THE ANARCHISTIC TEACHINGS
1.--GENERAL
We have now gained the standpoint that permits us to view
comprehensively the entire body of Anarchistic teachings.
This comprehensive view is possible only as follows: first we have to
look and see what the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here
presented have in common, and what specialties are to be found among
them; next we must consider how far that which is common to the seven
teachings may be equated to that which the entire body of Anarchistic
teachings have in common, and, in addition, how far the specialties
represented among the seven teachings may be equated to the specialties
represented in the entire body of Anarchistic teachings.
To characterize those qualities of the Anarchistic teachings to which
attention is to be paid, words already existing are here used as far as
has been found practicable. Where such were totally lacking, the need of
a concise formula has of necessity overcome repugnance to neologisms.
2.--BASIS
I. As to their basis the seven teachings here presented have nothing in
common.
1. In part they recognize as the supreme law of human procedure merely
a natural law, which, as such, does not tell us what ought to take place
but what really will take place; these teachings may be called
_genetic_. The other part of them regard as the supreme law of human
procedure a norm, which, as such, tells us what ought to take place,
even if it never really will take place; these teachings may be
characterized as _critical_. Genetic are the teachings of Bakunin and
Kropotkin: the supreme law of human procedure is for Bakunin the
evolutionary law of mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to
an existence as perfect as possible, and for Kropotkin that of mankind's
progress from a less happy existence to an existence as happy as
possible. Critical are the teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner,
Tucker, and Tolstoi.
2. The critical teachings, again, are partly such as set up a duty as
the supreme law of human procedure, the duty being itself the ultimate
purpose,--these teachings may be characterized as _idealistic_,--and
partly such as set up happiness as the supreme law of human procedure,
all duty being only a means to happiness,--these may take the name of
_eudemonistic_. Idealistic are the teachings of Proudhon and Tolstoi:
Proudhon sets up as the supreme law of human procedure the duty of
justice, Tolstoi the duty of love. Eudemonistic are the teachings of
Godwin, Stirner, and Tucker.
3. The eudemonistic teachings, finally, regard as the supreme law of
human procedure either the happiness of mankind as a whole, which the
individual is accordingly to further without regard to his own
happiness,--these teachings may be characterized as _altruistic_,--or
the happiness of the individual, which he is accordingly to further
without regard to the welfare of mankind as a whole,--these teachings
may be called _egoistic_. Altruistic is Godwin's teaching, egoistic
Stirner's and Tucker's.
II. With regard to what they have in common in their basis, the seven
recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as
equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They
have in their basis nothing in common with each other; all the more is
it impossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic
teachings should have in their basis anything in common.
Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in respect to
their basis the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to
the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the
specialties represented among them can be arranged as a system that has
no room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for
subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty
that will not be subordinate to these specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of
Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their basis they have nothing in
common, and are to be divided with respect to its differences as shown
in the table on page 273.
3.--LAW
I. In their relation to law--that is, to those norms which are based on
men's will to have a certain procedure generally observed within a
circle which includes themselves--the seven teachings here presented
have nothing in common.
1. A part of them negate law for our future; these teachings may be
called _anomistic_. The other part of them affirm it for our future;
these teachings may be characterized as _nomistic_. Anomistic are the
teachings of Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi; nomistic those of Proudhon,
Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker.
======================================================
|_Genetic_ | _Critical Teachings_ |
|_Teachings_| |
| |----------------------------------------|
| | _Idealistic_ | _Eudemonistic_ |
| | |-----------------------|
| | | Altruistic | Egoistic |
|===========+================+============+==========|
| Bakunin | Proudhon | Godwin | Stirner |
| Kropotkin | Tolstoi | | Tucker |
There cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the
anomistic teachings on the one hand and to the nomistic on the other,
and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than has
here been given. For both the negation and the affirmation of law for
our future have totally different meanings in the different teachings.
The negation of law for our future means in the cases of Godwin and
Stirner that they reject law unconditionally, and so for our future as
well as everywhere else: Godwin because it is always and everywhere
contrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is always and
everywhere contrary to the individual's happiness.
In Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of law for our future is
that he rejects law, though not unconditionally, yet for our future,
because it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our
circumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than its
non-existence.
The affirmation of law for our future means in the cases of Proudhon and
Tucker that they approve law as such (though certainly not every
particular form of law) unconditionally, and hence for our future as
well as elsewhere: Proudhon because law as such never and nowhere
offends against justice, Tucker because law as such never and nowhere
impairs the individual's happiness.[1164]
In the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin, finally, the affirmation of law
for our future has the meaning that they foresee that the progress of
evolution will in our future leave in existence law as such, even though
not the present particular form of law: Bakunin meaning by this the
progress of mankind from a less perfect existence to an existence as
perfect as possible, and Proudhon its progress from a less happy
existence to an existence as happy as possible.
