Solneman
(Kurt H. Zube)

The concept of anarchism has become for many people a "ghost" like that of communism in Marx's time. Newspapers and journals write the most foolish and contradictory things about it, and radio and television are no better in this. And as a rule, the same happens in books, even by writers and lecturers on anarchy and anarchism from whom one might have expected some detailed knowledge.

Not only ignorance, conceptual confusion and gross negligence are expressed there, but quite often conscious falsification occurs. This happens, for instance, when the designation "anarchistic" is used for persons, views and deeds which are actually completely incompatible with genuine anarchism, even when the very opposite of anarchism is involved.

At the time of the legislation against socialists in the German Empire, harmless social democrats were called anarchists and terrorists by the bureaucracy in order to agitate and prejudice the masses against them. For the same purpose, the Baader-Meinhof gang and similar advocates of chaos are today quite systematically called "anarchists," even though the persons calling them that know very well that these people are revolutionary Marxists aiming at the opposite of anarchism and that they, too, have protested against being called anarchists.

Anarchy, literally and with regard to its content, means non-domination (no-government). It is quite understandable from their point of view that those striving for or practicing domination should equate a condition of non-domination with disorder or even chaos, because, in this way, they try to justify their own domination. However, this is nothing but propaganda. For there has never been any period in human history, not even in its earliest beginnings and in pre-history, where a condition of genuine anarchy existed. This results from the fact that anarchism presumes a certain maturity of civilization, of insight and of experience, which have existed to a sufficient degree only since approximately the beginning of the 19th century.

Thus, the assertion that anarchism is identical with disorder, or even with chaos, is totally unfounded - due to lack of experience. However, more than enough experience has been had with its opposite, domination, which has almost always gone hand in hand with exploitation. Against this, people have rebelled again and again, in all ages, since it has always brought disorder into social relationships and has created chaotic conditions by wars and civil wars.

In contrast, freedom (real freedom, the equal freedom of all) is identical with non-domination. It is not the daughter, but the mother of order (as Proudhon said). Disorder is always the consequence of dispute, and dispute arises unavoidably whenever someone attempts to dominate, i.e. to oppress another person. The equal freedom of all excludes, right from the beginning, the majority of those unbridgeable contrasts which, up to now, have been the cause of disagreements and quarrels, and it would reduce these to the exceptional cases where someone still dares openly to take the side of aggressive force and of the law of the jungle. All those occasions for quarrels would be eliminated where claims upon others rest on unprovable assertions - and this includes almost all of the ideological claims made so far.

The condition of non-domination, of anarchism, of the equal freedom of all, also offers everyone the greatest possible extension of freedom for his own aspirations, and by this fact alone the differences that remain possible are already very limited.

Professor Ulrich Klug (presently Senator of Justice in Hamburg) is one of the praise-worthy exceptions who - instead of stating nonsense on anarchism and anarchy or even maligning these concepts - describe them factually. During a conference of lawyers in Cologne in 1966, he remarked that it would be at least theoretically conceivable for nobody to dominate. The value-free concept of anarchy primarily meant only this. The generally associated concept of a primary evil, of chaotic disorder, was a "smoke-screen concealing hard power positions by mystical theories." In particular, the notion of chaotic anarchy was a contradiction in itself. If nobody ruled, nobody was subjected to anyone else. The side-by-side existence of non-subordinated people presupposed order. Thus, if anarchy meant order, it could also become a concept of law, since law is only a special form of order. Indeed, examples showed that this was possible.

Professor Klug first of all mentioned the example of the order of international law. Since domination, in the sense of the possibility of setting norms and enforcing their observance, could not exist towards a sovereign State - otherwise there would be no sovereignty - this order was almost a model for an orderly anarchy.

It meant an equality of all, the model of the round table around which all sit as equal partners. Road traffic regulations ("neither more horse power nor anything else can grant privileges") and modern marriage law (with its principle of the equal rights of marriage partners - "nobody is subjected, nobody dominates") were further examples.

Lastly, even the most essential requirements of a constitutional society, such as freedom, equality, control of violence, and lawfulness, were the goals towards which anarchism was striving. Therefore, wherever domination was aspired to which would endanger the anarchistic order of equal rights, the lawfulness of the State was in danger and so-called dissatisfaction with the establishment was quite justified.

 

THE CRITERION FOR GENUINE ANARCHISM (^)

The standard of whether someone is really an anarchist or not lies in whether he renounces domination over others or not, i.e. whether he voluntarily and on principle respects the limit of the equal freedom of all (with all its consequences), abstains from aggressive violation of this limit, and is prepared to offer indemnification in case of unintentional or negligent offences against it.

He who merely does not want to be dominated himself is far from being an anarchist, since that is also the wish of most non-anarchists and especially of those craving for domination. The genuine anarchist therefore, on principle, places the freedom of others before his personal freedom, by equating his own freedom with theirs. Doesn't this really constitute a model for what is called "democratic behaviour"? This is a badly chosen expression, but it is at least heading in the direction of what one means by it.

Domination, i.e. the claim to determine the conduct of others, against their will, in such a way that one's own freedom is increased at the expense of the freedom of others, does not always arise only from conscious personal arbitrariness. Far more often, it takes the form of a claim for domination based on one's obsession with an idea or concept. The person concerned is himself so dominated by it that he never doubts its reality or whether all others recognize it. This becomes especially hideous when the "ideal" is one intended to make mankind happy and when the person concerned, asserting his good intentions and his better insight, compared with the alleged ignorance or foolishness of the others, becomes aggressive against the others. However, whether aggressive force is practiced for the purpose of oppression or to make people happy, it always amounts to the same. There is always one person intending to hold others in tutelage, and who wants to determine, against the will of others, what they should do, and who thus claims an excessive freedom for himself at the expense of the others.

However, any compulsion is admissible only insofar as it defends the limit of the equal freedom of all. By exceeding this limit, it becomes aggression.

Even a person without inner freedom, obsessed by an idea or concept and hindered in his development or inhibited by his character, can be a true anarchist. For anarchism does not require an "ideal person" but only human beings, as they are. The equal freedom of all is a purely external relationship of mutual nonaggression, and solidarity (though it may be desired and though it does lie in everyone's interest) does not represent a "conditio sine qua non."

