For A Free Humanity! For Anarchy! Essay, Research Paper
What must be abolished in order to secure a free and harmonious life, to secure liberty? Singularly, of course, government is the one thing that invades peoples lives the most, that handicaps and prevents their free activity; the one thing that compels people to live differently than what would be their own choice. In the words of Henry David Thoreau If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth-certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law (Thoreau 288). Even in the times of Henry David Thoreau there were beliefs that government is best which governs least, anarchism is a means to that end. It does not mean violence, it is a belief that government is harmful and unnecessary, it must take place in order to eradicate any oppression, and that it is extremely simple to achieve such a stateless society.
The sentiment of anarchism is not violence, it is the very reverse of it. First, it is capitalism and government that stand for disorder and violence. Of course, there are reasons why anarchists have sometimes thrown bombs and resorted to violence as a last option. Finally, the denial of a coercive authority is the only sincere protest against violence.
Anarchism means order without government and peace without violence, capitalism and government are the very contrast of that. Alexander Berkman once stated Take a good look at it and you will see that government is the greatest invader; more than that, the worst criminal man has ever known of. It fills the world with violence, with fraud and deceit, with oppression and misery (Berkman 27). For example, suppose that someone had cultivated an island and stocked it with all the supplies that were necessary to sustain life and complete comfort. Then some man arrived on their land and tried to claim it as his own by producing a piece of paper that stated he was the owner. They would laugh at his pretensions, and ignore him. But if he had a government standing behind him, he would appeal to it for the protections of his rights, and then police would be sent out to evict them, then give the land to its rightful owner. Accordingly, it has been reported that over 30% of the world s population are unemployed, which is worse than the great depression, but now it is a worldwide phenomenon. With over 30% of the world s population unemployed there is an immense amount of work that must be done just to rebuild society alone. Furthermore, the unemployed people of the world want to work, but our government is such a catastrophic failure that it can not bring together the idle hands to work but is still hailed as a great success. Once declared by Noam Chomsky, The Reagan administration combined free trade bombast with a highly protectionist record to take control of imports (Chomsky 32). As a result, various kinds of control over imports amount to duties, which practically doubled, from about 12% to about 23%, during the Reagan years, through what are sometimes called voluntary arrangements. The latter meaning people do exactly what the government tells them to do or their market is going to be closed off. Howard Zinn has proclaimed that In a highly developed society, the establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going, these people, the employed, the somewhat privileged, are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes, if they stop obeying the system falls (Zinn 23). To sum up, that will only happen when all those who are slightly privileged see that they are expendable; that the establishment, in order to maintain its control, will kill them. In conclusion, the government is the greatest criminal of all for it has killed more, unfairly punished more, deceived more, lied to more, and cheated more, than any other individual.
Under certain conditions a man, be it a democrat or an anarchist may have to resort to violence. Alexander Berkman also stated When a citizen puts on a soldier s uniform, he may have to throw bombs and use violence (Berkman 21). However, will it be said to the latter that citizenship stands for violence? No, it will be said that he had certain conditions that allowed violence. One example is in Shakespeare s play Julius Caesar in which Brutus killed Caesar because he feared that his friend meant to betray the republic and become king. Even so, it was not that Brutus loved Caesar less but that he loved Rome more. Brutus was not an anarchist he was a loyal republican. A third example, in the United States, by individual acts of violence, the following four presidents were killed: Lincoln in 1865, by Southern Democrat John Wilkes Booth, Garfield in 1888, by Republican Charles Jules Guiteau, McKinley in 1901, by Leon Czolgosz, and Kennedy in 1964, by Lee Harvey Oswald. Out of the four only one was an anarchist. Another example is in Germany, where men of the most conservative political persuasions have used such methods in hope of reestablishing the kingdom. For example, Karl Erzberger, Prussian Minister of Finance was killed by a monarchist. Also, Walter Rathenau, minister of foreign affairs was also laid low by a man of the same political party. Alexander Berkman illustrated that Anarchists have no monopoly of political violence (Berkman 75). In explanation, the number of such acts by anarchists compared to those committed by persons of other political persuasions is infinitesimal. Clearly, people of the most conservative opinions also employ violent methods. If persons of directly opposite political views commit similar acts, it is hardly reasonable to say that their ideas are responsible for such acts.
