Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy Author(s): Thomas G.

Weiss Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1975), pp. 1-17 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/422897 . Accessed: 09/03/2011 23:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace Research.

http://www.jstor.org

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy*


THOMAS G. WEISS Research Associate (United Nations Institute for Training and Research)

Introduction The human species has recently begun to reexamine the widespread belief that there exists an ever-increasing capacity to bend favorably the universe in its favor. This reexamination has been stimulated by the recognition that certain world problems - individually or in synergistic combination may prove lethal. A number of scholars, students, and activists have applied the label 'world order'1 to a systemic and futureoriented method of inquiry into interrelationships among five of these problems: war and violence, poverty, injustice, ecological instability, and individual alienation. The investigator is asked to clarify values, describe the present world, project the likely future, posit alternative visions of the world system, and formulate a transitional strategy to a better world. In contrast to the conventional methodologies of international relations,2 the purpose of such an approach is to begin worldwide discussions of policy-recommendations that can mobilize large numbers of concerned persons to transform the global political system by the end of this century. The crucial step in any process that leads to purposive societal change is agreement upon the essential agenda for improving the quality of life. In effect, we are here speaking of a process of global value clarification. The discussion of values is important since norms determine what elements of the present and projected world system are to be evaluated, what kind of alternative institutions are to be initiated, and what type of action strategy is relevant. The research trend toward specifying val-

ues and working for a particular vision has been characterized, if somewhat prematurely, as the 'twilight of the value-free era.'3 Since values reflect cultural and class contexts, great effort must be made - especially in a process devoted to reaching consensus at the global level - not to exaggerate the values of a dominant culture.4 While the dominance of Western, industrialized values has been attacked by the poor, non-industrialized world, Western peace researchers should not be overly defensive about value insights that are particular to the West. One such alternative, and potentially fruitful, source of insight is the tradition of philosophical anarchism. Although not normally taken seriously by peace researchers, this school of Western progressive literature hlias concerns that overlap with those of world order in important ways. In fact, the dovetailing of these two approaches could provide an important response to what may be the crucial political question in the last quarter of this century: how can humankind take the drastic institutional steps necessary to maintain existence while simultaneously insuring an acceptable quality of life for individuals? While the counterculture of the late 1960's appears to be dying, the concern of many of its advocates with the dilemma involved in reconciling autonomy and authority has a strong anarchist tone and remains a strikingly pertinent issue for peace research.5 For the maintenance of life on this planet, many scholars and decision-makers argue that global authority and institutions are necessary and desirable. While several such global designs are ingenious and would be

Thomas G. Weiss or by 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, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.6

interesting to discuss, I will not examine them at this time. The question of how to maintain life is becoming the preoccupation of many researchers. My primary concern here is to investigate the second half of the original question. The anarchist insistence upon the possibility of harmonizing individual freedom and communal responsibility provides an important caution for 'global' thinkers. An alternative world system need not and should not represent 'friendly fascism.' The motivation for changing the present world results from a dissatisfaction with the performances of national governments that not only fail to respond to many human problems, but are exploitative and oppressive. The end-product of such a dissatisfaction must not be a larger version of the same phenomenon. One antidote is the integration of an overriding concern with the abuses of political authority in their most extreme form, philosophical anarchism. This essay reflects the fact that under the pressure to think about global crises, too little consideration is being given to the cost and benefits of various global measures in terms of individual and local autonomy. The central hypothesis is that the tradition of philosophical anarchism provides peace researchers scrutinizing global problems with a crucial perspective. This literature is heuristically useful in value clarification, and also in formulating action strategies. Such a focus is essential for the realization of a world in which human existence is guaranteed and meaningful. The anarchist tradition is not - as one might think from a superficial understanding of the thrust of its conincompatible with the need for cerns some form of global organization. The 'Anarchist Prince', Peter Kropotkin, defined 'anarchism' in the 1905 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as:

...

the name given to a principle or theory of

life and conduct under which a society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law,

Such a definition may appear of limited relevance to the pressing problems of a world verging on disorder. One would be justifiably upset with the stereotype of the wildeyed, bomb-throwing anarchist as part of a desirable solution to the urgent threats to human survival. However, this is not philosophical anarchism. This essay attempts to rectify the widespread images about anarchism that arise from a distorted perception of the thrust of its concerns.7 The original Greek word 'anarchos' (from av and apxv2, contrary to authority) can be employed in a general context to signify a condition of total disorder and unruliness, or the more positive one of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the preservation of order within a just and freely-associated society. Most observers emphasize the dangers of disorder or the infeasibility of decentralized communities in a complex world. Others see a limited historical value to anarchism; but in such cases the theory is usually considered inappropriate for the modern age, and anarchists are relegated to the intellectual equivalent of Trotsky's 'dustbin of history.'8 I, on the other hand, choose to emphasize the applicability of philosophical anarchism because of its concern with the sanctity of the individual within the context of responsibility to the community, and the value of utopian speculation. The emphasis upon the individual - autonomous yet responsible for other community members - raises an important caveat for peace researchers. If human autonomy is a priority, then responsibility for oneself and community the immediate surroundings (however defined) can never be completely sacrificed to some grandiose institutional

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy design. Robert Paul Wolff has harshly posed this problem:

If autonomy and authority are genuinely incompatible, only two courses are open to us. Either we must embrace philosophical anarchism and treat all governments as non-legitimate bodies whose commands must be judged and evaluated in each instance before they are obeyed; or else. we must give up as quixotic the pursuit of autonomy in the political realm (by an implicit promise) to whatever form of government appears most just and beneficient at the moment.9

