Anarchist manifesto

[Zukunftsmusik]

I've recently read the Anarchist Manifesto by Anselme Bellegarrigue. As far as i know there are several anarchist manifestos, Bellagarrigue's, however, is known as the first one. It was written in 1850, two years after the Communist Manifesto.

I read it in french, so if I've misunderstood something, please let me know.

I consider myself as a communist, but found this manifesto very interesting. For example, Bellegarigue claims anarchism isn't a situation of chaos (which should be quite obvious to most people on this forum) - instead he claims government is equal to civil war. His conclusion is as follows (As I couldn't find an English version, I had to translate myself):

Government is negation of people
Negation of people is affirmation of political authority
Affirmation of political authority is individual dependence (in french: dépandance individuelle. I guess it means the opposite of individual independence)
Individual dependence is supremacy of caste
Supremacy of caste is in-egalitarianism
In-egalitarianism is battle (couldn't find a better word. In french: antagonisme)
Battle (antagonisme) is civil war
So, government is civil war.

EDIT: Antagonism actually is an English word, so I guess that's better than battle.

His reason for claiming anarchy is social order is written in the same way:
Anarchy is negation of government
Negation of government is affirmation of people
Affirmation of people is individual liberty
Individual liberty is sovereignty over oneself
Sovereignty over oneself is egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is solidarity or fraternity
Fraternity is social order
So, anarchy is social order.

I find his simple explanations of anarchy and the rule of government quite fascinating.

As far as I understand he also speaks of a 'new collective reason', where a type of egoism is in focus. I think he writes somewhere that the world history begins with his own birth, and that the only perspective we have is that of the ego, or ourselves - that the only view we can have of the world and the reality is our own view. I think, however, that his idea of one person's interest also is the interest of the collective, is too... simple.

Compared to the Communist Manifesto, I think it's less scientific. Where Marx and Engels give a historic reason for why the proletariat should fight the bourgeoisie, Bellegarigue simply claims the power is the enemy because... it's the power.

Any thoughts on the Anarchist Manifesto? Anything I've misunderstood/misinterpreted?

[Robespierre Richard]

Sounds like something by ancaps tbh... Anarchos tend to have much more communitarian ideals.

[Ose]

The full text (in French) can easily be found online (I can't post links yet).

I don't have time to read it right now, but a brief skim suggests that it is very individualistic and idealist (so yes, definitely less scientific than Marx and Engels, and also than modern anarchism). The emphasis seems to be all on social heirarchy, with economic oppression seen as a component of this, rather than as a cause for its existence.

Those are just my first impressions.

[Tablo]

Anselme Bellegarrigue is an individualist anarchist so his views would be different than those of the majority of anarchists(social anarchists).

[Zukunftsmusik]

The full text (in French) can easily be found online (I can't post links yet).

I don't have time to read it right now, but a brief skim suggests that it is very individualistic and idealist (so yes, definitely less scientific than Marx and Engels, and also than modern anarchism). The emphasis seems to be all on social heirarchy, with economic oppression seen as a component of this, rather than as a cause for its existence.

Those are just my first impressions.

Yep, that's about what i thought too. (I also tried to post the link, but apparently I can't do that either :/) And, as Tsukae says, it's in fact very individualistic. And nowhere, as far as I can see, does Bellegarigue write how this individualism guarantees a form of organisation. He just says that it simply is organisation, and I find that a too simple explanation. As for the heirarchy, he hardly mentions the economical reasons for it, and I therefore think his 'cure' is wrong, or, again, just too simple.

As I said, I find his explanations on anarchism, egoism, the new collecitve reason quite fascinating, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head: As this is the first anarchist manifesto, could this be viewed more as an anarchism 'prototype'? Or is that rather Proudhon's Private property is theft?

[Desperado]

Here's a thought that just popped into my head: As this is the first anarchist manifesto, could this be viewed more as an anarchism 'prototype'? Or is that rather Proudhon's Private property is theft?

Except the ideas of anarchism have always been reborn and remade, and aren't a strict dogma nor is there a finished form - so talk of prototypes is pretty futile. We don't proudly draw our ideas from Bakunin, or Prodhoun, in the way Marxists emphasise Marx-Engels-Lenin-x-y-z. They just (mostly) happen to agree with 'us'. The other day I was talking to some veteran anarchist activist, who brought up co-operation in nature, and so I said about Kropotkin - his face went blank. On the other hand it's near impossible to be a Marxist without knowing about Marx.

[Black Sheep]

Government is negation of people
Bullshit, right off the bat.