Does Anarchism have a class origin in the aristocracy?

[synthesis]

Some of you will hate this question, but it's a valid one to ask. Of course, we all know that both Kropotkin and Bakunin were from aristocratic families, and that the latter joined Proudhon in supporting the South in the Civil War, or at least said that "acted with the most force, wisdom, and solidarity, which makes them worthy of the triumph they have received in every encounter so far."

And, you might respond, Engels was from a noble family as well.

But that's not really the point. The argument could be made that anarchism is simply obstructionism rooted in aristocratic resistance to both bourgeois and proletarian revolutions, consciously or not, and topped off with a little sprinkle of anti-ecclesiastical theory and praxis, since the clergy was more or less the only class that could really compete with the aristocracy during much of the feudal period. Also, I'm not really talking about syndicalism here; as far as I'm concerned, that's more or less Marxism wrapped in a black flag.


But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me.

This quote explains the relationship of anarchism to Marxism, amply yet implicitly. Marxism advocates proletarian democracy, but even authentic democracy is still a state of sorts. By demanding the absence of any state whatsoever, anarchism simply serves to impede proletarian revolution by setting unrealistically high expectations of the post-revolutionary decision-making body.

These assertions are echoed by George Woodcock, who I believe is an anarchist - and if not, probably knows more about the subject than those who claim to be such - when he wrote: "Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it. Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics." Anarchism channels revolutionary sentiments into a surreptitiously moralistic quest to reconcile the need for collective action with the aristocratic fear of the revolutionary guillotine.

By the way, just so you know where I stand, I'm not a Leninist by any stretch. To me, they're both useless in terms of inspiring collective action in my time and place. Neither of these ideologies are really equipped to address the need for revolution in the post-industrial West, and in reality Leninism can only ever hope for nothing more than to bring the societies into which it is introduced through to that same point. In reality, anarchism can hope for nothing at all... except to hinder genuinely progressive efforts.

You can't have absolute individual liberty and collective decision-making at the same time. If people can't handle the fact that socialist revolution will trample all over some people's individual liberties, they should just give up and go home.

Or maybe I should. I'm just ranting about my current perception of the class origins of anarchism, not trying to find faults with any anarchists on this forum or elsewhere. What do you think?

[Outinleftfield]

If Bakunin was afraid of revolution he would not have participated in so many (Poland, Commune of Paris) himself.

Few anarchists are completely against coercion or "anarcho-pacifist" would be redundant. Most support self-defense, which could range from a person defending themselves from a mugger to people getting together to stop a former capitalist bosses and their goons from trying to reestablish their authority after an anarchist revolution. The important thing is that the legitimacy of "force" does not depend on its approval or disapproval by certain select people(i.e. politicians) but by its purpose and context(self-defense). For a society to become anarchist would mean enough people would have to support this principle and also enough people would have to be willing to exercise "self-defense" against unjust force.

Organizations formed for the purpose of coordinating self-defense efforts, even large ones are acceptable as long as they claim no special right to force.

[ed miliband]

These assertions are echoed by George Woodcock, who I believe is an anarchist - and if not, probably knows more about the subject than those who claim to be such - when he wrote: "Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it. Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics." Anarchism channels revolutionary sentiments into a surreptitiously moralistic quest to reconcile the need for collective action with the aristocratic fear of the revolutionary guillotine.


I don't think Woodcock is really a very good authority on anarchism. His approach was to take anything with a vaguely anti-authoritarian stance and then describe it as anarchism, and he also claimed that anarchists had no particular opinion on capitalism (which any real anarchist will tell you is complete bollocks).

Woodcock's approach to anarchism seems to be one quite common across academia, and it almost portrays anarchism in religious terms. Anarchists are seen as people fed up with the modern world, of politics and corruption and so on, who want to go back and be at One with the land: no war, nobody telling you what to do, living humbly, etc. Tolstoy, for example, is painted as a fine example of an anarchist. I can see, perhaps, how Kropotkin and Bakunin can be read into this canon, but not Rudolf Rocker, or Errico Malatesta, or Nestor Makhno, or Louise Michel, or Buenaventura Durruti, or.... well I could go on forever.