Wolff is consistent in his argument and rejects institutions completely. This author's interpretation of the data about the future needs of this planet lead him, however hesitatingly, to accept some form of institutional guidance. I cannot, nonetheless, ignore the need for individual autonomy, and therefore am pushed to determine the precise necessity for and viability of institutions. While skepticism of certain institutions is evident in Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, such a concern assumes paramount importance after reading the literature of philosophical anarchists, for whom a rejection of illegitimate authority is the most crucial of considerations. An integration of anarchist concerns with those about an endangered planet lead me to view institutions as legitimate, but only after they have justified themselves by their performance, and individuals have assented to their presence. Thus, philosophical anarchism seems more relevant as a general attitude, or action theory, than as a comprehensive and totally consistent world view. I can make only very limited claims for the immediate plausibility of the anarchist rejection of institutions, but concentrate instead on some more general principles in this tradition that are indeed appropriate for the formulation of plans and strategies for the creation of a more humane global political system. The second quality of philosophical anar-

chism to be singled out is its admittedly utopian character. All too frequently a radical vision of a better world is rejected because of its seemingly unrealistic nature.10 Utopian visions, like the anarchist one, are necessary to liberate the imagination of individuals who have been trained only to consider 'things as they are.' Furthermore, there is a tangible value in utopian visions that do not involve the depiction of the exact details of tomorrow's world. The future is not a definite event or state, but rather a process. Values emphasized in today's discussions and visions become tomorrow's realities. Any measure of autonomy present in a future world order will not simply appear, but rather be in part a function of today's 'dreaming'. The anarchist writings examined here are those of Pierre Proudhoun, Michael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Murray Bookchin.'l The essay proceeds in two parts. First, I relate some relationships between anarchist ideas and the value clarification process necessary to describe and prescribe alternatives to the present global political system. Second, I discuss the significance of the anarchist tradition for developing a relevant strategy of social change. Before beginning, however, three caveats are necessary. First, this essay should not be read as a study of philosophical anarchism written by an intellectual historian. Rather it should be viewed as an interpretation of the often-ignored anarchist tradition by a political scientist who has been looking in vain in his own work - and in the literature of peace research more generally - for a manner to include the importance of individualism in the litany of human problems. Second, the following discussion only draws upon the sources of 'left-wing' anarchism. Since my own concern with global problems stems from a profound dissatisfaction with the egoism and amorality of policy-making within the existing international system, 'right-wing' anarchism - more labeled 'individualist-libertarian' neutrally hardly seems suitable as a potential

Thomas G. Weiss rejecting existing values and demanding fundamental structural changes, Kropotkin's advice is meaningful for scholars and activists seeking to change the extant world order. Here the central 'liberal' conception, that the global political system can be made sufficiently humane by manipulating institutional output within the existing scheme of values, has a hollow ring. Equally implausible is the 'revolutionary' assumption that with a change in roles for masters and slaves the planet will automatically operate more humanely. In looking for an insight into positive and lasting change, the utopian-anarchist contention that 'the ship won't fly'17 (a complete rejection of present values and their institutionalization) appears most appropriate. With an emphasis upon radical systemic change, anarchist ideas provide both insight into and support for six values whose operational meaning and importance need to be evaluated by further research: (1) rejection of illegitimate authority; (2) ecological consciousness; (3) anti-statism; (4) the political economy of freedom; (5) the importance of life styles; (6) the dynamics of cooperation. The anarchist tradition rejects all illegitimate authority and emphasizes maximum participation in decision-making processes. Clearly then, political and class elites must be replaced, although there is a range of opinion about religions ones. Less obvious, but equally important, is the characteristic anarchist reaction to the scientific revolution and scientism in general: negative and anti-technocratic. Bakunin, for example, consistently warned that the organic structures so necessary for healthy society would atrophy with artificial authority, or the concentration of power in the minority hands of 'experts' - be they specialists, scientists, or administrators. At the outset of the Darwinian revolution, Bakunin was already apprehensive about the potential abuses by a technocratic elite. Valid scientific knowledge was not rejected but a healthy skepticism was present that recognized the potential dangers that have now become realities.19

source for improving the future. My emphasis will thus be upon the mutualist, collectivist and anarcho-communist schools of thought that seek to synthesize individual autonomy and communitarian responsibility.12 A free association of hardy capitalists - drawn together by a respect for each other's Nietzchean ruthlessness - is not considered a useful model for change in the international system.13 Finally, the following discussion should be read as an attempt at synthesis. Those elements from the anarchist heritage most relevant for creating an alternative world have been emphasized. While I have not concealed conflict among anarchists themselves, I do not attempt to highlight minor contradictions to the principles that I cite. Anarchism, like all 'isms', is not monolithic. However, at this time there is a defenite need to accentuate its potential contribution to peace research, instead of summarily dismissing its relevance because of obvious weaknesses.

The anarchist heritage and global value clarification In a sense, the process of creating a new global political system can be viewed as an effort to crystallize a consensus about a rudimentary planetary ethic. Threats to human dignity and global survival cannot be overcome within a climate of complete moral relativism. Although it is chimerical to hope for universal consensus,14 it is sensible to begin world-wide discussions aimed at developing a minimum agreement on those values necessary to sustain existence and eliminate the vilest forms of human suffering.15

A just world demands nothing less than basic and radical systemic change. Kropotkin argued that human reactions are typically inadequate in securing such change: 'Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people
begin by demanding a law to alter it.'16 In

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy The solution which arises from this heritage is to make knowledge widely available, so that no mysterious control mechanisms exist and some elements of individual and community control can be preserved. While reasonable persons may disagree about the feasibility of such a measure, the desire to avoid the imposition of technocratic, topdown directives is a sensitive insight. Persons seriously proposing planetary guidance mechanisms must take seriously Bakunin's words: 'We neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books concocted by ourselves.'20 Such an anti-technocratic concern is relevant for those who contend that human beings are superior to their social theories. For the same reason that anarchists opposed the Comtean positivists of the 19th Century, peace researchers must honestly confront benign Skinnerian manipulation. Scientific laws governing inanimate objects cannot be directly applied to the behavior of living beings who have the need and faculty of choice to modify their conduct as a situation demands.21 A second anarchist value important for understanding the present and constructing a viable future is ecological consciousness. Simpler consumption levels will be important for human survival and are worthwhile in themselves.22 The first person to call himself an anarchist, Pierre Prodhoun, actively pursued a simple life. The anarcho-pacifist novelist Leo Tolstoy went so far as to reject all industrial progress. Such thinkers were concerned not with the quantity of consumption, but only with providing sufficient resources to allow individuals to realize their inherent creative potential. A contemporary anarchist, Murray Bookchin, has drawn upon these roots. He applies them to the recent concern with the deteriorating quality of the environment and the necessity for a revolution in values to 'create an ecological society, with new technologies and eco-communities, or humanity and the natural world as we know it today will perish.' He articulates the ideology of ecology as the balance of

