Click here to return to the front page

Tangentium

 

March '04: Menu



All material on this site remains © the original authors: please see our submission guidelines for more information. If no author is shown material is © Drew Whitworth. For any reproduction beyond fair dealing, permission must be sought: e-mail drew@comp.leeds.ac.uk.






Asa Winstanley comments:
"I think Black confuses 'possession' with 'private property'. Most anarchists would distinguish between possessions as legitimate when you actually use them personally, while property is destructive because you do not directly use it - such as a factory boss who 'owns' all the machines but has never touched them in his life. In this sense it is not true to say that 'private property and profit are not the problem', for anarchists."

  

The trouble with anarchism

James Black

Page 1 ¦ Page 2 ¦ Page 3 ¦ Printer-friendly version

FIVE.

The trouble with anarchism is that it must start from such a disadvantaged position. Every inch of the globe and every thought in our heads are at least partially controlled by the state-corporate network. But why should this be an excuse not to act? The use of the word "utopian" in a derogatory way is just another example of the control of language by dominant groups. Utopianism is a perfectly valid method of political critique whereby a seemingly unrealistic proposition is made; but it is made for perfectly realistic reasons, that is, to critique what presently exists. What presently exists is by definition all one has to work with(in). If the scale of the task dissuades one from ever acting, then all hope of change is lost. Anarchism must squarely face up to the existence of capitalism and state hierarchies, as no "clean slate" will emerge at any time in the foreseeable future.

The issue of anarchism's relationship with capitalism deserves further discussion, if only because of the existence of libertarianism [21]. Many anarchists, whether through ideological commitment or the mere fact of their living in communes and/or working in co-operatives, hold to a vague anarcho-communism in which all private property is redistributed among a group [22]. Certainly this should be approved of: if all members of a particular group agree to have their property so redistributed. If anyone does not so agree, this is a completely illegitimate imposition on their autonomy. Yet we have already discussed how the possession of wealth is easily translatable into power in the capitalist society, and this has other damaging consequences. How might this paradox be resolved?

I believe one way out of the dilemma is to first divorce ideas of property as always equating to wealth and thereby power. It is a fallacy to consider "property" as a uniform thing that is always somehow undesirable or at best, anti-anarchist. I do not deny that personal possessions can be fetishised to the extent that they come to substitute for happiness or mutually-beneficial relationships: as Marcuse wrote, "people... recognise themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment... social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced." [23]. But think of the ways in which a music collection, or the contents of a wardrobe, are also expressions of the unique personality of someone. Personality can also be invested in the decoration of a room or a whole house, or the cultivation of a garden. It is not necessarily an expression of capitalist alienation to attach oneself to an object: babies develop this kind of self-expression very early in life. Now, if one attaches oneself to, say, a television, then one is certainly guilty of fetisihism: TVs can be replaced easily. But to me it would seem rather abnormal not to have a personal attachment to a collection of music. Here, the whole is more than the sum of its parts - all music collections are unique configurations and most are, to all intents and purposes, irreplaceable. Would life end if all one's music was stolen -- or appropriated somehow? No. Would it upset the owner, and be a violation of their private space? Most definitely. We have built collections of property. In the first instance then I think we should distinguish between abstract examples of property and more personal kinds, which the owner has invested time and effort in accumulating. More significantly, this latter type of property also applies to products made by people in creative or labour-intensive processes, which are then offered for sale for personal benefit (as of course may be things like music collections). Pirsig noted how the problem with modernity is not its reliance on technology as such, but our alienation from it: our loss of a personal identification with the products we use and (for some of us) make. [24]

I do not therefore accept that this kind of small-scale, personal "property" can and should be treated as identical to the large-scale, mass appropriation of the world's common resources -- forests, water, land, information, labour and others -- by the faceless systems of global capitalism. (One should also note that the state's declared support for personal property rights is shown up for the arbitrary thing it is by procedures like compulsory purchase, appropriation of property by the military, tax subsidies to prop up industries such as arms and aviation, and so on.) It is vital that anarchists make a distinction between mass appropriation like this and one-to-one, voluntary transactions in which money happens to be used as the medium of exchange. If consumer buys directly from producer, and both parties agreed to the transaction, how can this be illegitimate?

Criticising this as idealistic is fair but also misses the point: for anarchism itself is idealistic, in all the good senses of that term (that is, pointing us towards what ought to be as a way of criticising what really exists). What we have lost, in the 21st century global capitalist system, is our autonomy as consumers. Just as our autonomy as political actors is sucked away by bureaucratic party organisations, quangoes, representatives, international political organisations like the EU and IMF and the capitalist system itself, so our autonomy as producers and consumers is drained away by gross advertising, VAT, limits on genuine competition and so on. Once again, the problem is abstraction. When we pass our money over the counter, who really benefits? Capitalism has transformed almost all people from self-motivated consumers and producers, autonomously engaging in mutually-beneficial exchanges, into mortgaged taxpayers, wage-earners and dependents of the system itself.