2. The anomistic teachings part company again in regard to what they (in
the same different senses in which they negate law for our future)
affirm for our future in contrast to the law.
According to Godwin, in future the general happiness ought to be men's
controlling principle in the place of law.
According to Stirner, in future the happiness of self ought to be men's
controlling principle in the place of law.
According to Tolstoi, in future love ought to be men's controlling
principle in the place of law.
3. On the other part, the nomistic teachings part company in regard to
the particular form of law that they affirm for our future.
According to Tucker, even in future there ought to exist enacted law, in
which the will that creates the law is expressly declared,[1165] as well
as unenacted law, in which such an express declaration of this will is
not present.
According to Bakunin and Kropotkin, in future only unenacted law will
exist.
According to Proudhon, there ought to exist in future only the single
legal norm that contracts must be lived up to.[1166]
II. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to law,
the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken
as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. In
their relation to law they have nothing in common. Much less, therefore,
can the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings have anything in
common in their relation to law.
Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in their
relation to law the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent
to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the
specialties represented among them can be arranged as a system in which
there is no room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for
subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty
that will not be subordinate to these specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of
Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their relation to law they have
nothing in common, and are to be divided as follows with respect to the
differences of this relation:
================================================
| _Anomistic Teachings_ | _Nomistic Teachings_ |
|=======================+======================|
| Godwin | Proudhon |
| Stirner | Bakunin |
| Tolstoi | Kropotkin |
| | Tucker |
4.--THE STATE
I. In their relation to the State--that is, to the legal relation by
virtue of which a supreme authority exists in a territory--the seven
teachings here presented have something in common.
1. They have this in common, that they negate the State for our future.
There cannot be given a more precise definition of what the teachings
here presented have in common in their relation to the State than has
here been given. For the negation of the State for our future has
totally different meanings in them.
In the cases of Godwin, Stirner, Tucker, and Proudhon, the negation of
the State for our future means that they reject the State
unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as everywhere else:
Godwin because the State always and everywhere impairs the general
happiness, Stirner and Tucker because it always and everywhere impairs
the individual's happiness, Proudhon because at all times and in all
places the State offends against justice.
In Tolstoi's case the negation of the State for our future means that he
rejects the State, though not unconditionally, yet for our future,
because the State is, though not always and everywhere, yet under our
circumstances, more repugnant to love than its non-existence.
Finally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the negation of the State
for our future has the meaning that they foresee that in our future the
progress of evolution will abolish the State: Bakunin meaning mankind's
progress from a less perfect existence to one as perfect as possible,
Kropotkin its progress from a less happy existence to one as happy as
possible.
2. As to what they affirm for our future in contrast to the State (in
the same different senses in which they negate the State for our future)
the seven teachings here presented have nothing in common.
One part of them affirm for our future, in contrast to the State, a
social human life in a voluntary legal relation--to wit, under the
legal norm that contracts must be lived up to; these teachings may take
the name of _federalistic_. The other part of them affirm for our
future, in contrast to the State, a social human life without any legal
relation--to wit, under the same controlling principle that they affirm
for our future in contrast to law; these teachings may be characterized
as _spontanistic_. Federalistic are the teachings of Proudhon, Bakunin,
Kropotkin, and Tucker; spontanistic those of Godwin,[1167] Stirner, and
Tolstoi.
3. The spontanistic teachings in turn part company in respect to the
non-legal controlling principle which they affirm in contrast to the
State as the basis of the social human life for our future.
According to Godwin, the place of the State ought to be taken by a
social human life based on the principle that the general happiness
should be every one's rule of action.
According to Stirner, the place of the State ought to be taken by a
social human life based on the principle that each one's own happiness
should be his rule of action.
According to Tolstoi, the place of the State ought to be taken by a
social human life based on the principle that love should be every
one's rule of action.
II. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to the
State, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be
taken as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic
teachings. In their relation to the State they have only this one thing
in common, that they negate the State for our future--and in very
different senses at that. But this is common to all recognized
Anarchistic teachings: observation of any recognized Anarchistic
teaching shows that in one sense or another it negates the State for our
future.
Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in their
relation to the State the teachings here presented may be taken as
equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without
limitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged
as a system which affords no room for any more co-ordinate specialties,
but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have
any specialty that will not be subordinate to these specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of
the Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their relation to the State
they have in common their negating the State for our future; and with
regard to the differences in what they affirm for our future in contrast
to the State they are to be divided as shown in the table on page
280.