5i

nature (human beings included), or the harmonization of human life with natural forces and limitations. He argues that by rejecting the values of the consumer society, anarcism becomes a potent force. 'What is most significant about ecology is its ability to convert this often nihilistic rejection of the status quo into an emphatic affirmation of life - indeed, into a reconstructive credo for a humanistic society.'23 Such a concern clearly demonstrates the radical structural change perspective of anarchists, for nature is simply beyond co-optation: the atmosphere, the waterways, the soil, and the ecology required for human survival are not salvageable by reforms, concessions, or modifications. Bookchin is overly optimistic in his faith in technological advance, and understimates the physical limitations of the planet.24 However, his updated anarchist ecology is particularly relevant for efforts to improve the quality of the physical environment for two reasons. The first is his discussion of the negative psychological component of power. Inherent in the use of power is the debilitating psychology of domination and here one could just as easily speak of man's power over man or over woman, as of man's power over nature. Such a mentality has destructive, corruptive effects on both the wielder and the victim. Second, Bookchin updates the normative pursuit of communities of manageable size. While small, decentralized communities had formerly been desirable, the present demands of environmental balance make smaller units absolutely
essential.52

The third anarchist idea of import for value clarification is its militantly anti-statist position. Anarchists have uniformly argued that nation states are not only the product or reflexion of an oppressive economic system, but also central to the perpetuation of social, political, and ecological inequality. The effort to reorient mainstream thinking in international politics away from an acceptance of national self-interest as the predominant basis for policy-making reflects a

Thomas G. Weiss tects its own citizens only; it recognizes human rights, humanity, civilization within its own confines alone. Since it recognizes no rights outside itself, it logically arrogates to itself the right to exercise the most ferocious inhumanity toward all foreign populations, which it can plunder, exterminate, or enslave at will.28 International lawyers might argue that such a view is dangerous for persons interested in moving toward global organizations, because the existing customary and codified international law is based on state sovereignty. Nevertheless, Bakunin's argument appears more relevant because what is gradually being recognized is the basic incompatibility between a more peaceful and just world and the system of nation states: 'It [international law] could never exist in a meaningful and realistic way without undermining to its foundations the very principle of the absolute sovereignty of the State.'29 The fourth value insight concerns the realities of freedom. 'Freedom' is a hollow political concept if discussed without an accompanying economic analysis. Philosophical anarchism has long been preoccupied with radical redistributions of economic wealth. Kropotkin remarked, for instance: 'The most powerful development of individcan only be produced when the uality... first needs of food and shelter are satisfied.'30 A knowledge of the potential and actual abuses of economic power compels one to criticize right-wing anarchists as well as hard-line capitalists. Appropriate are the words of Bakunin that echo those of Aristotle or Abraham Maslow: 'Man, in order to think, to feel freely, to become a man, must be free from worry about his material
sustenance.'31

similar perspective.26 The main trend of modern times is centralization. Scientific technological, and economic developments have created nations out of formerly isolated areas. Anarchists protested vehemently against this process on behalf of communities and individuals. Their protests put them at odds with dominant historical trends and perhaps still appear bizarre.27 However, other observers have recently picked-up on this theme to argue against the inequality as well as the homogenization and uniformity demanded by modern industrial growth. In addition, the economic and environmental interdependence of 'spaceship earth' has begun to erode the primary role - increasingly in theory if not yet completely in decisionof individual nation making practice states. In a sense, many of the recommendations within the peace research community to continue centralization to the global level may seem to contradict the anarchist anti-statist position. However, this is the case only if the functions of global institutions are built upon the subjugation of individuals - either those within existing states or citizens of other polities in a dependent relationship. If, on the other hand, the concern with world organizations reflects a desire to institutionalize equal opportunity for the potential self-development of all the globe's individuals, then anarchist ideals would be more closely approached than in the present system. In short, the focus away from states toward a standard embodying the common fate of humankind can overlap with the anarchists' humanistic concern with eliminating the abuses of state power. The following argument by Bakunin resembles closely those made more recently against the exploitative nature of the state system: The State, therefore, is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the conventional solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. It pro-

A new world political system, capable of mobilizing the vast majority of humankind to support it, must begin from this basic insight: every individual endowed with life must have access to the necessary facilities for maximum self-development. Peace researchers would be hard pressed to exaggerate the importance of Bakunin's expression: 'We are convinced that liberty without so-

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy cialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.'32 Theodore Roszak has articulated the modern equivalent of the fifth anarchist value relevant for those interested in humane world policy: 'Whatever else we must do to supplant the technocracy, we must, indispensably, throw off the psychic style from which it draws its strength.'33 The counterculture's emphasis on alternative life-styles and organic communities reflects the anarchist conviction that authoritarian and manipulative institutions and personal relationships negate the essence of humanity. Hence if the present system is to be replaced, such institutions and relationships must be abolished at all levels. The commitment throughout anarchist literature to maximum feasible participation and to equality and respect for the individual is the sine qua non of substantial change. Although experiments in alternative living situations are not always successful, they are important attempts to actualize a proposed revolution in values. The significance of 'direct action' - which aims immediately to dissolve the existing order through alternative institutions that either prepare for an immediate social revolution, or guarantee that once it has begun it will not proceed in an authoritarian manner - is that the important links between means and ends are not ignored. For the anarchist as well as the serious student of altered global politics, life-style is an important value position: It [the movement] must try to live the revolution in all its totality, not only participate in it... In seeking to change society, the revolutionist cannot avoid changes in himself that demand the reconquest of his own being... The revolutionist must try to reflect the conditions of the society he is trying to achieve - at least to the degree that this is possible today... There can be no separation of the revolutionary profession from the revolutionary goal.34 The last value to be discussed is the dynamic of cooperation. Anarchists emphasize collective effort, and not competition or