It was already mentioned that the anarchist must also be prepared to respect neutral arbitration courts in all disputes and to submit to their judgment, even when it runs against him, i.e. that he must not make himself a judge in his own case. It is self-evident that such arbitration courts have to decide according to the principle of equal freedom which, like a set of scales, offers a clear standard for any concrete situation.

 

THE UNIQUE FEATURE OF ANARCHISM (^)

What distinguishes anarchism from all other systems of social order, and even guarantees it a unique precedence over the others, is that - contrary to all religiously or ideologically founded systems - it is based in experienced reality. It does not state: Things ought to be this way (since "God" or a "revelation" or "my conscience" or a "moral" or "nature" or a "development law" or "justice" determined it this way). Significantly, even followers of the same principle - not to speak of people with different principles - do not agree about its consequences, nor can they ever agree. Instead, anarchism says: Things are this way (and in such a way as can be proved by means of our cognitive abilities). For there are just two options for conduct between which one has to decide: between the law of the jungle (whereby one intends only to succeed oneself, at the expense of others, rejecting any agreement) and the will to come to an understanding with one's fellow beings, because one rejects the law of the jungle. This understanding can last only when based on the equal freedom of all. For any solution giving excessive freedom to some at the expense of the equal freedom of others must lead ever and again to the rebellion of the disadvantaged and so inevitably to fighting. The far-reaching consequences of the principle of the equal freedom of all has been explained in the previous chapter.

Whoever decides for the law of the jungle is served "rightly" and has no cause to complain when he is dealt with by the same means, i.e. by the "right" that he has recognized and chosen for himself.

Whoever chooses agreement, however, finds a firm basis for it in the provable fact that our experienced reality does not offer a criterion for how the relations between the individuals and groups ought to be regulated. Thus, by nature, the individual confronts other individuals and groups right-less and duty-less until he himself, with the others and by arrangement, establishes rights and duties which, logically, can exist only within the framework of the equal freedom of all.

All "knowledge" that goes beyond our experienced reality is thus metaphysical and unprovable by its nature. It cannot be proven whether it is indeed knowledge of real characteristics and not merely of mental concepts and images and so unprovable, or whether perhaps the very opposite of whatever is asserted is "true" or not. But the practice of all civilized courts shows how claims based on unproven assertions have to be dealt with.

That those actions are aggressive which, based on unprovable "ought"' rules, interfere forcefully in the freedom of others (i.e. by increasing one person's sphere of freedom against the will and at the expense of others) has to be explained to today's average comprehension as clearly as it was impossible to explain, for instance, during the Stone Age.

For this reason there could be no genuine anarchy during the Stone Age and even for a long time afterwards, e.g. in the Middle Ages. One of the reasons for this was possibly geographical. In the absence of close contact between groups or hordes there may have been few opportunities for mutual influence and, therefore, there may have been no attempts to dominate, not even within isolated groups.

Any true anarchy always presupposes the conscious will not to dominate others and increase one's own freedom at the expense of others.

Even in the Middle Ages, anarchy was not conceivable because then, almost without exception, one still regarded facts accepted as faith as known facts - just as in primeval times, when one did not know how to differentiate between the facts of experienced reality and mere concepts and fancied images, and ascribed as much real character to the latter as to the former. This condition of a primitive state of consciousness prevails even today in most people. Thus sledgehammer methods are necessary, even when dealing with highly educated people, who generally can differentiate in a critical way but are often stuck to their special fixed ideas, whose character as deeply rooted prejudices, mere beliefs or purely mental concepts, is not consciously recognized.

This sometimes leads to really grotesque utterances. Thus F. K. Fromme, who believes parliamentary democracy to be unsurpassable, lamented (according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16th December 1976) that the Weimar Republic "did not succeed in awakening the conviction in its subjects that this rule was legitimate. It was - at most - recognized as barely 'legal' ... very few parties during the Weimar period strove for an identity between the form of domination and the subjects of domination." The subjects are thus expected to sanction domination themselves, even to approve their own submission to it as "legitimate." The tiger, striving to identify with the lamb by eating it, is presented as a model!

All previous systems of social order rest on an untenable basis, without exception. They have to settle with the facts presented in the sixth chapter ("The New First Principle... ") and will have to pay heed to them in future. Then it will be realized that so far this has been consistently done only from the anarchist side.

There is yet another fundamental difference between anarchism and all other systems of social order: While all others, without exception, place their system in place of all others, and thus intend to dislodge them, anarchism does not have this intention. Instead, within the framework of the equal freedom of all, it allows any world view, any other system of social order, any unrestricted opportunity to develop - without a corresponding autonomous protective and social community, i.e. without attempting to bring all into a unified scheme. The principle of the equal freedom of all, which is to be respected here, is not a particular theme (among many others) but the necessary precondition for this variety. One may recollect here the Goethe saying which has already been quoted. Also, one needs only to replace certain terms used by Kant (who, by the way, also stated: "Anarchy is freedom without violence!") in order to agree with him and to achieve what he meant in essence when he stated:

"Right is thus the essence of the conditions under which the arbitrariness of the one can be brought to agree with the arbitrariness of the other according to the general law of freedom." Just replace "right" in this state with "anarchy" or "the equal freedom of all."

 

THE STARTING POINT AND THE PIVOT UPON WHICH EVERYTHING TURNS (^)

In the present conceptual confusion and chaos of thought on social relationships, the starting point is decisive. For anarchism the starting point is the individual - the specific individual - in his endless variety from other individuals. The reality of this starting point is incontestable according to the criteria of experienced reality. Thus, what is meant is not the abstraction of "man," to whom one could easily attribute alleged needs and requirements which at least a greater number of specific individuals do not have at all.

All theses attempting to persuade the individual that "actually" he does not have an independent existence of his own, that he is rather part of an "organism," or merely the member of a "greater whole" and subject to its laws - indeed that he altogether exists only in his fancy and that "true reality" lies in ideas - all these theses are never advanced by the alleged "superior beings" themselves, but always only by some of the very "negligible" individuals. Such an individual, however, can deliver proof neither for the actual existence of those "superior beings" merely asserted by him, nor, if one assumes their existence, proof of his authority to speak for those beings and to interpret their will correctly.

According to Berdjajeff (De l'esclavage et de la liberté de l'homme, Paris 1963), society is "not an organism but a co-operation."

This concept corresponds to the term "association" (league or federation) which Proudhon used.