Refusing to comply with the power of a coercive authority is the only bona fide protest opposing violence. First of all, it has been shown that anarchists, democrats, revolutionists, patriots, socialists, reactionaries, religionists, and even devout Christians have committed acts of political violence. People also now know that it could not have been a particular idea or ism that influenced human beings to commit these acts, because the most variegated ideas or isms produce comparable deeds. Like results have like causes, but that cause is not to be found in any convictions, but more accurately found in individual temperament and the general feeling about violence. In the words of Henry David Thoreau It is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be alert and point out its faults and do better than it would have them? (Thoreau 287). All forms of government do not allow any way for its population to remedy against what is wrong. That by itself is great evil. By not allowing people to fix what is wrong, they are oppressing them even more in a sense that they cannot change their homeland for the better. Accordingly, refusal of obedience to any law that the state provides is a protest that is contra-violence. Another idea is that everyone believes in violence, and practices it, however many condemn it in others. In fact, all of the institutions that people support and the entire life of present day society are based on violence. The law and all authority finally rest on force and violence, on punishment and fear of punishment, because the law orders people to do, or not to do certain things, and if the people do not obey it compels them by force. Why, even spiritual authority rest on it, because it is the fear of divine wrath and vengeance that wields its power over them, compels them to obey, and to believe against their own reason. The right to force people is called authority; fear of punishment has been made into obligation and is called obedience. Alexander Berkman once said, You stand for the authority of priest and preacher because you think they can call down the wrath of god upon your head. You submit to the domination of boss, judge, and government because of their power to deprive you (Berkman 26). Consequently, authority rules people s lives; even their existence is a continuous invasion and violation of themselves, a subjection to the thoughts and wills of someone else. Therefore, as they are being violated, they subconsciously avenge themselves by repeating this unto others, to whom they have authority or can exercise compulsion. Berkman also said, Violence is a weapon of ignorance, a weapon of the weak; the strong of heart and brain need no violence for they are irresistible in their consciousness of being right (Berkman 26). Anarchism is the ideal of a society without force and compulsion, where all are equal, and live in freedom peace and harmony. But, some say that only angels are fit for it; let us see then if we can grow the wings.
Anarchism is the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful as well as unnecessary. Primarily, life can be achieved without government. Second, if government were abolished life would be better for all. In the last place, private ownership would have to be abolished along with government, which would intern lead to voluntary communism, or communist anarchism.
A life based on voluntary cooperation and free association that is capable without the unnecessary government is possible. For example, if a man were to be asked whether he needs government his answer would be that he does not need it but others do. But if he was to ask one of those others if he needs government he would reply identically to the last mentioned, for this reason anarchy is a possibility. Why does man believe he can be decent without the gun of the government watching him and that it is only needed for the others? Secondly, the government does not provide anything that is necessary to sustain life. It does not feed man, clothe man, shelter man, help man work, and help man play, if man is sick does he call a doctor or the governor? Now, consider a humans daily life and it will be found that the only part government plays is interfering with peoples affairs. Government only forces people to pay a tax, and support it whether they want to or not, it makes them don a uniform and join the army. In addition, it invades their personal life, orders them about, and treats them as it pleases. It tells people what to believe or else they will be punished, it directs them what to eat and drink and then punishes them for disobeying. Finally, the government commands people and dominates every step they try to take in their lives, It treats them as an irresponsible child who needs the strong hand of a guardian to survive, but if they disobey, it holds them, its children, responsible. To conclude, the government makes humans earn their livelihood, and makes it so that they have no time left to live or enjoy life. They are lucky if they have some source of support, a job, which helps them maintain their so called life, for many that is not the case. Obviously, life is sustainable without a government to regulate and destroy peoples lives.
If today s governments were terminated, there would be peace without violence; not destruction and chaos like so many believe. To begin with, it is said, people would rob and murder each other if there was no government or law. If people would really do that, what would be their reasoning? Thus, crimes would only happen for reasons, and maybe if they were to examine those reasons they could find a cure for them. First, is it not true that with government people rob and murder, because government does not secure them in their rightful possessions, but rather takes them away for the benefit of those (government and rich) who have no right to them. Emma Goldman has stated that crime is not but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable (Goldman 87). This can be rectified under anarchism, because it allows the people to do what they please. In addition, if man were to wake tomorrow with no government would his first reaction be to go out a kill another man. No, that is nonsense, chances are that he would get busy rearranging his life under the new conditions. Also, it is like Alexander Berkman put it certain other crimes will still persist for some time, such as those resulting from jealousy, passion, and from the spirit of coercion and violence which dominates the world today. But these, the offspring off authority and possession, will also gradually disappear under some conditions with the passing away of the atmosphere that cultivated them (Berkman 32). Thus, explaining that the crimes that sprung from government will slowly vanish while the system itself does. The latter explanations are of sane men; the insane should be cared for by the physicians and placed in hospitals for treatment of their illnesses. Furthermore, the main purpose of the government and laws are to keep most of mankind under control so that it can be milked efficiently, like a herd of cows, for the profit of the government. For instance, most people are able to avoid harming others and resolve their disputes without resorting to the authorities and having to pay for services, with the exception of a few anti-social people, which should be treated as a type of insanity. Similarly, many disputes are already resolved through arbitration and mediation, outside of the courts and the legal system, which would help eliminate the necessity of the authorities. Next, if allowed, to people will always act to protect themselves from violent criminals. This is an involuntary reflex, like raising your hand to deflect a blow. In an anarchistic community the members would look out for each other, and there would be no need for the police. Under certain conditions the amount of crime should drop sharply, due to the lack of corrupt police and laws. Lastly, they could have a truly volunteer and community controlled military, concerned strictly with defending their liberty and not with imposing their will on people in foreign countries. We would soon find the world a less dangerous place when other societies no longer fear being attacked by others governments and when they stop exporting arms for profit. Obviously, the absence of government does not mean the absence of organization; it means the absence of coercion.