isolated calculations of self-interest. Kropotkin stated this position in a unique fashion. He utilized his natural science training to argue that the central dynamic of evolution had been cooperation within tightly interdependent systems: It is impossible to conceive a society in which the affairs of any one of its members would not concern many other members, if not all: still less a society in which a continual contact between its members would not have established an interest of every one towards all others, which would render it impossible to act without thinking of the effects which our actions may have on others.35 One future research task should be to see to what extent the preference for global institutions and the 'mutual aid' thesis of Kropotkin are congruent. Despite the welldocumented instances of exploitation and structural violence, it is worth noting that the Darwinian struggle is primarily a struggle against adverse external conditions rather than an internal conflict between members of the same species. While one may not support the position that cooperation and mutual aid are a universal law of nature, it is nonetheless true that for any example of conflict and rivalry, a counter example of altruism or reciprocal assistance can be found. In a more peaceful and just world, the potential for conflict and cooperation will also exist. Within such an imperfect world, it will be necessary seriously to consider the possibility for collective action and to maximize the potential for cooperation while minimizing that for competition and conflict. Anarchists have rebelled against the dominant trends of contemporary national, economic, and social organization. Nonetheless, the previous summary suggests that their position is relevant for scholars and activists working to alter the extant world order. Their values resemble those of many responsible and houghtful persons interested in prescriptive world policy. It is important to note in closing this section that anarchists have not been the sole supporters of the six value positions just outlined. Political philos-

Thomas G. Weiss comes a very important tool in overthrowing oppressive structures. The anarchists realize that by providing an increasing exposure to their values in the world, their vision itself becomes a powerful force in advancing the human condition. As such, anarchists provide a tactical insight for other social change movements by insisting that there must be a consistency between day-to-day behavior and ultimate principles.37 Counter institutions are established to give witness to the feasibility of theoretical values, as well as to provide a buffer between the incipient new order and the oppressive processes that characterize the present one. Bookchin's overly-optimistic views about the techological possibilities for removing drudgery and material insecurity have already been criticized. However, his perspective is important with respect to the conviction that the future is alterable through human effort. He offers a valuable alternative to technological Luddites38 who do not realize the necessity of mobilizing human talents to clothe, house, and feed the minimum of 6.5 billion persons living in the year 2000. In other words, it is time for humans to realize the potential for an improved quality of life for all the world's peoples, and take creative steps - technological and otherwise - to foster progressive change. A second source of strategic and tactical insight is the recruitment practices for a social change movement. For an anarchist, the struggle to build a viable movement for local and global social justice involves eclectic and not restrictive groupings of people. As one observer has noted: 'At the core of collectivist anarchism lies the consideration that the State claims as its victim society as a whole, the exploited mass as a whole, and not just any particular class.'39 For anarchists, the potential contribution of a person is not based upon his or her economic, cultural, racial, or national origin, but by this person's level of disaffection with the existing or projected social order. Bakunin's prophetic vision of an all-encompassing struggle, in contrast to Marx's

ophers of all persuasions have been concerned with many of these to some extent. However, it is only within the tradition of philosophical anarchism that the dangers of authority are deemed so nefarious as to necessitate taking the extreme position on each of the values. The present world demonstrates that many of their worst fears are justified. The anarchist desire to harmonize individual freedom and responsibility to the (global and local) community must be taken more seriously within peace research. Toward a relevant strategy for social change: The relevance of the anarchist heritage A workable design for a more just world rests not only upon global value clarification and consensus formation, but also upon strategies for social change in the desired direction. Within this context, anarchist doctrine and practice constitute an inspirational source under four categories: (1) control over the future; (2) recruitment practices for social change movements; (3) the possibility of immediate, drastic change; and (4) flexibility in vision and action. First, by pursuing a vision that is clearly utopian, anarchists do not resign themselves to fate. They conduct their lives according to the belief that humankind has significant control over the future. This distinguishes their tactics not only from conservative and liberal defenders of the existing system, but also from other revolutionary actors. Thus, Bakunin was not willing to surrender to the status quo or to sit back and wait indefinitely for the correct historical conditions to unfold. Chances are good that if humankind survives the worldwide crises now threatening, that it will demonstrate a similar attitude and regain control over its own destiny. In this case, 'no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world,'36 but rather individuals, actively striving to improve their vision of what is possible as well as the actual conditions of human existence. If the human condition is indeed capable of being changed, consciousness of the possibility of change itself be-

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy more narrowly conceived one between proletariat and bourgeoisie, is an important historical example.40 Bakunin actively sought and mobilized the alienated elements of society - peasants, students, intellectuals that Marx scorned. Viable social change movements in the future will draw heavily upon a similar openness because 'terms like "classes" and "class struggle", conceived of almost entirely as economic categories and relations are too one-sided to express the universalization of the struggle.'41 Like anarchism, a movement toward just global authority should draw upon the strength of all alienated or disaffected pesons to participate in shaping the future. The student, the businesswoman, the peasant, the blue collar worker, the intellectual, and the housewife are all important. In short, no group can be dismissed as a fringe element to be ignored by the historian or activist because they are primitive, naive, or irrational. Rather, the disaffected members of global society are the very basis of social change. Third, anarchists combine their confidence in mobilizing heterogeneous groupings of people and in the possibility of human improvement, with a belief in the possibility of a sudden and complete transformation of society. Within this context, the view that forces for change will emerge gradually in the fullness of time is rejected,42 as is the view that it may be temporarily necessary for a movement for a new society to utilize methods antithetical to the movement's humanist character. While the belief in the immediate possibility of the 'millennium'43 has sometimes resulted in fanatic or excessive reactions by anarchists, a more moderate stance is hardly appropriate for the end of this century. One need not be fatalistic or a sayer of doomsday to realize that trends in arms proliferation, pollution, population, poverty, social injustice, and societal malaise threaten individually, or in combination, human survival. Solutions involving gradualism or rationalization of authoritarian, top-down expedients would be fatal. Nothing less than rapid and drastic social