"From this point of view, society is no longer a collective in which each member is only an industrious prisoner, but a community of free and responsible persons whose independence is to be as large as possible," remarked Jean Marie Muller (Gewaltlos - Without Violence, Lucerne-Munich, 1971) on this subject.

Often, quite crude logical errors and conceptual confusions play a part here too. For instance, one sometimes uses the concept of "people" as if it applied to experienced reality (but only insofar as it comprises all individual members of the people concerned, without suggesting inborn "rights" and "duties" towards this totality), while, with the skill of a cardsharp, one then equates a quite different concept of "people" with this. The alleged representatives of this substituted "people" want to determine which individual members of this "people" (and if the occasion arises, all individuals!) have to sacrifice themselves for the alleged interest of this "people." People in this concept means not all specific individuals but the ideological abstraction of a metaphysical idol.

The same - often unconscious - substitution, due to a lack of ability to make logical distinctions and also due to bad habits, occurs with other concepts, too. For instance, with that of the proletariat. The "liberated working class" is by no means the sum of finally liberated individual workers, but a scourge and a falsification dreamed up by those who (although they are mostly not workers but intellectuals) presume to determine by themselves and dictatorially what corresponds to the "class interest," what "right consciousness" contains, and what has to be eliminated from it. The total subordination and total dependence of those "liberated" - more total than occurred under an absolute rule - is not substantially mitigated either by some material improvements, since these are as nothing compared with those (withheld from them by a wardship based partly on an imperfect and partly on a completely false theory) which can only be offered by the equal freedom of all. But this very freedom is denied them by those concept-jugglers in the name of a religious dogma, allegedly the only one which can make people happy. The most grotesque distortion, however, lies in the pretence that this religious dogma is the result of objective science.

Remember, attempts to advance beyond our experienced reality into possibly existing (even though unprovable) "superior realities" will not come to an end under anarchy. Thus, neither religious nor ideological ideas will cease. There will be no end to faith. On the contrary: all religions and ideologies will now find a permanently secured backing in the principle of the equal freedom of all and will, within its limits, also enjoy the free exercise of their creeds.

But the delusion will end that one's own "sacred beliefs," unprovable assertions, give one a "right" to subject all others to one's own opinion, to push into their freedom sphere and to enlarge one's own freedom at their expense.

In anarchy there is a parting of the ways, or to be more exact, this decision is already made by each individual, even before a general condition of anarchy, of non-domination, occurs. There will be ones who declare themselves for the right of the jungle but now will have to make do without the previous covers of "superior norms" and "higher things" in general, like, e.g. "class interest." For what today is common knowledge to only a tiny minority of sociologists and theorists of cognition, and of anarchists who have partly built upon these insights and partly lived in accordance with them in a purely instinctive way, will (once the breakthrough of this basically simple recognition is achieved) soon become quite clear even to any child. Then everyone will have a reliable, concrete criterion of behaviour for any situation.

Those striving for agreement will have to defend themselves against the adherents of the law of the jungle. Since a lasting condition of agreement is not possible in any other way than on a foundation without privileges and with equal rights (i.e. on the basis of the equal freedom of all), it is also essential and unavoidable that the overwhelming majority should become conscious anarchists in the end. For those people declaring themselves openly for aggressive force probably form only a small minority under today's conditions and thus can be quickly dealt with if, in spite of warnings, they continue to act as disturbers of the peace.

Of course, there will always be interference with the freedom of others, some impulsive, some due to folly, some even undertaken in good faith. There will be border-line cases in which a conscious violation of the principle occurs - for instance, in order to prevent someone from committing suicide - with the intention of preserving the well-understood interest (from the viewpoint of the judging person!) of someone who is, apparently and temporarily, not clear on this. If such offenders against the principle are prepared to acknowledge their violation and, if necessary, to pay indemnification, even when they acted with "the best intentions" (for no matter how good an intention, even it cannot justify aggressive intervention into the freedom sphere of another), then they are, nevertheless, consistent anarchists.

Only if one proceeds from the specific individual, as a provable reality, will one avoid the dangers which result from collective concepts through substituting for reality an ideology or, perhaps, a personified abstraction, i.e. a thought game which finds no support in experienced reality. This substitution occurred with Marx also. To be sure, he claimed to proceed from real, specific human beings, but then he defined them as the "product of social conditions," i.e. as a bloodless abstraction without individual characteristics. Moreover, he even made himself a judge of the specific individual's "wrong consciousness," setting him the "ideal," in his opinion, of the "right" man as a goal. Then he wanted dictatorially to enforce the fulfillment of this goal since he believed himself (like any other prophet) to be enlightened and infallible. But in doing so, he only followed faithfully the trail of German idealist philosophy, for the "materialism" of his concept of history lies only in the name, since a purposeful "law of development" means nothing other than a divine will - or Hegel's "world spirit" in a new disguise.

Quite apart from Marx's at best defective substantiation of this alleged law of development (for which he has only chosen those facts which fitted his theory and neglected any opposing ones), any assignment of "goals" limiting the self- determination and will of the individual, as well as the equal freedom of all, goes beyond the framework of experienced reality, i.e. beyond what can be scientifically comprehended, and so belongs in the category of ideologies (which are unprovable as to their true character) and of mere propaganda for a subjective ideal.

In contrast, the anarchist holds the scientifically established, unshakable and realistic point of view that any alien will intent upon bending one's own will by referring to a "goal" (as a human being, a member of a nation, a citizen, a class comrade or anything else) or by referring to any divine, ethical, moral, natural or other law while thereby exceeding the limit of the equal freedom of all, simply exercises aggressive force which tries to hide behind untenable "justifications." As long as an individual's own will and actions move within the borders drawn by the fact that he is not alone in the world but lives together with others who claim a freedom sphere and freedom of action equal to his own, his actions must remain free from alien forceful intervention (even if his actions appear to others to be "objectively" unreasonable and dangerous to himself). This naturally applies especially where such an intervention takes place in order to adapt him to the ideal imagined by the aggressor or to a concept which the aggressor has of alleged "rights and duties," i.e. those not based on voluntary agreements.

Concretely expressed: the anarchist rejects, on principle, not only the State as a compulsory organization and the main aggressor, but also any compulsory organization which wants to establish itself within or without the State as its successor, especially any dictatorship - a foreign one as well as one in one's own country.

Thus communities, communes or any other such groupings have no right to restrict the equal freedom of all in any way except with the consent of those concerned. Compulsory insurances and compulsory corporations of any kind must end, in the same way as all privileges, monopolies, and oligopolies.