=======================================================
| _Federalistic Teachings_ | _Spontanistic Teachings_ |
|==========================+==========================|
| Proudhon | Godwin |
| Bakunin | Stirner |
| Kropotkin | Tolstoi |
| Tucker | |
5.--PROPERTY
I. In their relation to property--that is, to that legal relation by
virtue of which some one has within a certain group of men the exclusive
privilege of ultimately disposing of a thing--the seven teachings here
presented have nothing in common.
1. One part of them negate property for our future; these teachings may
be characterized as _indoministic_. The other part affirm it for our
future; these teachings may be called _doministic_. Indoministic are the
teachings of Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, and Tolstoi; doministic the
teachings of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker.
There cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the
indoministic teachings on the one hand and to the doministic on the
other, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than
has here been given. For both the affirmation and the negation of
property for our future have totally different meanings in the different
teachings.
In the cases of Godwin, Stirner, and Proudhon, the negation of property
for our future means that they reject property unconditionally, and so
for our future as well as elsewhere: Godwin because it is always and
everywhere contrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is
always and everywhere contrary to the individual's happiness, Proudhon
because it always and everywhere offends against justice.
In Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of property for our future
is that he rejects property, though not absolutely, yet for our future,
because it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our
circumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than is its
non-existence.
In Tucker's case the affirmation of property for our future means that
he approves property as such (though certainly not every particular form
of property) unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as
elsewhere, because property as such is never and nowhere contrary to the
individual's happiness.[1168]
Finally, in the cases of Bakunin and Kropotkin the affirmation of
property for our future is as much as to say that they foresee that in
our future the progress of evolution will leave in existence property as
such, even though not the present particular form of property: Bakunin
meaning mankind's progress from a less perfect existence to one as
perfect as possible, Kropotkin its progress from a less happy existence
to one as happy as possible.
2. The indoministic teachings part company again as to what they affirm
for our future (in the same different senses in which they negate
property for our future) in contrast to property.
According to Proudhon, a distribution of goods determined by a voluntary
legal relation, and based on the legal norm that contracts ought to be
lived up to, ought to take the place of property.
According to Godwin, Stirner, and Tolstoi, the place of property ought
to be taken by a distribution without any legal relation, based rather
on the same rule of action that is affirmed by them in contrast to law.
According to Godwin, therefore, that distribution of goods which is to
take the place of property ought to be based on what is prescribed to
each one by the general happiness.
According to Stirner it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each
one by his own happiness.
According to Tolstoi it ought to be based on what is prescribed to each
one by love.
3. The doministic teachings on their side part company again as to the
particular form of property that they affirm for our future.
According to Tucker there ought to exist in future, as at present, both
property of the individual and property of the collectivity, in all
things indiscriminately.[1169] This teaching may be called
_individualistic_.
According to Bakunin, in future there will exist property of the
individual and of the entire community only in goods for consumption,
indiscriminately, while in the materials and instruments of production
there will be solely property of the collectivity. This teaching may be
characterized as _collectivistic_.
According to Kropotkin, in future there will exist solely property of
the collectivity in all things indiscriminately. This teaching may be
called _communistic_.
II. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to
property, the seven Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as
equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. They
have nothing in common in their relation to property. All the more is it
impossible, therefore, that the entire body of recognized Anarchistic
teachings should in their relation to property have anything in common.
Furthermore, in regard to the specialties that they exhibit in their
relation to property the teachings here presented may be taken as
equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without
limitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged
as a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate
specialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching,
therefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these
specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of
Anarchistic teachings altogether. They have nothing in common in their
relation to property, and are to be divided with respect to the
differences of this relation as shown in the table on page
284.
=================================================================
|_Indoministic_| _Doministic Teachings_ |
| _Teachings_ +-----------------+----------------+-------------+
| |_Individualistic_|_Collectivistic_|_Communistic_|
|==============+=================+================+=============|
| Godwin | Tucker | Bakunin | Kropotkin |
| Proudhon | | | |
| Stirner | | | |
| Tolstoi | | | |
6.--REALIZATION
I. With regard to the manner in which they conceive their
realization--that is, the transition from the negated condition to the
affirmed condition--as taking place, the seven teachings here presented
have nothing in common.