transformations can salvage the situation, and guarantee that a new world order would not fall prey to the ills of past revolutions or social upheavals. The emphasis on immediacy and completeness reflects the anarchist conviction that means profoundly affect ends. One could not improve upon this statement by Emma Goldman: There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. This conception is a potent menace to social regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical... Psychologically and socially the means necessarily influence and alter the aims. The whole history of man is continuous proof of the maxim that to divest one's methods of ethical concepts means to sink into the depths of utter demoralization.44 More specifically, the organization of a movement for global social change and the initial attempts at world community building should closely resemble the type of social organization that the movement's 'new' values claim is ultimately necessary and desirable, demonstrating their contemporary feasibility. Lastly, the emphasis upon flexibility in the anarchist method of constructing alternatives is extremely relevant for further consideration by peace researchers. While anarchists have been severely criticized for their lack of attention to behavioral detail, their position results partially because of a conscious, built-in emphasis upon adaptability. By not projecting the image of an ideal world in minute detail, anarchists accept the view that society, especially after any social revolution, will never cease growing and changing. Kropotkin made an explicit commitment to intellectual suppleness as a tactical procedure: Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended)

10

Thomas G. Weiss bases for determining the global negative income tax, and should they differ from region to region? If direct action is important, how can international relations be redefined to include varying life styles? If cooperation is an important dynamic in human evolution, what new kinds of alternative production arrangements and pay-offs could maximize collective effort within a factory? a region? the globe? If there is a vast technological capacity to control the future, what limitations are necessary to protect individual rights against biological or chemical manipulation? If eclectic recruitment for a world social change movement is valuable, what are the relative advantages of building upon existing international institutions vs. transnational youth movements? If drastic change is an immediate possibility, what would be the fairest allocation of existing world resources and how could a redistribution be administered? If one is committed to flexibility, what safeguards are necessary to insure that structure that is a decision-making elected or appointed can later be staffed through a universal lottery?

result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitude of forces and influences.45 Given the unknowns of a future brought about by changing attitudes or accelerating rates of change, a similar commitment to flexibility appears wise for persons interested in studying or building a more just world. (5)

(6)

Conclusion This investigation into the heritage of philosophical anarchism resulted from confronting the dilemma that some form of global institutions would be necessary to maintain human existence, while the quality of life is often conceived in terms of decentralized communities, presumably at the opposite pole from world institutions. I have argued that it is important to integrate both the value and strategic insights of philosophical anarchism into peace research. The infusion of anarchist concerns into peace research about an alternative world order would necessitate even more alterations in what is considered to be the legitimate substance of international politics. It is interesting to list some of the research questions that might result from taking seriously the ten categories of insights from philosophical anarchism: (1) If all illegitimate authority is rejected, what is the potential for alternative family and community groupings that utilize creatively the unrest of women and children? (2) If an ecological consciousness is desirable, can 'soft' technology (e.g., solar energy or washing machines powered by windmills) adequately meet human needs or are radically different values necessary? (3) If an anti-statist perspective is adopted, what new kinds of problems arise if all boundaries are eliminated? (4) If individual freedom is partially an economic problem, what are the data

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

The impression that results from this inquiry is not that organization and structure are unimportant; rather, that they are. However, one must ask, 'Organization by whom and for what purpose?' As Murray Bookchin remarked: The real question at issue is not organization
versus non-organization, but rather what kind of organization the anarcho-communists try to establish. What the different kinds of anarchocommunist organizations have in common is organic developments from below, not bodies enAs much gineered into existence from above... as is humanly possible, they try to reflect the liberated society they seek to achieve, not slavishly duplicate the prevailing system of hierarchy, class

and authority.46

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy In attempting to avoid the pitfalls of excessive authority structures, it is not necessary to believe that human nature or society is intrinsically 'good' or 'bad'. The potential for both exists. It is incumbent upon those interested in social change to organize themselves and their preferred worlds so that structurally the potential for 'good' is maximized and that for 'evil' is minimized. As one well-known commentator on anarchism has written: Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and their sucessors - the collectivist, communist, and syndicalist anarchists - understood that freedom (paradoxical as this may seem) must be organized, must systematically permeate every cell of the social body. Freedom is inseparable from local autonomy, worker's control, community control; but such self-governing local units and groups can function, survive, and prosper only by coordinating their activities. A vast network of free associations, federated at every level and preserving the maximum degree of local autonomy, was therefore envisaged as the only feasible alternative to the suffocating centralized state.47 Thus, anarchists and peace researchers should not throw out the baby with the organizational bath water. The remedy for excessive and inhumane organization is not total rejection of organization, especially considering the type and magnitude of threats during the next quarter century. It lies rather in the humanitarian struggle to perfect organizational means and creatively fashion alternatives to traditional procedures. The problem of authority, like that of power will never fully be resolved. However, it is to the credit of anarchists that they constantly attempt to reduce both to a
minimum.

11

This essay has been a preliminary inquiry into the possible applications of the anarchist heritage to the concerns of peace research with an endangered planet. Before closing, it is fitting to mention the most important shortcomings in philosophical anarchism: an underestimation of the strength of the existing order, and the potential baseness of human nature. While there have been

some limited successes,48 Lenin's comtemptuous remark of 1918 is on the mark: 'The majority of anarchists think and write about the future without understanding the present. This is what divides us communists from them.'49 It cannot be denied that anarchists must confront their lack of success, as well as the more general questions of how to topple entrenched structures, and prevent the deterioration of communities after sucessful change. The liberal and revolutionary are correct in characterizing as 'unrealistic' the demand for the immediate abolition of existing state structures. However, one is reluctant to characterize as more realistic claims that the present system is easily adaptable, or transition periods controlled by elitist dictatorships on behalf of oppressed masses can rapidly progress toward a more humane system. Similarly, critics are justified in asking if an ideal anarchist world of decentralized communities were created, what would prevent a minority group that forgets its good education or becomes bored from producing an atomic weapon. However, the present system holds the same danger and few of the values of a decentralized system, and thus the basic question of what to do about abuse of a system by human beings remains the same in both. In short, the task is the difficult one of synthesizing anarchism with a reworked conception of the needs of the planet and day-to-day politics. Murray Bookchin has begun by positing a new social change dialectic: 'The tension between what-is and what could-be - between the actuality of domination and potentiality of freedom'.50 One need not be as sanguine as Bookchin about technology to note that many people - primarily the poor and the young - are beginning to clamor for a basic readjustment of benefits and values within the existing system, a realignment based upon dissatisfaction with the gap between the 'is' and the 'should be' of world resource allocations. The debate within the Special Session of the General Assembly on Raw Materials and Development in Spring of