Yet not only those laws which contradict the equal freedom of all must be removed, but also all customs and habits which do the same, and often more severely than any law. Likewise, in families any remnants of domination, any handicapping of women or of children, must disappear.

Of course, not all laws aim to restrict the equal freedom of all. Indeed, some particular ones, at least according to their intentions, aim at its protection, even though often inappropriately. Laws with this tendency could well remain in force by being subscribed to by the autonomous protective and social communities which replace the State.

Here lies one of the most senseless misunderstandings of anarchism: The abolition of the State is to take place precisely because of its criminal aggressiveness, for anarchism is directed against any aggressive force. But this abolition does not at all mean that, at the same time, also those limitations on criminal acts (like, for instance, murder, manslaughter, bodily injury, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, etc.) have to be dropped which have been achieved up to now as part of the functions of the State. (Most are mistaken in seeing this as its main function). Anarchy or non-domination does not mean a renunciation of the organized defence of life, freedom and rightful property, but has exactly this organized defence - on a voluntary basis - as a self-evident precondition.

In other words: the existing States would be at once acceptable to anarchists if they were to remove from their constitutions and practices all privileges, monopolies and oligopolies and accepted the equal freedom of all as their basic law.

The anarchistic principle of the equal freedom of all applies not only to institutions but, without exception, to all relationships, even the most private ones between human beings. It condemns, for instance, in the same way, the molestation and impairment of the health of others by excessive noise by poisoning of the air, by pollution of the water and by contamination of the land, and it fosters corresponding measures for the protection of the environment.

The starting point is always the specific individual, with his individual characteristics. No "goal," no "duty" (with the exception of a self-chosen one) and no "ideal" stands above him - not even the "ideal" of freedom, even if the equal freedom of all is understood by this. For this freedom is not an "ideal" in the usually accepted sense, but a compromise, resulting from agreement on the only possible basis which can endure, since in this way nobody is favoured or disadvantaged. This compromise follows on the one hand from the mutual rejection of the law of the jungle and of aggressive force, and on the other hand from the recognition that, due to the absence of proof for the existence of "superior" commands or inborn "rights" or "duties," this compromise is the only alternative to the law of the jungle.

All attempts to create "general happiness" or the "greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number" have resulted only in pretentiousness and have at the same time demonstrated that it is impossible for someone to determine what makes or should make other people happy. Anarchism begins with the fact that neither the concepts that individuals have of happiness, nor their feelings, wishes and wills can be reduced to a common denominator. Consequently, with respect for the total diversity between all individual human beings (whose absolute uniqueness was rightly stressed by Stirner and has also been confirmed by modern anthropology), the decisive point can only be to assure each individual as large a freedom of sphere as possible, one in accordance with his will, his, feelings, and his wishes, no matter how misguided he may appear to be to others. The only limitation is the equal freedom sphere of all others. Thus, no one may claim for himself an excess at the expense of others. This means at the same time that no one may use force against others, except in defence against aggressive acts from their side.

Only this mutual non-intervention in the sovereignty of all individuals leads to a genuine sovereignty of the "people" (of that "people" consisting of the sum of all individual members, according to the criteria of experienced reality and in the non-ideological sense). Conversely, the ideological falsification of the concept "people" (with a short-circuit in logic) places an actual sovereign above the alleged sovereign. The actual sovereign, a dictator, is the State bureaucracy and public institutions (which arose from the will only of a part of the actual people, who were, moreover, manipulated). If the people were actually sovereign, then there would be neither a government nor governed any longer, at least not in today's sense. Only voluntary members of autonomous protective and social communities or non-members of such communities would remain.

Any abstraction of the concept of freedom leads to confusion, while the equal freedom of all is highly concrete, for it can be determined in each particular case whether the freedom of action claimed by one is greater than that of another and is against his will and at his expense. There are people who assert that they can only be "really free" when all are free, meaning by this that all others must obtain inner freedom like them, and even liberate themselves from any self-chosen dependency. This is a Utopian - although quite understandable - wish, but one that leads to the dangerous intention of wanting to "liberate" even those who do not want to be "liberated" (made happy) at all because, for instance, security may seem more desirable to them than freedom. The equal freedom of all also includes the freedom to be a slave, or at least to remain in voluntary dependence upon others.

It is also a falsification of the concept of freedom in social relations when, for instance, "true freedom" is seen in freeing people from material cares, which amounts to unrestricted consumption, i.e. the ideal of communism. This means, in practice, the exploitation of the capable by the incapable, of the industrious by the lazy, and the strong by the weak. In any case, total control of the means of production and thus decisive control over the most important manifestations of human life are usurped by superior authorities, whether they call themselves "the State" or something else.

In all these cases of falsified freedom concept, so-called "freedom" is turned into an ideology, rising as a "goal" above individuals and requiring them to adapt to it. But anarchy rejects any domination including also that of such a "freedom."

"Nothing is more wonderful than the man who breaks his chains and strikes his oppressors with them," says John Henry Mackay in his Abrechnung (Final Account), Berlin, 1932. There he also states:

''What do you know of freedom? - As good as nothing. You have still to learn its most simple basic concepts.
There is no absolute freedom.
There is only an equal freedom of all.
The equal freedom of all limits your freedom. As soon as you come in touch with others - it is no longer absolute (as it would be if you were alone).
You cannot exist by yourself.
You need others.
See to it that they need you, too. Otherwise you are finished. What do we expect, what do we still hope for, after we have rejected what alone can still save us?
You thoughtless and sluggish fellow, you let yourself be dragged along by the time in which you live and through your life -one day, freedom will teach you and compel you to stand on your own two feet.
'What, freedom compels?'
'Yes, indeed. It will confront you with the necessity of attending to your own affairs, instead of entrusting them to others.'

"Even someone who acts merely defensively against aggression thereby 'compels' the aggressor to abstain from this act. Concept clarity and precision of terms distinguish anarchism from other systems of social order, also."

Anarchism must begin with the specific individual and place him in the centre of its system of references, because every collective which asserts "rights" over the individual which the individual did not concede to it appears with an unprovable claim for domination. One must also take into consideration the fact that a collective as such cannot "appear" by itself. Instead, again and again, there are only individuals who claim to act in the name of the collective and as its representatives. However, to recognize their legitimacy would mean nothing other than recognizing the domination of individuals over other individuals.