So yeah, I can see why one might see anarchism as an idea for aristocratic adventurers, but I think that'd be a very, very ignorant thing to assert.

[Raúl Duke]

"Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it."That doesn't apply to anarchism of today.

Anarchism right now probably looks WAY different from anarchism of the 1800s and early 1900s.


You can't have absolute individual liberty and collective decision-making at the same time.I already got over this "contradiction."

Consider how anarchism's...basis (one could say)...is defined.
-Opposition to hierarchy-
This is the basis, not individual rights. By advocating the equalization of power (thru eliminating hierarchy as much as possible) in society, anarchists are more in favor of collective decision making (a means to equalize power) than "individual rights" per se (in the overall picture).

However, one is to imagine, that in a post-revolutionary society those who are anarchists (that's right, I'm implying that for a revolution to occur and even after one there doesn't necessarily mean everyone is a self-described anarchist) will probably vote against certain measures that could be considered by the commune's assemblies/councils. For example, a commune may propose conscription and while anarchists may not like the idea and perhaps vote no out of vague principles they will have to accept the decision if it passes. What matters is that everyone, especially those affected, had an equal say on the matter, so it's no longer an issue of a class/group/etc issuing laws/policies that affect the working class/etc without their input.

[bricolage]

"Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it.

Obviously this is hampered by conflicting definitions of 'democracy'. For many what passes as anarchism is seen as inherently democratic in itself.


Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics."

I think if we are referring to what currently passes as both 'politics' and 'political freedom' this is a fair statement.
Personally I'm not adverse to what could be termed 'anti-political' currents.

[bricolage]

If Bakunin was afraid of revolution he would not have participated in so many (Poland, Commune of Paris) himself.

Bakunin didn't participate in the Paris Commune, he tried to proclaim one (from what I can gather as a rather solo affair) in Lyon the previous September (I think) but it failed miserably.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism's origins are not in the aristocracy. No offense, but that doesn't really make any sense at all...what many see as the earliest signs of "proto-anarchism", at least in regards to rhetoric, was the peasant revolts of Wat Tyler and John Ball, followed later by the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters during the 17th century. These all occured within a society that still had an aristocracy with an important role, and all were anti-aristocratic in nature. Modern anarchism's anti-clericalism doesn't get it's roots in any sort of competition between the Church and the aristocracy; it gets it from Enlightenment ideas, specifically rationalism and the question of God's divinity and existence. There were quite a few non-anarchist anti-clerical movements during the 19th century, actually (see Europe Transformed: 1879-1919 by Norman Stone for a lot of examples of this).

"Real" anarchism (a.k.a. anarchism as we refer to it on this site) had it's class origins in the petite-bourgeoisie, as Marx himself said (*Note: that does not give any credence whatsoever to some idiots that all anarchists today are petite-bourgeoisie, which in my opinion is a totally ridiculous notion). It was originally the movement of the artisan worker, who were not subject to factory discipline in the same way that a proletarian worker was, and therefore had time to absorb some of the ideas of anarchism. They were also independent, not easily susceptible to intimidation and educated (i.e. not "backwards" like the peasantry). One good example of all of this is the Jura Federation, one of the major anarchist sections of the First International, which was largely comprised of clock and watch makers. As industrialization accelerated, many of these workers were driven into the burgeoning capitalist system and into factory discipline...however, many of them took their hard-nosed individualism and radicalism with them, and thus anarchism began to infect ideas associated with working-class radicalism, and anarcho-syndicalism was born. That's my analysis, anyway, based on what I've read.

I think that it's important to note that one of the two people who you cited in your OP, George Woodcock, while someone who I would consider an anarchist, is really an anarchist in the sense that someone like William Godwin could be an anarchist: someone who simply takes classical liberalism to it's furthest possible extreme. His anarchism is more of a philosophical doctrine (akin to Robert Paul Wolff's ideas in In Defense of Anarchism) than a concrete political program with clear objectives...something I believe most self-described anarchists on here would be in disagreement with. For you to quote him as a definitive example of what anarchists believe is only slightly less outrageous than quoting Stirner and then saying, "THIS is the core value of anarchism!", especially considering the fact that Woodcock has been an active critic of people like Daniel Guerin and Noam Chomsky.