12

Thomas G. Weiss

1974 is indicative of this changing climate of opinion within the world community. The resulting Declaration of a New International Economic Order outlines principles of equality and justice, and suggests that the vast majority of states, containing twothirds of the world's peoples, is acting upon Bookchin's proposed dynamic. The details and action programs remain to be worked out and acted upon, yet it is certainly time to begin thinking more creatively within the peace research community. Humankind is at a point in its history when bold conceptions of alternative futures may be realizable, and the anarchist tradition is certainly relevant.51 Philosophical anarchism may be particularly fruitful within those countries that allow the political market mechanism to operate. Here, there may be a strong and growing constituency that challenges the basis of the nation-state system. At present, this anarchist challenge manifests itself largely within a national context as opposition to the military-industrial-labor complex, to domestic exploitation of minority groups and the poor, and to the destruction of the human environment for industrial profit. The logic of such protest is to reduce defense spending, to encourage well-being at the local and global level, and to favor international cooperation in the above areas as well as the protection of human rights. Thus, it is the prospect of influence in positive directions, rather than the feasibility of anarchist solution per se, that makes the anarchist position highly relevant and of interest. In any event, it is surprising that anarchism has been largely overlooked in speculations about alternative worlds. While anarchism is commonly characterized as a 'beautiful dream for a remote future,' such a perfunctory dismissal fails to confront the ultimate necessity for anarchist values. Philosophical anarchism is useful as an ever-present working principle of growth toward larger freedoms, as an action theory to apply in social activities. Far from living in a dream world and imagining humankind as inherently better than it is, anarchists real-

istically see that the best of people are corrupted by the exercise of power over others. Therefore, it is necessary - even if certain inefficiencies result - to consider seriously within the peace research community the trade-offs between distant authority and the quality of life within top-down, 'top-dog'
systems.52

Anarchists have always been conscious of the duality between universal and particular human concerns. They have sought to strike a balance between the claims of general human solidarity and those of the responsible, yet free and autonomous, individual. Although human beings will increasingly be subjected to many of the same limitations and benefits of this earth, it is nonetheless true that persons are different. In the innermost portions of the self, each man and woman is an island. The difficult political reconciliation of transnational exigencies and ideals - i.e., the idea of a 'global village' with a universal ethical consensus - with local and personal autonomy must become a priority in both social research and experimentation. The anarchist position may become more relevant as centralization and selfishness continue to push spaceship earth closer to breakdown. If autonomoushuman values are to survive, a counter ideal must be found. One alternative to a bleak and uniform world already exists in the utopian anarchist vision of free individuals with a collective responsibility. While such an absolute ideal is probably not realizable, its presence helps one judge the human condition and focus upon ultimate goals. It helps safeguard those liberties that remain and perhaps enlarge those areas in which personal values operate. It may also aid in the urgent task of reordering the extant global political system by holding out a vision of survival with dignity that can mobilize the world's peoples. The significance of anarchism in relation
to the world of today and tomorrow deserves further examination to determine how it can

be integrated with peace research approaches. More serious efforts need to be made to in-

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy vestigate the internal compatibility of the values presented here, as well as to define concretely what their realization would entail. Furthermore, the constraints of the existing world against decentralization of any kind, and systematic scenarios of how one could possibly move from 'here' to a desired 'there' must be accomplished. What I have argued is that such efforts are not only worthwhile, but probably essential to the dignified survival of the planet. In closing, it is useful to recall the words of Irving Horowitz: Let us not become so complacent about the possibilities of change that we scorn serious, even if erroneous, attempts to bring it about. Let us not become so clever that we smirk at every doctrinal inconsistency at the expense of opposing social injustices. The anarchists are a romantic, absurd breed that cannot, thank goodness, come to terms with some of the oppressive excesses of civilization.53

13

management and war prevention, it also embraces a concern with any problem that contributes to our endangered planet. Furthermore,world order reflects a diminished level of concern for quantitatively-directed research, and articulates its own emphasis upon the importance of solid and sensitive 'qualitative' scholarship. The interested reader is referred to this author's forthcoming textbook on world order: Saul H. Mendlovitz and Thomas G. Weiss, Shaping the Future: A Primer on Constructinga More Humane World. 2. A detailed characterizationof the differences between international politics and world order can be found in: Norman V. Walbek and Thomas G. Weiss, A World Order Framework for Teaching International Politics (New York: Institute for World Order Teaching Resource no. 3, 1974). 3 Henryk Skolimowski 'The Twilight of Physical Descriptions and the Ascent of Normative Models', in Ervin Laszlo, ed., The World System (New York: Braziller, 1973), pp. 97-118. 4. Ten alternative visions of future world from different cultures can be found in: Saul H. Mendlovitz, ed., On Creating a Just World Order: Preferred Worlds for the 1990's (New York: The Free Press, 1975). These visions resulted from a transnational research project sponsored by the Institute for World Order in New York City. For i discussion of the rationale behind the project, and the resulting methodology, see: Saul H. Mendlovitz and Thomas G. Weiss, 'Toward Consensus: The Institute for World Order's Model World Orders Project,' in Robert Woito, ed., Introduction to World Peace Through World Law (Chicago: World Without War Publications, 1973), pp. 74-97. 5. Marshall Berman argues that the 1950's and the 1960's were the first time since 1848 that a significant segment of the left was concerned with infusing socialism with the more 'bourgeois' preoccupation with individualism and autonomy, a position that had long characterized left-wing anarchism. See: The Politics of Authenticity (New York: Atheneum, 1972). 6. Peter Kropotkin, 'Anarchism', in Roger N. Baldwin, ed., Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets (New York: Dover Press, 1972), p. 184. 7. For an excellent discussion that clarifies common misunderstandings about anarchist theory, see: George Woodcock, Anarchism (New York: World Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 9-36. 8. James Joll is one such observer who has written: 'The anarchist movement is a product of the nineteenth century... The values the anarchists attempted to demolish were those of the