The true hypocrisy of global capitalism lies not in its ideals of free competition and exchange, but in its utter failure -- indeed its refusal -- to live up to those ideals. The global market is not "free", it is directly controlled for the benefit of existing hierarchies, via subsidies, laws, the media, advertising and repression of small producers. Private property and profit are not the problem (every business needs to make at least a small surplus each year, to compensate for the physical deterioration of whatever equipment it owns). Anarchists must not gloss over the damage done to their integrity if and when they support programmes of, say, heavy arbitrary taxation (something which is not only a gross violation of autonomy, but also simply supports the state system and is therefore doubly damaging). Just as some people may happen to be stronger than others, or better-looking, or better musicians, so they may be better-off, or be more effective entrepreneurs. In this lies the diversity of humanity. What we must ask is, what flows from their greater wealth? How can this wealth be used to override justice? And how, ultimately, can anarchism contribute to the most necessary project of all in the 21st century: the vital struggle to break down the absurd dominance of economics in the world?

Proudhon wrote 150 years ago [25] that while "extremist disciples" of economics were dangerously wrong to "speak out boldly against Justice... [and] demand wealth...", so it was equally unrealistic to "retreat into the past" and hope to recover a way of life in which economics played no part. Instead he wrote that:

"...justice and economics ought not to restrict each other or make trivial concessions. This would merely be detrimental to both, and useless. They ought to be systematically interwoven, justice serving as a law for economics. Thus, instead of constraining the economic forces, whose constricted growth is killing us, we ought to make them BALANCE each other by virtue of a little-known and even less well-understood principle: namely, that opposites should not destroy but should compensate each other, precisely because they are opposites."

The question of what practical steps can be taken towards this goal is, of course, something which has beset politics since Marx onwards: but Marx was no anarchist, and the arbitrary appropriation of the justly-acquired property of others is therefore not something which anarchists should condone. Once again I believe the answer lies in reclaiming autonomy and personal responsibility from the abstractions which have come close to destroying our humanity. Whenever money is spent, ask who is benefitting from the transaction, and never spend money without thought. Spend with the small-scale producer whenever possible: if it costs more, so be it -- laws of economics are there to be broken just like any other law.

SIX.

By now, readers may think I'm just trying to impose my view of anarchism on others, thus perpetuating some of the problems mentioned above. But that is the way of this field. I write with the full acknowledgement that all of this can be ignored, refuted, challenged. I hope, however, that some may absorb the ideas, not as "truth", uncritically, but as a contribution to their own self-understanding.

The trouble with anarchism is that its beauties are not shouted from the rooftops. The positive, empowering experience of anarchy can and must be shared. The word must be reclaimed, and this will only happen by communicating its true meaning to others through both literature and practical experience. The role of the anarchist is the role of the true democrat; constant interrogation of what exists, absolute refusal to accept the abstractions and compromises ingrained in the modern state-capitalist system. It is by respecting others as individual human beings that these abstractions can be shown up for the dehumanising things they are.

One must also constantly interrogate one's own practices, but this should not collapse into self-abnegation. That all too easily can lead to depression, nihilism and ultimate rejection of the wider project. We are the best judges in our own cause, but at times we must accept we are not always objective; so the good anarchist should never lose their willingness to learn from others -- but not uncritically.

Organising without hierarchy is not easy. Nor is practising mutual respect. It is easier to yield to time pressures or peer pressure and buy, or vote, or travel, in ways one's been told to do by others, rather than worked out for oneself. But to yield to these pressures is to perpetuate them, at least in the short term.

The more overt pressures (laws, military force, control) exerted by the state-corporate system cannot be ignored either. But, at least at the present time, the system still outwardly claims to be democratic. As often as possible, it can and should be shown up for the hypocrisy that it is. All human beings have a duty to do this, and to communicate their reasons. Regardless of whether your friends do it, or your family, or your work colleagues: do it yourself. In the end, that's all people can do: and that's why anarchism might not be any trouble at all.

Back to the top

Back to this month's introduction

Footnotes

21. The best attempt to justify a pure libertarianism, where the state exists only to regulate and defend transactions of private property but has no other valid rights over individuals and communities, is that of Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell. For a critique, see J. Wolff, op. cit. return

22. This is particularly noticeable in George Orwell's experiences in Spain as described in Homage to Catalonia. Incidentally, a BBC programme transmitted in 2003, to mark the centenary of Orwell's birth, spent a whole hour describing Orwell's time in the Spanish Civil War without once daring to mention the word "anarchist". In his grave BBC tones, the narrator used the term "militia" throughout, despite the fact that this was a documentary with serious intentions, and the anarchism of at least some elements of the anti-Franco coalition is obvious when one reads the book. Never underestimate the power of a word. return

23. Marcuse, H. (1964), One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 9. return

24. Pirsig, R. M. (1999 [1973]), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, London, Vintage. return

25. Proudhon, P.-J. (1970 [1858]), Selected Writings ed. S. Edwards, London, Macmillan, p. 50. return