[-A-kRud-A-]

This argument died with Lenin and was rooted in Marx's dislike of Bakunin. The anarchists of the 19'th century wanted to maintain the ability for artisans to remain self employed (without exploiting wage slaves) while collectivizing the industrial means of production.

Most classical writers, theorists and thinkers within the socialist tradition (or anything which had to do with publishing-liberal, conservative etc) have come from the upperclass. The 'masses' didnt have access to education back then. Even so many of them were simply reporting on movments happening around them. Socialism has been a river in time with various people trying to guide its path. Many from the upper class.

[F9]

No, just the stupidity origins are in the m-l tendencys

[Leo]

Does Anarchism have a class origin in the aristocracy?

No.


This argument died with Lenin and was rooted in Marx's dislike of Bakunin.

I don't think there ever was such a ridiculous argument, made either by Marx or Lenin. The problem Marx had with Bakunin, on the other hand, was of course the fact that Bakunin was a hypocritical conspirator trying to take control of the International, an "anarchism" who dreamed of creating an invisible dictatorship of a small band of conspirators consisting of himself and (literally) his friends. Characterizing anarchism with Bakunin is unfair to the ideology.

The historical roots of anarchism were with the artisans and the petty-bourgeoisie. Later a proletarian and a bourgeois variant developed, but anarchism never was the ideology of the aristocracy.

[meow]

again no. anarchism has it origin in an outcry against being ruled. against oppression.
as others say it has traditionally been associated with small producers. self employed workers. for many reasons. but partly i guess against capitalism forcing them out of work.

Raúl Duke[/COLOR] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=12412)]For example, a commune may propose conscription and while anarchists may not like the idea and perhaps vote no out of vague principles they will have to accept the decision if it passes.
i almost thanked this post but for this quote. an anarchist objects to conscription. if community votes for conscription they can still not force people to fight and remain anarchist.
anarchism is as you say against oppression. but forcing people to fight is oppressive. yes it is about making decision making equal to all. but still one does not have to cooperate with decision (though should not probably fight against directly).

[jake williams]

I'm basically a Leninist but I basically agree with you. That said I think it's a bit dismissive to consider anarchosyndicalism to simply be "Marxism in a black flag". Anarchosyndicalism has taken a lot from Marx, but there are fundamental differences in terms of strategy and with regards to the state between AS'ers and Marxists, never mind Leninists.

[Communist]

yes it is about making decision making equal to all. but still one does not have to cooperate with decision (though should not probably fight against directly).

Interesting. How could one resist a collective decision without directly fighting against it? Say there's an important struggle that needs to be won for the common good; is it logical to think the majority (however slim, after the decision has been made) will carry it forward while some others...just don't? Realistically I doubt a simple shaking of the head will impress too many.

Seriously, how would this work?

.

[meow]

Interesting. How could one resist a collective decision without directly fighting against it? Say there's an important struggle that needs to be won for the common good; is it logical to think the majority (however slim, after the decision has been made) will carry it forward while some others...just don't? Realistically I doubt a simple shaking of the head will impress too many.

Seriously, how would this work?

.


say that 50% + 1 people want to build something. the 50% - 1 can just not help. they dont fight against but they dont help.
if they want to fight against maybe the just go and sit on ground where building is wanted to be.
if they really want to fight they get out weapons.
but when you get that last stage there is something wrong with community.

when it comes to something like conscription. the 50% - 1 simply dont fight in whatever war. if some of the 50% + 1 try and force them to they defend themselves. but otherwise just ignore the conscription. really easy actually.

[Communist]

.
People will never like it when the fruits of their blood, sweat and tears are enjoyed by those who don't contribute towards it if they are able to.

In a sense that's what we, as revolutionaries, are striving to eradicate in the first place... It's probably just an ideological divide here. That's all right though.

.

[Revolte_Wolf]

.
People will never like it when the fruits of their blood, sweat and tears are enjoyed by those who don't contribute towards it if they are able to.
.