NOTES * The author wishes to express publicly his acknowledgement of the contribution of two friends, Charles Beitz and Priscilla Read, without whose critical comments this essay would have been different. The shortcomings of the text, however, I must accept as my own. 1. A word of explanation is appropriate about the term 'world order', particularly to distinguish it from peace research. Peace research is very much a product of the behavioral revolution in social sciences. Arising in the 1950's in the United States - partially in response to the growing and frightening possibilities of confrontation in the Cold War era - peace research has sought to come to grips with the problem of war, and more recently problems of social injustice, through the application of empirical-scientific techniques of inquiry, and the rather extensive use of quantitative methods. World order derives from the work of Harold Lasswell and Myres McDougal at Yale Law School, Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn's World Peace Through World (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959), and a large body of writings by Richard A. Falk of Princeton Univ. and Saul H. Mendlovitz of Rutgers Univ. Although world order shares with peace research the preeminent commitment to understanding conflict

14

Thomas G. Weiss standards or ones for happiness since little basis for universal agreement exists. 16. Kropotkin, 'Law and Authority,' in Baldwin, p. 196. 17. The case against the unworkable nature of liberalism rests not only on the fact that present governments in the West no longer consistently function in the theoretical liberal fashion, and that there is too little time to secure needed changes; but also because with planetary-wide dangers one cannot justify the inequalities that result from the continuation of the existing system. As far as the rejection of the 'revolutionary' perspective is concerned, I do not want to imply that all seizures of power by 'underdogs' (e.g., in Cuba and China) have not positively benefited a significant portion of native populations, rather that substitutes for national self-interest and nation-state authority are necessary if the kind of social change required for survival with justice is to come about. This argument has been made by Paul Smoker in relationship to the needs for new research categories in peace research. See: 'Peace Research in the University,' Bulletin of the Peace Studies Institute, Manchester College, January 1972, pp. 27-32. 18. Most anarchists rebelled against the idea of a ruling god as a necessary corollary of the fight against earthly authority. Proudhoun,for example, not only denied the existence of god, but actually was an adversary of such a concept. Tolstoy, on the other hand, acted out anarchism as the manifestation of his internal strength, pacifist Christianity. 19. Two of Bakunin's disciples, Carlo Cafiero and Elisee Reculs, summarizedthe essential problem: 'The immense advance of positive science over theology, metaphysics, and judicial right consists in this: that, in place of the false abstractions set up by these doctrines, it posits true generalizations... But in one respect it resembles all other disciplines: since it, too, deals in abstractions, it is forced by its very nature to ignore real men'. 'Authority and Science', in Sam Dolgoff, ed., Bakunin on Anarchy (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), p. 231. 20. Bakunin, 'Critique of Marxist Theory of the State', in Dolgoff, p. 328. 21. B. F. Skinner's most recent statement of benign manipulation can be found in a book ironically titled Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Bantam, 1972). For an effective counterargument, see: Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1971). 22. While I simply assert this statement here,

increasingly powerful centralized, industrialized state which, in the nineteenth and twentieth century has seemed the model to which all societies are approaching.' Anarchists (New York: Grossett and Dunlop, 1966), p. 12. For a more negative, Marxist interpretation, see Henri Avron, L'anarchisme (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France,
1971), p. 61: '... il est manifeste que ces evene-

ments par leurs fondements sociologiques se rattachent au siecle precedent et ne constituent en grand partie que des combats d'arriere-garde d'une paysannerie et d'un proletariat en retard sur 1'evolution historique - la profonde transformation que 1'etat a subie au cours des dernieres decennies a deplace les donnees du probleme.' 9. Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (New York, Harper and Row, 1970), p. 71. 10. For a discussion of the importance of visions of the future throughout history, see: Fred Polak, the Image of the Future, translated and abridged by Elise Boulding (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973). 11. The emphasis upon these five is done primarily to make the essay of manageable size. Furthermore, these five are major representatives of the tradition who also emphasize the importance of transnational issues, which is not the case for persons like William Godwin, Leo Tolstoy, or Paul Goodman. 12. See Woodcock, pp. 20-22, for a summarydiscussion of anarchists within these categories. 13. It should be noted that much recent philosophy and action commonly characterized as 'anarchist' falls into this category. The highly personal nature of existential revolt against authority by a single romantic like Camus' Rebel is actually antithetical to the mainstream of anarchist concern with total community. Within this tradition, one individual's freedom is meaningless if the rest of the community is in a condition of oppression and slavery. 14. Warren Wagar disagrees in Building the City of Man (San Francisco: Freeman, 1973). He argues that survival will depend upon the development of a new world civilization. 15. Barrington Moore in Reflections on the Causes of Human Misery and Upon Certain Proposals to Eliminate Them (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973) argues that the development of minimum standards against suffering are desirable and possible since people are generally agreed on what constitutes suffering and that it is not pleasant. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to agree upon maximum

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy


the argument is straightforward. The rapidly increasing pollution of the human environment and the depletion of resources cannot be altered only by technological advance. A clearly emerged example of this fact is the global food problem. Georg Borgstrom, for one, has consistently argued, in The Hzungry Planet (New York: Macmillan, 1965) and Too Many (New York: Macmillan, 1969), that rich countries will not be able indefinitely to consume a disproportionate amount of grain resources to fatten livestock. Technological developments will certainly contribute to alleviating some food problems, but a basic reorientation of consumption patterns is also necessary. For a compelling argument about the morality of an affluent diet, as well as some recipes for decreasing meat and poultry consumption, see: Frances Moore Lappe, Diet for a Small Planet (New York: Ballantine, 1971). The arguments for the value of simpler life-styles can be found in:

15

balanced and well-rounded. By no means is this concept of community motivated exclusively by the need for a lasting balance between man and natural world; it also accords with the utopian ideal of the rounded man, the individual whose sensibilities, range of experience, and life-style are nourished by a wide range of stimuli, by a diversity of activities, and by a social scale that always remains within the comprehension of a single human being'. Bookchin, page 43. 26. The most significant efforts to counter Hans Morgenthau's emphasis on the adequacy and legitimacy for national interest decision-making in Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1973) are: Seyom Brown, New Forces in World Politics (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1974); Richard A. Falk, This Endangered Planet (New York: Random House, 1971); George