 

THE SOCIAL ORDER OF ANARCHISM (^)

Above all, the individual must be economically independent - every individual. Thus he must also be able to possess a means of production by himself if he prefers this to collaboration with others. Equal access to land for everyone, the elimination of all privileges and monopolies and "open productive associations" will see to it that the private ownership of the means of production can no longer be abused as is done at present.

This emphasis upon the individual means neither his isolation nor lack of solidarity. But the latter must be voluntary and not enforced. As for the rest, social reciprocity (mutuality) is necessary in the self-interest of the individual.

Marxism sees the real evil in economic exploitation by private capitalists. But it misconstrues the historical role of the State, which not only institutionalized this exploitation but - as its main task - also defends it constantly and even has added another exploitation too, that by the apparatus of State for itself. Marxism equates nationalization of the means of production with the abolition of classes (which were never exactly defined by Marx) and expects from this the automatic disappearance of the State. This is a theory which is self-contradictory and has been clearly proven wrong by the peoples' democracies with their new class divisions and their totalitarian State system. Marxism's primitive theory of surplus value has especially contributed to its wrong conclusions. It explains only one factor of exploitation and this only within the sphere of production. It has overlooked the much more important role of interest and land rent and also exploitation in other economic and social spheres, as for example in commerce.

In contrast to this, anarchism proves that economic exploitation, political oppression and mental subjugation are only different outward manifestations with the same origin - a condition of domination. With the abolition of all domination, not only economic exploitation will cease but also political and mental suppression. To achieve this, no dictatorship is needed, but merely a defensive organization against new attempts at aggression.

Anarchism is the only social system which does not aim at oppression, since mere defence against aggression, i.e. against attempts to oppress, cannot be rightly called oppression. It struggles to achieve a situation in which even the previous dominators and profiteers will enjoy the benefits of the equal freedom of all in the new social order. But it is not tolerant towards intolerance.

For, naturally, anarchism does not rely upon the enlightened self-restraint of the previous oppressors and beneficiaries of monopoly capitalism and of those defending the concept of domination for other motives, especially does not believe in the self-restraint of those believing in ideologies, or addicted to guardianship and to enforced felicity. To protect the individual, who is often weak in the face of assaults by drunks, rowdies and psychopaths and also from any aggression (like, for instance, one-sided breach of contract), a non-aggressive and purely defensive "police" and system of arbitration courts are necessary. These will be among the most important institutions of autonomous protective and social communities.

In most such communities, as long as States of the present kind still exist, a militia will be considered necessary for defence against those addicted to power.

The present States have to disappear entirely, since their existence is not only directed against their own "State members" (nationals) but against everybody in the whole world. With their monopoly claim to a certain piece of the Earth's surface, they restrict the equal claim of everyone to the whole Earth. They also discriminate against "aliens" within their territories and commit aggressions which have effects beyond their frontiers through numerous measures such as custom duties, dumping prices, and export subsidies financed with stolen money.

Seen merely from the outside, these autonomous protective and social communities will differ from States only in the following points, which are, however, decisive.

1. They do not have any territorial monopoly, i.e. no "sovereignty" in the present sense, within a separate section of the Earth's surface. Their members can live dispersed all over the world, like members of a church or a private association.

2. There is no compulsory membership in these autonomous protective and social communities. Instead, membership is voluntary, similar to that in a private insurance company. Notice periods of approximately six months or a year can be agreed upon.

3. As a basic law of all such autonomous protective and social communities, the equal freedom of all must be applied, especially externally towards non-members. Internally, i.e. for relations among their own members only, constitutions can place restrictions upon the freedom of action of individual members - whose general approval has been given by their voluntary enrolment. But such restrictions can also be legislated according to the majority principle - if a particular constitution provides for this. Those dissenting could be granted a special claim to be exempted from the law concerned - and this quite apart from their fundamental right to secede individually, after due notice has been given. The voluntary limitation of the equal freedom of all for oneself does not contradict this principle. Only the restriction of the equal freedom of all against their will and at their expense does this.

While the settlement of differences among members of the same autonomous protective and social community is, whenever necessary, arranged in accordance with its special rules, it would be advisable to establish in the constitutions of all autonomous protective and social communities that, in the interest of objectivity, none of their members may settle his disputes with the members of other autonomous protective and social communities by force, but must have them settled by an arbitration court consisting of representatives of the autonomous protective and social communities concerned, under a neutral chairman.

For world-wide relationships, a supreme arbitration and appeals court can also be arranged to replace the present UN, whose faults result from being established on the "principle of sovereignty," i.e. on the law of the big fist of today's States.

Anarchy will thus abolish only imposed laws, but not those which members of autonomous protective and social communities have given themselves for internal application only and to which they submit voluntarily.

However, anarchy or non-domination does not mean that one may now determine quite arbitrarily and one-sidedly which of one's claims upon commissions and omissions by others these people must tolerate. For anarchism precisely opposes such arbitrariness directed against individuals and groups as has been practiced up to now, especially by States. In all cases where there is no voluntary consent by those concerned and no arrangement exists, every claim and every action must remain within the framework of the equal freedom of all. This offers an exact measure. Both contestants, in order not to put themselves in the wrong, must be prepared from the outset to accept a neutral arbitration court no matter how firmly convinced they are in the evident justice of their claim.

Under the condition of anarchy, in the absence of domination, there is thus true justice, based upon contracts of the most varied kinds. Arbitration courts with executive powers will see to the observance of these contracts, since every one-sided breach of a contract constitutes an infringement of the basic principle by claiming excessive freedom of action for one at the expense and against the will of others. If two people dispute an object or behaviour for which there is no contractual arrangement between them, then the principle of the equal freedom of all offers, in all cases, a criterion for the decision by a neutral arbitration court. Should one of the parties concerned not belong to any autonomous protective and social community, or, on principle, deny the equal freedom of all by claiming a privilege for himself, or should he admit to being an adherent of the law of the jungle, then he will get into conflict with the whole autonomous protective and social community of which his opponent is a member and will not get support from anyone. It is thus merely a question of expediency and power how he will be treated. If he does not agree to a peaceful settlement by a neutral arbitration court, then one can limit oneself at first to a strictly defensive reaction against his aggression and leave the door open for final agreement with him. This should be the rule. However, this defensive reaction will generally also include forceful recovery of damages and of the defence costs caused by the aggression. Should the troublemaker repeat his aggression or continue openly to insist upon the law of the jungle, then the defenders of the equal freedom of all can also reverse the spear and regard the law of the jungle as a contract offer of the aggressor and make use of it against him - and this with all suitable means, which may go as far as the destruction of an aggressor who is not open to reasoning.

