Looking for something meaningful to listen to? Visit podcastlibrary.org, a growing home for timeless audiobooks, classic radio dramas, educational talks, history, philosophy, and thousands of hours of spoken word audio, all free to stream. Whether you want to relax, learn something new, or rediscover voices from the past, Podcast Library makes it easy to find something worth hearing. Start listening today at p-o-d-c-a-s-t-l-i-b-r-a-r-y.org.
Looking for something meaningful to listen to? Visit podcastlibrary.org, a growing home for timeless audiobooks, classic radio dramas, educational talks, history, philosophy, and thousands of hours of spoken word audio, all free to stream. Whether you want to relax, learn something new, or rediscover voices from the past, Podcast Library makes it easy to find something worth hearing. Start listening today at p-o-d-c-a-s-t-l-i-b-r-a-r-y.org.
Anarchy. Anarchy is a word which comes from the Greek and signifies, strictly speaking, without government, the state of a people without any constituted authority, that is, without government. Before such an organization had begun to be considered possible and desirable by a whole class of thinkers so as to be taken as the aim of a party, which party has now become one of the most important factors in modern social warfare, the word anarchy was taken universally in the sense of disorder and confusion, and it is still adopted in that sense by the ignorant and by adversaries interested in distorting the truth. We shall not enter into philological discussions, for the question is not philological but historical.
The common meaning of the word does not misconceive its true etymological signification, but is derived from this meaning, owing to the prejudice that government must be a necessity of the organization of social life, and that consequently a society without government must be given up to disorder, and oscillate between the unbridled dominion of some and the blind vengeance of others. The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the meaning which the public has given the word is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and habituates himself to the conditions in which he lives and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. Thus being born having lived in bondage, being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and liberty seemed to him an impossible thing.
In like manner the workman, forced for centuries, and thus habituate, to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess the land and the capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him to eat, and demands ingeniously how it would be possible to live if there were no master over him. In the same way, a man who had had his limbs bound from his birth, but had nevertheless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to the very hands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would be diminishing and paralyzing the muscular energy of his limbs. If, then, we add to the natural effect of habit the education given him by his masters, the parson, teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary, if also we add the judge and the bailiff to force those who think differently, and might try to propagate their opinions, to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brings forward a complete theory with a thousand ably-invented illustrations to persuade that man with a bound limb whom we were describing that if his limb were freed he could not walk, could not even live.
The man would defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off. Thus, since it is believed that government is necessary and that without government there must be disorder and confusion, it is natural and logical to suppose that anarchy, which signifies without government, must also mean absence of order. Nor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In those epochs and countries where people have considered government by one man, monarchy, necessary, the word republic, that is, the government of many, has been used precisely like anarchy to imply disorder and confusion.
Traces of this signification of the word are still to be found in the popular language of almost all countries. When this opinion is changed and the public convinced that government is not necessary but extremely harmful, the word anarchy, precisely because it signifies without government, will become equal to saying natural order, harmony of the needs and interests of all, complete liberty with complete solidarity. Therefore, those are wrong who say that anarchists have chosen their name badly because it is erroneously understood by the masses and leads to a false interpretation. The error does not come from the word but from the thing.
The difficulty which anarchists meet with in spreading their views does not depend upon the name they have given themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions strike at all the inveterate prejudices that people have about the function of government, or the state, as it is called. Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last word, the state, which in our opinion is the real cause of much misunderstanding. Anarchists, and we among them, have made use, and still generally make use, of the word state, meaning thereby that collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which the management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end. In this case the word state means government, or, if you like, it is the impersonal expression abstracted from the state of things of which the government is the personification.
Then such expressions as abolition of the state, or society without the state, agree perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and equal society based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs. However, the word state has many other significations, and among these some would lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the delicate distinctions of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to comprehend. Thus the word state is often used to indicate any given society or collection of human beings, united on a given territory, and constituting what is called a social unit, independently of the way in which the members of the sad body are grouped, or of their relations existing between them. State is used also simply as a synonym for society.
Owing to these significations of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than savagery. By state, again, is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the central power, distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonal or communal government. Finally, state signifies condition, mode of living, the order of social life, etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical state is the only state founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases, so that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the state, we may at once appear absurd or contradictory. For these reasons we believe it would be better to use the expression abolition of the state as little as possible, and to substitute for it another clearer and more concrete abolition of government.
In any case, the latter will be the expression used in the course of this little work. End of section 1