Private ownership would have to go along with the government in order to sustain a utopian society. First, the middle classes are almost as uncertain of their existence as the workers are. They are dependent upon the good will of the manufacturer and wholesaler, of the large combines of industry and capital, and they are always in danger of bankruptcy. Under the present day system of anarchy nobody would have much to lose, because under the latter everyone s life and comfort would be assured by the beliefs of certain ideals. There would be no wages that would be given to people for either the type of work they do or the amount of time they work, but rather people would trade skills. For example, a seamstress could trade clothing to a fisherman in exchange for his fish. They are exchanging each other s skills rather than making money and having to buy commodities. With the abolition of private ownership everyone would a have a full and unhindered opportunity to live and enjoy his life to utmost of his capacity. Add to this the consciousness of peace and harmony and the feeling that comes with freedom from financial or material worries. Also, the realization that they are in a friendly world with no envy or business rivalry to disturb their minds, in a world of brothers and an atmosphere of liberty and general welfare. Imagine the possibilities and wonderful opportunities that would arise from communist anarchism. For instance, the scientist could fully devote himself to his studies without being concerned for his daily bread, or how the inventor would have all the labs and workshops at his disposal. This would greatly benefit humanity with new discoveries and inventions that could increase the quality of living. The next point is that communist anarchism is based on the understanding of this incontrovertible truth. It is founded on the principle of non-invasiveness and non-coercion; in other words, in liberty and opportunity. Life on such a basis fully satisfies the demands of justice. People are to be entirely free, and everybody else is to enjoy equal liberty, which means that no one has a right to compel or force on another, for coercion of any kind is interference with their liberty. Similarly, equal opportunity is a heritage of all. Monopoly and the private ownership of the means of existence are therefore eliminated as an abridgement of the equal opportunity of all. Therefore, monopoly of land, private ownership of the machinery of production, distribution, and communication can therefore not be tolerated under anarchy. Opportunity to use what everyone needs in order to live must be free to all. But there is still the question of the lazy man. Many ask what will be done with a person who will not work, the answer to that is simple. First of all, laziness can be described as the right person in the wrong place. If the jobs available to that person do not interest him he won t have any incentive, but under anarchy he will be allowed to do whatever he chooses, which will most likely be something of pleasure to him, but can also be helpful to another. In that sense the lazy man will not be a problem, because he is able to do something that interests him. In a nutshell, then, the meaning of communist anarchism is this: the abolition of government, of coercive authority and all its agencies, and joint ownership. Which means free and equal participation in the general work and welfare.
Anarchy compared to other forms of government is much harder to achieve but is still possible. First of all, an examination of the governmental roles that take part in people s lives is necessary. Second, is the fact that mans wants and inclinations make for association and mutual effort. Last, is there are many ideas and agreements that must take place in order to achieve such a stateless society.
The government s roles in people s everyday lives are those of interference and coercion only. Pierre Joseph Proudhon said, to be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law drive, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censored, commanded, by creatures who neither have the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality (Proudhon 143). Furthermore, besides all these injustices that the government applies to all its citizens, it does not help them live. In order to sustain life they do not need the government, it does not feed them, nurture them, shelter them, warm them, love them, help them or do anything to keep them alive. Is it not peculiar that most people imagine we could not do without government, when in fact their real life has no connection with it what so ever, no need of it, and is only interfered with where law and government step in. But many still ask if man could have that without law and government. In reality law and order is really the worst disorder. What little peace people do have is due to the commonsense of the joint efforts of the people, mostly in spite of the government. Do people need government to tell them not to step in front of a moving vehicle? Does man need government to order them not to jump off the empire state building? No, of course not, the government is trying to act like a mind for all. We are being treated as if we were incapable of making decisions that are normally common sense. Rudolph Rocker has proclaimed, that the ever growing power of the soulless political bureaucracy which supervises and safeguards the life of man from the cradle to the grave is putting ever greater obstacles in the way of the solidaric co-operation of human beings and crushing out every possibility of new development (Sale 49). This states that the government, which is supposed to help people in their lives, is making it harder for them to enjoy their life, and not letting any new ideas grow. The government does not protect people against crime; it also upholds conditions, which make for crime. In conclusion, the government of today does not do what was intended rather it only controls people and permits them to do certain things and does not allow them to do others. It has no real role in the life of a human being, it is very possible for people to live together without it, and the abolition of government would make life more enjoyable.
