Another red flag for him was the education system. “National education has the tendency to perpetuate errors and to mold every consciousness according to the same model. (…) It teaches students the art of justifying those doctrines that happen to belong to established knowledge.” His educational goal was something else entirely: to enable children to create and enjoy a free society. In doing so, he questioned the entire traditional educational approach, which he saw as inherently despotic, and advocated learning driven by intrinsic motivation, where teachers are regarded as equal partners.

but still red flags ness if teach ness et al..

Parties, trade unions, and cooperatives emerged, whose leaders occasionally invoked Godwin — without ever matching the depth or radical universality of his thinking.

yet still not deep enough

50

It would take a long time for anarchist philosophy to return to the level of insight reached by that unlucky writer Godwin, who had already come to the simple realization at the end of the 18th century:

if listening to itch-in-the-soul.. glola/in sync..

“Communication is the essence of freedom. Coercion cannot convince.”

Well, Godwin is no genius who suddenly fell from the sky. He too had his background—the time was simply ripe for someone like him.

In 1516, Thomas More published his Utopia in England, depicting a scandalously different fantasy society—one that (he subtly implies) was far better than the despotism of his king and patron, Henry VIII (who would later have him executed for unrelated reasons). “Utopia” not only became a new political term, but also sparked a literary trend that continues to this day.

A year later, a theologian named Luther triggered an avalanche of debate in Wittenberg, at the end of which stood the idea of a “free Christian” who could finally read the Bible for himself. The era in which religion defined people—and everything else—was drawing to a close.

Thinkers suddenly began to think—from scratch, like Descartes, the systematic doubter, *freely and unbound by sacred dogmas. And they discovered something intriguing: humans are not static, but changeable—and therefore capable of improvement. Scientists began observing nature, trusting their eyes, and drawing conclusions. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton shook the Church’s doctrine and worldview to its foundations. The new keyword was “reason.” The result was Enlightenment—and that word is meant literally: it grew brighter.

51

The following century initially saw a conservative restoration after Napoleon’s fall, but history could no longer be reversed. The seeds of Enlightenment had sprouted.

And with industry came a new class. Freedom—whatever people might mean by it—became a topic for the masses.

Thus, in these three centuries, more happened than in the previous one and a half millennia.

The an-archic thread we are following becomes ever thicker and takes on an increasingly clear shape in intellectual history: first as Enlightenment, then liberal, then libertarian, and finally anarchist—with fluid boundaries between each phase. Along this path, we encounter individuals who can rightly be called early libertarians. Their thinking increasingly approaches a position that would soon be defined as “anarchist.”

Godwin stands among them: the first anarchist—because his thought has global scope; yet also the last early libertarian—because he never called himself an anarchist and did not belong to any anarchist movement, which only emerged years later. He quite literally stands on the threshold.

We can find early libertarians by the dozen in these centuries. Here, we’ll touch on only the most interesting of them.

The Early Libertarians

The most significant current of Enlightenment thought comes from France. François Rabelais, a former monk who speaks bluntly in his satirical reckoning with the institutions of his time, describes in his 1534 utopia Gargantua and Pantagruel a life free of domination in the imaginary Abbey of Thélème. Life there is anti-authoritarian, bawdy, and pleasure-seeking—but only for the privileged members. The motto of this anarchic vision is: *“Do what you will!”

rabelais and his world et al

*need global detox leap in order for people to legit hear/grok ‘what they will’

52

Michel de Montaigne, a close friend of La Boétie, also offers eloquent traces of libertarian thinking in his work—though more subtly expressed. His warm portrayal of a stateless indigenous society is incorporated almost word-for-word by Shakespeare into his play The Tempest. In the essay On the Education of Children, Montaigne makes a compelling anti-authoritarian argument for teaching with kindness and freedom, without harshness or coercion, culminating in the remarkably modern demand for flowers instead of rods in the classroom.

ugh.. still a form of people telling other people what to do

56

Fourier’s worldview is expansive, imaginative, and contradictory. He envisioned entirely new forms of communal life and labor, with an ethics of work and pleasure suited to human nature. Social freedom, he insisted, is worthless without economic equality:

“We need luxury for all, not equality in misery!”

aka: life over survival ness.. yet…

What makes Fourier unique is that he fused all these ideas into a concrete plan for the Phalanstères. In these “colonies of harmony,” up to a thousand people were to live, work, and farm the land together. The foundation of labor would be cooperatives, where every member had the right to education, work, and a guaranteed “social minimum.” Higher performance would be rewarded with higher “dividends.”

oooof.. so ‘luxury’ via voluntary compliance

57

Regulation was his forte: he even described the daily schedule in the Phalanstère so meticulously that there was barely any room left for individual initiative. The life of the commune was so thoroughly planned that it sometimes resembled a gentle prison more than an earthly paradise.

yeah.. ‘luxury’

Only after Fourier’s death did his ideas gain broader influence. Although he witnessed the foundation and failure of the first settlement in France in 1833, Fourierism only became a significant movement after 1848. *Numerous followers developed and promoted his doctrine and tried to implement his utopias. Experiments were carried out in Switzerland, England, Germany, and especially in the USA, where at one point there were three dozen Fourierist communes. However, none lasted more than a few years — most collapsed due to internal conflict.

*ha.. rather.. hardt revolution law et al..

**because nothing legit new/diff.. all steeped in the many forms of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

*Fourier’s lack of trust in people’s freedom, his tendency toward regulation, and his hidden hierarchies were not blameless. **But crucially, these early communes provided experiences that proved valuable for the future. Godwin relied solely on persuasion through debate and remained sterile. Fourier added the power of practical example. Even after failure, that had lasting effects: Fourier’s ideas of free association and cooperation had a huge influence on the cooperative movement, especially in Britain—and even found resonance in Russia.

*the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

**rather.. valuable for future perpetuation of same song.. again.. if not trying the unconditional part of left to own devices ness.. not legit free people.. so yeah.. perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord.. to further validate reasoning that you can’t trust free people

58

Also belonging to this group is Henry David Thoreau, who in 1854 published “Civil Disobedience”, a foundational text for all future forms of nonviolent resistance—and helped establish a deep tradition of libertarian dissent in America.

yet .. disobedience and resistance are cancerous distractions.. both forms of re ness

Certainly worth mentioning here is the often misunderstood German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whose questionable reputation stems largely from the fact that his sister manipulated his literary estate to suit Nazi ideology. In truth, few have spoken more sharply against state, nation, and religion than Nietzsche. His radically individualistic philosophy of the “Übermensch” is intellectually close to Max Stirner. Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, and Herbert Read drew inspiration from the Saxon philosopher — while many other libertarians rejected him outright.

Nietzsche himself, incidentally, gave the decisive reason why he did not see himself as an “anarchist.” Despite the intellectual proximity, he believed the anarchism of his time was headed in the wrong direction because its “complaints about others and about society sprang from weakness and narrow-minded resentment.” That was, in fact, a rather accurate criticism of the anarchist movement in the late 19th century — and in a sense, it still applies to certain cherished self-pitying tendencies found among some anarchists today.

as far as i can tell.. everything to date is about re ness.. not about legit free ness

_______

______

________

_____

_____

______

_______

______

______

______

_______

________