Well then those people probably won't be part of any anarchist revolution or anything close, would they? After all I doubt most anarchists are in it just for themselves. Granted I could see how stress could come from that, but I don't think such envy has much of a role in what any of us are trying to do, does it? I'm not saying its right or wrong for people to be so sluggish when they had the ability to help out, and I sure as hell don't agree with that, but if they don't find happiness in it then nothing really changed, after all if they where happy before any revolution came, then it never would have come.

[Communist]

^
Glad to see you've posted.

Yeah I had that thought as well.
And many many who did not support the revolution at all will live under it. But they won't have ever considered themselves revolutionaries - communists, anarchists - previously either.

.

[synthesis]

Anarchism's origins are not in the aristocracy. No offense, but that doesn't really make any sense at all...what many see as the earliest signs of "proto-anarchism", at least in regards to rhetoric, was the peasant revolts of Wat Tyler and John Ball, followed later by the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters during the 17th century. These all occured within a society that still had an aristocracy with an important role, and all were anti-aristocratic in nature. Modern anarchism's anti-clericalism doesn't get it's roots in any sort of competition between the Church and the aristocracy; it gets it from Enlightenment ideas, specifically rationalism and the question of God's divinity and existence. There were quite a few non-anarchist anti-clerical movements during the 19th century, actually (see Europe Transformed: 1879-1919 by Norman Stone for a lot of examples of this).

Just to be clear, the "anarchism" in the title referred to "left-anarchism," specifically that of Bakunin and Kropotkin - would you deny that both are held in relatively high esteem by anarchists here and elsewhere? Obviously, in contrast, "individualist anarchism" has its class origin in the bourgeoisie, both historically and theoretically.

On the other hand, I think that to say, "modern anarchism's anti-clericalism is derived from the Enlightenment, not from the aristocracy," would be an ahistorical argument. Modern anarchism has been strongly influenced by both Bakunin and Kropotkin, and it seems fallacious to deny that they were not influenced at some level by their aristocratic origins, and in turn by the power struggles between the Church and the aristocracy in Russia.


"Real" anarchism (a.k.a. anarchism as we refer to it on this site) had it's class origins in the petite-bourgeoisie, as Marx himself said (*Note: that does not give any credence whatsoever to some idiots that all anarchists today are petite-bourgeoisie, which in my opinion is a totally ridiculous notion). It was originally the movement of the artisan worker, who were not subject to factory discipline in the same way that a proletarian worker was, and therefore had time to absorb some of the ideas of anarchism. They were also independent, not easily susceptible to intimidation and educated (i.e. not "backwards" like the peasantry). One good example of all of this is the Jura Federation, one of the major anarchist sections of the First International, which was largely comprised of clock and watch makers. As industrialization accelerated, many of these workers were driven into the burgeoning capitalist system and into factory discipline...however, many of them took their hard-nosed individualism and radicalism with them, and thus anarchism began to infect ideas associated with working-class radicalism, and anarcho-syndicalism was born. That's my analysis, anyway, based on what I've read.

Could you provide some examples of "what you've read"? I don't doubt that this is at least partially accurate, but I'm curious as to what exactly you're basing it on.


I don't think there ever was such a ridiculous argument, made either by Marx or Lenin.

True - as far as I know, this is a wholly original ridiculous argument of mine.


anarchism never was the ideology of the aristocracy.

That wasn't my hypothesis. It was: "Does [left-]anarchism have a class origin in the aristocracy"? Whether that is utterly false or not, it seems rather obvious that left-anarchism was not the ideology of the aristocracy in the same way that "individualist anarchism" was an ideology of the bourgeoisie.

[syndicat]

that the latter joined Proudhon in supporting the South in the Civil War, or at least said that "acted with the most force, wisdom, and solidarity, which makes them worthy of the triumph they have received in every encounter so far."



I doubt that Bakunin would have supported the southern slavocracy. that's a really implausible claim. Where is your evidence?