Man s wants and inclinations make for association and mutual effort, which is a key part in an anarchist community. Man is a social being, and he cannot exist alone, he lives in communities or societies. Mutual needs and common interests result in certain arrangements to afford us security and comfort. Such co-working is free, voluntary; it needs no compulsion by any government. For example, people join a sporting club or a singing society because their inclinations lie that way, and they cooperate with the other members without anyone coercing them. The man of science, the writer, the artist, the inventors, seeks their own kind of mutual work. Their impulses and needs are their best urge; the interference of any government or authority can only hinder their efforts. All through life people will find that needs and inclinations of people make for association, for mutual protection and help. That is the difference between managing things and governing men, between doing something from free choice and being compelled. It is the difference between liberty and constraint, between anarchism and government, because anarchism means voluntary co-operation instead of forced participation. It means harmony and order in a place of interference and disorder.
Man will associate with others in order to better the quality of life.
In order for anarchism to work these following ideas and beliefs must be organized and arranged. First, in order for this to happen the destruction of existing conditions are to be destroyed. These conditions are not to be destroyed by breaking and smashing. For example, setting a fire to the White House will not destroy government. To think of revolution in terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In practical application such a conception is bound to lead to disastrous results. Mikhail Bakunin said, destruction means construction (Goldman 48). To destroy a false belief is indeed most constructive work. Revolution is not destruction but construction. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized, and unless man clearly realizes it, revolution will remain only destructive and always a failure. Naturally revolution is accompanied by violence, but it might as well be said that building a new house in place of an old one is destructive, because first the old house has to be torn down. Revolution is the culminating point of a certain evolutionary process, it is a violent upheaval. It is the rolling up of sleeves preparatory to starting the actual work. Indeed, consider what the social revolution is to do, what it is to accomplish, and then it will perceived that it comes not to destroy but to build. The wealth of the rich is not to be destroyed but to be shared for the entire society to enjoy. The land, fields, mines, roads, factories, mills, and shops are not to be destroyed but be to be made useful to the entire people. Social revolution is to take over things for the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganize conditions for public welfare. The aim of revolution is to reconstruct and rebuild. It is for this that preparation is needed, because the social revolutionary is not the Biblical Messiah who is to accomplish his mission by simple edict or order. Revolution works with the hands and brains of men. And these have to understand the objects of the revolution so as to be able to carry them out. They will have to know what people want and how to achieve it. First, nothing will arrange itself man has to arrange according to his attitude and understanding of things. It must be learned to think differently about government and authority, for as long as people think and act as they do today, there will be intolerance, persecution, and oppression, even when organized government is abolished. It must be learned to respect the humanity of our fellow man, not to invade or coerce him, to consider his liberty as sacred as everyone does to their own. Also, to respect his freedom and his personality, to understand that the cure for the evils of liberty is more liberty, that liberty is the mother of order. Furthermore, it must be learned that equality means equal opportunity that monopoly is the denial of it and that only brotherhood secures equality. This can only be learned by freeing ourselves from the false idea of capitalism and of property, of mine and thine, of the narrow conception of ownership. By learning this people shall grow into the spirit of true liberty and solidarity, and know that free association is the soul of every achievement. Sure this is a slow process, but is it better to build a new house quickly and poorly and have it break down, rather than do it efficiently, even if it requires longer and harder work.
Anarchism must take place to eradicate any oppression of the government, which is harmful, but is still easily achieved through a long process. Peter Kroptkin described anarchy as the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government. Harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption. Also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being (Kroptkin 191). The basic tenet of anarchism is that authority is not only unnecessary, but is inherently detrimental to the maximization of human potential. Anarchists generally believe that human beings are capable of managing their own affairs on the basis of creativity, cooperation, and mutual respect. It is believed that power is inherently corrupting, and that authorities are inevitably more concerned with self-perpetuation and increasing their own power that they are with doing what is best for their constituents. It is now time for the people to grow the wings so all humanity can live more like angels.