Thus it is pure nonsense to assert that in anarchy everyone has absolute unlimited freedom to do what he pleases, or alternatively, to assert that anarchy lacks rightful order or is identical with lawlessness. Even more nonsensical is the assertion that for lack of a protective organization or of any organization at all, the strong could at any time fall upon the weak. For only compulsory organizations are to disappear, those to which one has to belong nowadays against one's will, organizations which practice aggressive force. Anarchism is the most confirmed opponent of aggressive force and thus, on principle, also of terrorism.

In a condition without domination, there will be no lack of organizations or institutions considered useful and necessary by a number of participants - as long as they are prepared to pay the costs themselves and do not impose them upon others against their will.

Then there will be far more freedom of action for all, i.e. opportunities to live according to one's special wishes, than is the case today even in the most advanced democracy. For in his own special autonomous protective and social community, no one will any longer be subjected to the manifold obstructions, compromises and restrictions which are today forced upon us, in the compulsory organization State, by those who think differently from us.

 

ANARCHISM - A SOCIALISTIC SYSTEM (^)

Anarchism is not a movement which aims only at the liberation of the proletariat, nor does it see its only or even its main task in deliverance from exploitation.

For under present conditions, not only the worker, dependent upon wages, is subjected to exploitation, since the rule of monopolies and privileges (and the exploitation resulting from these) extend - even though to a different degree - to all consumers, i.e. to all professions, all people. Even monopolists and privileged persons of one kind are in their turn subject to monopolists and privileged people of other types - whereby one need only to remember the main monopolist, the State. The abolition of economic exploitation is certainly a very important task, but not at all the decisive one - because it is just one of the consequences of domination. Although exploitation is far more varied and comprehensive than the Marxist delusion has realized, the actual extent of what is taken from the working people in so-called surplus value, interest and land rent is relatively unimportant - compared with the disproportionately greater quantity of goods which cannot be produced at all, even though the preconditions are given, in the form of working power and technology, particularly because of the barrier function of monopoly interest, but also because of other effects of the domination system. This is a loss which affects not only the exploited but the exploiters themselves, although they are unaware of its extent and effects.

In many countries, millions of unemployed people are thus condemned to inactivity, existing industrial capacities can only be partly utilized and the creation of new products and services, in itself quite possible, remains unrealized even though an enormous quantity of unsatisfied demand, already among those condemned to unemployment against their will, could ensure their full employment.

The general low standard of living in the State socialist countries (which, more correctly, should be called State capitalistic countries) also proves that not only a more equal distribution of the available means of production and consumption is the decisive point. For the command economy - with its continuous planning mistakes, its shortages of supplies, and its low productivity - cannot even compete with monopoly capitalism, in spite of the latter's already mentioned handicaps, and, of course, could not compete at all with an economy liberated from all obstructions under anarchy.

Above all, Marxism mixes up cause and effect by considering political as well as mental domination as a consequence and mere superstructure of economic exploitation, while in reality, the contrary is true and domination is the precondition and cause of economic exploitation. Believers in peoples' "democracies" are of the mistaken opinion that by this "democracy" the "rule of man over man" is eliminated. In fact, domination is only taken over by the State, i.e. by the party which commands the State functionaries. But do not the functionaries of the State, and party members standing above them, practice domination also, and aren't they people as well?

Even where the income differential of such functionaries is not so large and evident as between the top and the average earners in capitalistic countries, they do, nevertheless, enjoy so many hidden privileges, and in the hands of those dominating in the peoples' democracies there is also such an enormous amount of power and prestige, that this means more for most people than the amount of their income. Above all, there is an immense difference between the freedom of the one group and the freedom of the others - and at the expense of the latter. Anarchists hold that this condition, maintained only by aggressive force, has to be eliminated, as well as any other domination altogether.

Anarchists are socialists, since they reject not only economic exploitation, but also any other oppression, not only oppression exercised against themselves, but especially oppression or exploitation exercised by themselves against others. Their principle, not to want to dominate anyone (which precedes their refusal to become dominated themselves) and not to want to practice any aggression against the limit of the equal freedom of all, is a social one, (i.e. one that applies with regard to their fellow human beings and society) and at the same time rational (since it is based on indisputable facts and is non-ideological). But they are socialists free of dogmas and are prepared at all times to revise their point of view if any errors can be demonstrated.

The concept of socialism has been wrongly usurped and monopolized by the State socialists, who have at the same time raised untenable ideological assertions. But even long before Marx there were socialist thinkers without State-socialist blinkers - although they were not always free of ideology either. However, there can also be anarchists, of course, who start from an ideology. Whoever, for example, considers the principle of the equal freedom of all as a divine order or as identical with "the moral law in itself," one which would speak equally and unmistakably to everyone, can be an exemplary anarchist in his practical behaviour. But then he renounces the strongest argument with which he can lead dissenting people to recognize that, once one penetrates all errors, finally there can be no enduring solution to the problem of social order other than the anarchistic one.

Benjamin R. Tucker, a representative of classical anarchism, in his treatise about State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ, written in 1886, quoted the Frenchman Ernest Lesigne:

"There are two Socialisms.

One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.

One is metaphysical, the other positive.

One is dogmatic, the other scientific.

One is emotional, the other reflective.

One is destructive, the other constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.

One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.

The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obedience; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.

The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State; the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.

One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.

Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

The first considers revolution as the indispensable agent of evolution.
The second teaches that repression alone turns evolution into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.

Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.

One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.

The first wishes to take everything from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.

The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.

The first says: 'Do as the government wishes.'
The other says: 'Do as you wish yourself.'

The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.

The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

One proclaims that labour pains will be necessary to the birth of the new world.
The other' declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.

The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.

One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.

One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.

The first will fail; the other will succeed.

Both desire equality.

One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.

One is intolerant, the other tolerant.

One frightens, the other reassures.

The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.

The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.

One says:

'The land to the State.
'The mine to the State.
'The tool to the State.
'The product to the State

The other says:

'The land to the cultivator.
'The mine to the miner.
'The tool to the labourer.
'The product to the producer.

There are only these two Socialisms.

One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.

One is already the past; the other is the future.