1. The one part of them conceive their realization as taking place
without breach of law: they have in mind a transition from the negated
to the affirmed condition merely by the application of legal norms of
the negated condition; these teachings may be characterized as
_reformatory_. Reformatory are the teachings of Godwin and Proudhon. The
other part conceive their realization as a breach of law: they have in
mind a transition from the negated to the affirmed condition with
violation of legal norms of the negated condition; these teachings may
be called _revolutionary_. Revolutionary are the teachings of Stirner,
Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, and Tolstoi.
There cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the
reformatory teachings on the one hand, to the revolutionary on the
other, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than
has here been given. For the conceiving the transition from a negated to
an affirmed condition as taking place in any given way has totally
different meanings in the different teachings.
If Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, and Tolstoi conceive the
transition from a negated to an affirmed condition as taking place in
any given way, this is as much as to say that they demand that we should
in a given way first prepare for, and then effect, the transition from a
disapproved to an approved condition.
If, on the contrary, Bakunin and Kropotkin conceive the transition from
a negated to an affirmed condition as taking place in any given way,
this means that they foresee that in the progress of evolution the
transition from a disappearing to a newly-appearing condition will of
itself take place in a given way, and that they only demand that we
should make a certain sort of preparation for this transition.
2. The revolutionary teachings part company again as to the fashion in
which they conceive of the breach of law that helps in the transition
from the negated to the affirmed condition.
Some of them conceive of the breach of law as taking place without the
employment of force; these teachings may be characterized as _renitent_.
Renitent are the teachings of Tucker and Tolstoi: Tucker conceiving the
breach of law chiefly as a refusal to pay taxes and rent and an
infringement of the banking monopoly, Tolstoi especially as a refusal to
do military, police, or jury service, and also to pay taxes.
The other revolutionary teachings conceive of the breach of law that
helps in the transition from the negated to the affirmed condition as
taking place with the employment of force; these teachings may take the
name of _insurgent_. Insurgent are the teachings of Stirner, Bakunin,
and Kropotkin: Stirner and Bakunin conceiving only of the transition
itself as attended with the use of violence, but Kropotkin also of
preparation for it by such acts (propaganda of deed).
II. With regard to what they have in common in respect of the conceived
manner of realization, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings which
have been presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of
recognized Anarchistic teachings. In respect of the conceived manner of
realization they have nothing in common. Much less, therefore, can the
entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings have anything in common
in this respect.
Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in respect of
the conceived manner of realization the teachings here presented may be
taken as equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without
limitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged
as a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate
specialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching,
therefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these
specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of
the Anarchistic teachings altogether. In respect of the conceived manner
of realization they have nothing in common, and are to be arranged as
follows with reference to the differences therein:
===============================================
|_Reformatory_ | _Revolutionary Teachings_ |
| _Teachings_ +--------------+---------------|
| | _Renitent_ | _Insurgent_ |
|==============+==============+===============|
| Godwin | Tucker | Stirner |
| Proudhon | Tolstoi | Bakunin |
| | | Kropotkin |
FOOTNOTES:
[1164] [I shall not indorse this statement till I understand it, and I
doubt if Tucker will. Perhaps Eltzbacher might have been content with
saying "is in no case more injurious to the happiness of most
individuals than its non-existence."]
[1165] [This, if interpreted by Eltzbacher's quotations from Tucker,
must refer to the right of a voluntary association of any sort to make
rules for its own members. But in this sense it seems in the highest
degree doubtful whether Eltzbacher is justified in denying the same to
all the other six, who have omitted to mention this point (perhaps
regarding it as self-evident) while they were talking against laws in
the sense of laws compulsorily binding everybody in the land.]
[1166] [But see on Proudhon and Stirner my notes on pages 80 and 97.]
[1167] [It will be seen by consulting the footnotes on pages 46, 47, and
48 that the warrants for this statement about Godwin are drawn
exclusively from the first one-fifth of his book, contrary to
Eltzbacher's profession at the top of page 41; that the passages quoted
_verbatim_ are not in Godwin's second edition; and that the quotations
which are not _verbatim_ are of doubtful correctness by the second
edition. This makes it appear that Godwin's sweeping rejection of the
principle of contract was one of those over-hasty propositions about
which he changed his mind even before they were published (see his words
quoted on page 40, and the preface to his second edition). Yet I am not
prepared to assert that Godwin would at any time have made contract the
basis of his civil order.]
[1168] [On Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, see my notes on pages 80, 97,
274.]
[1169] [We are getting into an ambiguity of language here. The
"collectivity" in which Kropotkin vests property is, as I understand,
the entire population; the only "collectivity" which Tucker could
recognize as owning property would be a voluntary association, whose
membership, whether large or small, would in general be limited by the
arbitrary choice of men.]