Moreover, in 1868 the libertarian socialists in the first international allied with the marxists against the followers of proudhon, who rejected the proto-syndicalist strategy of the libertarian socialists arround Bakunin (Anselmo Lorenzo and the others). This libertarian socialist tendency did not initially call itself "anarchist". In that era "anarchy" meant choas and disorder, just as now. Becuase the libertarian socialist tendency around Bakunin were based on a worker organization and class struggle strategy, that is the class (together with the peasantry) that they appealed to. Bakunin tended to regard the artisans (petit bourgeoisie) as a "labor aristocracy" (a view he shared with Marx).

Syndicalism is obviously a working class ideology as it is based on the principle "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves", a principle they shared with Marx. And the libertarian socialists in the first international were proto-syndicalist. Bakunin held that worker power achieved in a revolution would be through a federation of worker unions. the largest section of the first interntional was the FORE in Spain, which was organized mainly by social anarchists like Anselmo Lorenzo (who lived long enough to be a founder of the CNT in 1910).

Modern social anarchism really began with the libertarian (or federalist) socialists in the first international. Their base was radical workers and their supporters form the more educated classes (like Bakunin).

Of course there have been other things called "anarchism" and Proudhon's views were different than the libertarian socialists in the first international even tho Proudhon had some influence on them, that is, they agreed with some of his ideas (as did Marx).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Just to be clear, the "anarchism" in the title referred to "left-anarchism," specifically that of Bakunin and Kropotkin - would you deny that both are held in relatively high esteem by anarchists here and elsewhere?

No. I wouldn't deny that.


Obviously, in contrast, "individualist anarchism" has its class origin in the bourgeoisie, both historically and theoretically.

I would argue that individualist anarchism has it's roots in the petite-bourgeoisie, especially American individualist anarchism (Tucker, Ingalls, Tandy, Greene, etc...I would hesitate to say that they were purely part of a "bourgeois tradition", as they all considered themselves socialists [some were even part of the First International] and were influenced by works like Thomas Hodgkin's Labor Defended Against The Claims Of Capital).


On the other hand, I think that to say, "modern anarchism's anti-clericalism is derived from the Enlightenment, not from the aristocracy," would be an ahistorical argument. Modern anarchism has been strongly influenced by both Bakunin and Kropotkin, and it seems fallacious to deny that they were not influenced at some level by their aristocratic origins, and in turn by the power struggles between the Church and the aristocracy in Russia.

There wasn't really a big conflict between the Church and the aristocrats during Bakunin's time. In fact, Bakunin himself was a fervent believer in Russian Orthodoxy (even going so far as to build a mini-church within his family's house) before he adopted socialist beliefs. This was the case for many future aristocratic radicals. The belief that everything was simply matter was sweeping Russia's radical community at the time...one symptom of this was the rise of nihilist and socialist ideology. I would argue that this had more to do with the publication of works by certain utopian socialists such as Charles Fourier and Nikolai Chernyshevsky, as well as certain scientific works than any battle between the church and the aristocrats.


Could you provide some examples of "what you've read"? I don't doubt that this is at least partially accurate, but I'm curious as to what exactly you're basing it on.


The aformentioned Europe Transformed by Norman Stone, Black Flame by Michael Schmidt, Anarchism: A Beginners Guide by Ruth Kinna, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy by Kevin Carson (for my comments about the Individualists) and Angel of Vengeance (for my comments about Bakunin and the political environment of Bakunin-era Russia). Jeremy Brecher also talks in the first chapter (about the 1877 General Strike) of Strike! about how a large part of that rebellion and other rebellions at the time in the U.S. was formerely self-employed workers/artisans lashing out at the new situation they found themselves in. Some of these people would later be involved in the anarchist/socialist movements.

:thumbup1:

[Raúl Duke]

but still one does not have to cooperate with decision (though should not probably fight against directly). That's what I imagined principled anarchists doing, and myself as well. We would argue against it every opportunity we can at the decision making organs, but if the majority decides that for the meanwhile they want to enact such policy I'm not going to be throwing a hissy fit over it. Also, this is a hypothetical scenario that may end up not occurring due to the nature of this new revolutionary society where people may find it in their interest to fight to defend it and thus volunteer.

I don't imagine that for an "anarchist" socialist society to exist we need everyone to be a self-described anarchist per se. As long as the working class is in control, the minimum requirement for a revolutionary socialist society has been reached for me.