One will give place to the other.

Today each of us must choose for one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist."

Some of the above theses and antitheses could be formulated more precisely, but they should be understandable in connection with what was said before. It would be worth considering whether one should abstain from the usual classification which places anarchism on the utmost left, since it keeps itself equally far away from right and left ideologies and really represents, between prophets on the right and prophets on the left, "the world's child in the middle." This is all the more so, since, as explained, any rejection of jungle law must consequently result in anarchism, especially genuine democracy with the emancipation claim of the individual and with pluralism.

Fascism - a half-brother of Communism which also grew up on the soil of the class struggle - has, to a large extent, goals and methods in common with communism: aggressive force as a means, a dogma which does not tolerate doubts, a de-facto domination by a few who (regardless of the natural inequality among human beings and the infinite variety of their feelings and wants) intend to regulate and command everything in all spheres, while naming, with Lenin, that respect for the equal freedom sphere of others, which constitutes the essence of anarchism, a mere "bourgeois prejudice." These are adherents of the law of the jungle - even though not always conscious ones. They are believers in unprovable "truths."

 

"ANARCHISTS" WHO ARE NOT ANARCHISTS (^)

Lincoln once asked: "How many legs has a sheep if you call its tail a leg?" - When one of those who never die out answered: "Five," Lincoln smiled and replied: "It does not matter what you call a thing - even arbitrarily against common sense - it only matters what and how it really is."

What anarchism really is, as here presented and correctly named, differs very much from those labels for behaviour and persons in which the designations anarchism, anarchy and anarchists have been used quite arbitrarily and totally incorrectly.

There are mainly two crude misunderstandings and prejudices which have hitherto marked the concepts of anarchy and anarchism. Firstly, there is the opinion that anarchists and terrorists and nihilists trying to realize their aims by means of dagger and dynamite - above all by assassination and in any case, by "force." According to the second opinion, they are utopians, insofar as they are striving for an "ideal condition" which is irreconcilable with human nature - and this after dissolving all social and organizational ties, so that anarchy must lead to chaos and an endless fight of all against all.

In order to expose the untenability of the first prejudice, it should already be sufficient to compare the number of assassinations committed by those who called themselves anarchists or, however falsely, were called anarchists, with the number of assassinations committed for quite different motives by defenders of the most diverse forms of domination. The first can be counted on one's fingers, while, for instance, in 1970 in the United States alone there were approximately 5,000 assassinations and bomb attacks, and numerous others in many other countries of the world - for instance in Israel and Ireland - all for religious, nationalistic, racial or other causes. In all the latter cases the aim was always to impose an ideology, to subjugate dissenters and to erect an arbitrary domination.

What has such behaviour to do with real anarchism, which has made non- aggression its principle, even by its refusal to rule over others or to interfere with the equal freedom of others?

Actually, no single assassination has ever been committed by an anarchist. All genuine anarchists have always rejected aggressive force on principle, and especially terrorist activities, as inexpedient and harmful to their aims.

In the few cases (mostly in the 19th century) in which assassins called themselves "anarchists," they were partly pathological muddleheads or ideologically confused people with no idea of real anarchism, and striving for the fame of a Herostratus, and partly fanatics whose real aim was a communism strictly opposed to anarchism.

Of course, as already mentioned, there will be an opportunity for adherents of a communist economic system to practice it within the framework of the equal freedom of all, i.e. on a strictly voluntary basis and without any privileges over other groups or individuals. These people can then be genuine anarchists, whose economic system is simply one of the possible forms of non-domination. There are, however, other followers of this economic system who are libertarian communists (i.e. they reject State communism) but who call themselves anarchists and consider the communist, or at least collectivist economic system a precondition of anarchism. Therefore, they oppose everything that was explained here as the fundamental essence and consequence of non-domination. According to them, the individual has no equal rights but rates only second behind the collective under various appellations - whether "community," "commune," or "council system" - raises an exclusive claim to dispose over all means of production, land and even capital goods, and denies the individual exclusive disposal rights over the means of production as well as over the product of his own work. This strict communist line, with its principle of production according to ability and of consumption according to need, thus claims a "right" to the products of the labour of others, even against their will, while the collectivist section of "libertarianism" wants to take the performance principle into consideration, nevertheless, arrives at best at the democratic majority principle. Both, indeed, honestly wish to abolish most of what today is imposed by the State, but in this decisive aspect (i.e. the economic freedom of the individual, within the equal freedom of all), they remain stuck in governmental thinking, for their collective cannot mask that it is to be something superior to the individual, even something with a monopoly claim. Add to this the fact that such a collective can neither think nor act in a uniform way. Thus it leads either to liberal democracy with the majority principle, or to self-appointed functionaries who manipulate the great number of those who are always inclined to be "led" in the name of an imagined collective.

They are often lovable people and mostly idealistic dreamers, but not anarchists, even though one may hope that one day they will become anarchists. In a society without domination, and perhaps even before that, they will have the opportunity to demonstrate the alleged advantages of their system within voluntary groups in such a way that others may voluntarily join. But they must not hinder anybody

a) from disposing over means of production - even as an individual (with the exception of those which give him a monopoly or market-dominating influence),

b) in his equal-rights access to land, independent of majority resolutions, and

c) from consuming the products of his work at his discretion or from exchanging them with other individuals.

Those sporadic assassins and terrorists whose "propaganda by action" has done such infinite harm to the case of genuine anarchism, also came from the ranks of revolutionary "libertarians" who incorrectly call themselves anarchists.

Since all violent acts receive special and extensive publicity, the fateful consequence has been that in the press, on radio and television, and in books also, all actions and utterances of libertarian revolutionaries of this brand are generally ascribed to anarchism.

One should not be surprised that State communists miss no opportunity to condemn or ridicule their sharpest critics and counterparts, the anarchists. Of course, they are careful not to mention the concepts and theses of genuine anarchism, and instead, describe matters as if only so-called "communist anarchism" existed and as if this were all there were to anarchism. For it is easy to "disprove" communist anarchism from the State communist point of view.

However, it is striking and suggests uniform stage direction when all the mass media, together with all Stat authorities named, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang and its followers as "anarchists" - although the people concerned expressly rejected this designation and always called themselves "Rote Armee Fraktion " (Red Army Group), while the anarchists' flag is black - as is well known. Moreover, they always declared that they aimed at armed insurrection to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense of Marxist ideology, while anarchists, on principle, are non-aggressive and reject any dictatorship.

The past president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (in West Germany), Dr. Guenther Nollau, allowed himself even the impudent falsification of calling the murderers of the two Kennedys "anarchists," although the first's relation to communism and the second's nationalistic motivation were evident. He did the same regarding the ringleaders of the spectacular breakout of prisoners from San Rafael, U.S.A. in August 1970, which cost four lives. Here the killers were connected, although only loosely, with Angela Davis, and their radical motivation in combination with communist tendencies was also clear. Finally, the same happened with the Italian publisher Feltrinelli, although he had compiled a Marxist archive which was only a little behind that of the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, and although his relations with Guevara and Castro were known too.

All such actions quite obviously serve the purpose of creating prejudices against and inciting the great mass of people against anarchism - because its realistic and enlightening efforts are feared.

The distorted image of the anarchists also includes the image of the lost dreamers not know what he wants, and this image is diligently spread in public.

Then one needs only substitute for genuine anarchism the views of libertarian communism, which run under the same name, or throw both together, and one can already observe "contradictions" or an unrealistically "optimistic view of human nature," as Walter Theimer's dictionary of politics asserts. And then a Mr. James Joll comes along pretending to provide some kind of vindication of the honour of anarchism, for one can read on the cover of the German issue (Die Anarchisten - The Anarchists, Berlin, 1966 and London, 1964):

"Associated with the concept of anarchism in general consciousness is the figure of a terrorist who, in a dark raincoat, with his hat pulled over his eyes, has just lit the fuse of a bomb. This type - as well as the corresponding theory of the merciless use of violence - has indeed played a role, but it represents only one aspect of the anarchist movement, or perhaps only a borderline case. Ignorance is also demonstrated by the wider spread against all, at chaos. ... Anarchists believe in the good in human beings and their perfectibility."

But later, in the final chapter, he writes that the experiences of the last 150 years seem to illustrate, again and again, that contradictions and absurdities from which anarchist theory suffers and how difficult, if not altogether impossible, it is to put into practice. There are, indeed, contradictions and absurdities in libertarian communism, which is not anarchism at all, though Joll has almost exclusively confined himself to it, while genuine anarchists get almost no say at all in his writings. It is also correct that libertarian communism has an all too optimistic concept of human nature and is, therefore, much more difficult to practice than State communism with its compulsory system. But all this has nothing at all to do with genuine anarchism.

Joll also asserts the absurdity that all fundamental theses of anarchism argue against the development of large industry, against mass production and mass consumption ... and he claims that man in the new society will live quite simply and modestly and will gladly and voluntarily renounce the technological achievements of the industrial age. It is into such hair-raising idiocy that Joll falsifies even the theses of the libertarian communists, who have always stressed that with technological development a much shorter working time will be required to achieve a multiple of today's production goods. But genuine anarchism even more expects increased technical development and growth in production, limited only by requirements of environmental protection, through the abolition of the principle of domination and of all privileges and monopolies. It has nothing against large industries - if their present monopoly and market-dominating character is eliminated by Open Productive Associations.

Joll draws not only a false but even a falsified picture of anarchism by mentioning its true representatives, Godwin and Proudhon, only in passing, while dealing extensively with the concepts of the libertarian communists and giving the impression that this is the real anarchism. To say that the theories of libertarian communism suffer from logical flaws and false premises is, of course, quite easy, and genuine anarchism says exactly the same. Joll, however, contrived to impute to this anarchism (pleonastically called "individualist anarchism" by its adherents in order to distinguish it as much as possible from the concept of anarchism abused by the libertarian communists) a tendency to be altogether anti-social! - But what is more social than not oppressing, not wanting to dominate others, respecting their equal freedom, and abolishing every exploitation?

Joll keeps completely silent on the literature of anarchism (especially rich in the English language) by authors like Stephen Pearl Andrews, Arsene Alexandre, Henry Appleton, John Badcock Jr., Hugo Bilgram, Edmund Burke, Charles A. Dana, Sigmund Englaender, C. T. Fowler, William Gilmour, William B. Greene, J. K. Ingalls, Auberon Herbert, John F. Kelly, S. E. Parker, Henry Seymour, F. D. Tandy, Lysander Spooner, Albert Tarn, James L. Walker, Josiah Warren, Victor Yarros. He especially omits the classical representatives of anarchism, like Benjamin R. Tucker and John Henry Mackay - and E. Armand, too. Stirner, whom he regards as a thinker who is neither important nor interesting, is mentioned only once with a short quotation out of context. Even his assertion that anarchists believe in the good in man has only the aim of discrediting him as a starry-eyed Utopian.

Anarchists believe neither in inborn nor in gradually to be acquired "goodness," and not in a special measure of reason in the average man either. However, they do believe quite realistically in the effect of a truncheon, defensively wielded by the autonomous protective and social communities, rapping severely on the knuckles of those who reach beyond the limit of the equal freedom of all in order to steal for themselves an excessive amount of freedom at the expense of others.

It is also absurd when Joll attributes to anarchists the abolition of all social and organizational relationships. Only those based on aggressive force are to disappear - but none of those which correspond to any interest or need. It is only anarchism that gives concrete contents to Kant's formalistic categorical imperative.

By social behaviour Joll obviously understands only good deeds financed by money taken forcefully out of the pockets of others. But among all the grounds for the alleged necessity of the State, one of the most sentimental, and at the same time least thought out, is that of care for the weak and helpless. To this, anarchists say point-blank that the individual has no more a right to such care from "society" than society has a duty towards him - unless such rights and duties have been established by agreements, i.e. voluntarily granted or assumed. To foster such arguments will be one of the most important tasks of the autonomous protective and social communities. Since the general standard of living will rise considerably under anarchy, while enormous expenditures for arms and other expenses which only serve to secure domination will cease, there will be much more money available than today for general welfare purposes, and this from the autonomous protective and social communities to which everyone will belong in his own well-understood interest, as well as from the already extensive network of voluntary welfare organizations.

Since anarchism, contrary to communism, does not consider religion merely an "opium of the people," it will prescribe, for instance, no limit to the voluntary practice of Christian love towards one's neighbour, and instead will welcome it. Apart from that, as John Henry Mackay pointed out, an anarchist society will no more tolerate undeserved distress - quite apart from religious or ideological motives - than a neat person will tolerate spots on his clothing - i.e. for aesthetic reasons.