Modelski, The Principles of World Politics (New


York: The Free Press, 1971); Harold and Mar-

E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, Economics


as if People Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1973); Robert Disch, ed., The Ecological Conscience: Values for Survival (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970); and Garrett Hardin,

garet Sprout, The Politics of Planet Earth (New


York: Van Nostrand, 1971); and Richard Sterling, Macropolitics (New York: Knopf, 1974). 27. There are exceptions. Lewis Mumford has suggested in all of his writings on cities that the eventual result of so-called technological progress may well be a break-up of the centralized structure of modern industry as well as its metropolises. They would be replaced by a geographical decentralization and a return to a smaller-scale and more organic social order in which the individual would not be overwhelmed. See: City

Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of Spaceship Beagle (Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1973). 23. Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism (San Francisco: Ramparts Press, 1971) p. 22 and p. 70. 24. For instance he writes that 'the most pressing task of technology will be to produce a surfeit of goods with a minimum of toil.' Ibid, p. 130. Buckminister Fuller tempers a similar optimism with a recognition of the limits of the planet, and sees the potential for Utopia or Oblivion (New York: Bantam, 1971). The recent 'soft' and 'intermediate' technology investigation would seem to be more appropriate for a realistic, 20th Century anarchist. At the present time, several scientists have set up small cooperative societies in which a half-day's bread labor frees partcipants to research the possibilities for alternative, minimumenergy technologies. For a report on a scientific research community based on such a philosophy, see: 'Research Commune in Wales to Promote "Soft Technology".' New York Times, 9 June 1972. For the economic and societal rationale behind the economics of such a system, see: E. F. Schumacher, 'Buddhist Economics', 'The New Economics', and 'An Economics of Permanence', reprinted in Theodore Roszak, Sources (New York: Vintage Books, 1973). 25. 'If humanity is to use the principles needed to manage an ecosystem, the basic communal unit of social life must itself become an ecosystem, an ecocommunity. It too must become diversified,

Development: Studies in Disintegration and Renewal (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1945); The Cty in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961); and The Culture of Cities (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1938). 28. Bakunin, 'Rousseau's Theory of the State' in Dolgoff, p. 133. 29. Ibid. 30. Kropotkin, 'Anarchism: Its Philosophy Ideal', in Baldwin, p. 41. and

31. Bakunin, 'Federalism', in Dolgoff, p. 114. 32. Ibid. p. 127. 33. Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends (New York: Anchor, 1973), p. 379. While Roszak was not included in the original list of anarchists to be studied in this essay, his summary statement is cleares on this issue. In addition, he argues effectively that the members of the counter-culture and the new left in the United States are more 'anarchist' than 'Marxist'. 34. Bookchin, italics in original, p. 45. It is interesting in this respect to note that the consisten-

16

Thomas G. Weiss 41. Bookchin, p. 230. 42. It is only fair to remark that Kropotkin changed at the end of his life, and adopted a more evolutionary and gradualist theory of social change that resulted from his experience as a London exile. He was impressed with the tolerance among various sections of the labor movement, and with the reported progress of minority groups in the United States. Although his cautioning words on propagande par le fait were valuable contributions to total anarchist doctrine, his movement from the absolute necessity for immediate revolutionary change can be considered antianarchist and inconsistent with the rest of his thought. 43. This term has been used by James Joll, who argues that many anarchist beliefs combine the 'Second Coming' and a return to the 'Golden Age' of the Garden of Eden. See especially 'Heresy and Reason', in Joll, pp. 17-39. 44. Goldman, 'Afterword' to My Disillusionment in Russia, reprinted in Shulman, pp. 355356. Many critics have argued that the internal organization of Bakunin's International Brotherhood violated this principle. The importance of this contradiction has been exaggerated by his political enemies who have simultaneously ignored his overall concern with the quality of human life. See: Bakunin, 'The Program of the International Brotherhood, 'in Dolgoff pp. 148-155. 45. Kropotkin, 'Anarchism', in Baldwin, p. 284. 46. Bookchin, p. 214. 47. Sam Dolgoff, 'Introduction' to Bakunin on Anarchy, p. 7. 48. Murray Bookchin has spoken of the ancient Athenian society as well as the Paris commune of the Great French Revolution before the 1793 centralization. See: Bookchin, 'The Forms of Freedom', pp. 141-169. More recently, anarchist organization characterized entire cities during the Spanish Civil War. See: Woodcock, pp. 356-398. Nonetheless, in the real world of class struggle, the influence of the movement representing the theories of Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Bookchin has been very small. However, the collapse of anarchism as a social movement does not imply its death as an intellectual force, for the strength of ideas is not as liable to obsolescence as institutions. It is possible that vehement attacks against anarchists or an unwillingness to read their works seriously represent a genuine uneasiness with autonomy and freedom. Erich Fromm has eloquently argued in Escape

cy between individual life styles and societal values has always concerned anarchists. Emma Goldman, for instance, articulated and acted upon her total criticism of bourgeois society and its values. Her writings and speeches on schools, prisons, the role of women, sex, and religious institutions have a very modern ring. See: 'Part Two: Social Institutions', in Red Emma Speaks, Alix Kates Shulman, ed. (New York: Random House, 1972), pp. 107-202. 35. Kropotkin, 'Remuneration of Labor', in Baldwin, page 174. For a fuller explanation, see: Kropotkin, Mutual Aid (New York: McClure, Phillips, Co. 1902) and The Conquest of Bread (London: Chapman, 1913). It is once again important to note that I reject the perspective of the libertarians on this point. Thus, Kropotkin felt that the destruction of authoritarian structures would allow the tendencies of mutual aid to prevail in all human interactions. On the other hand, the German libertarian Max Stirner wanted to renew authority of the fittest. In his nihilism, he denied the existence of common humanity and sought the situation in which ruthless individuaalists cooperated to remove regulations so that survival-of-the-fittest combat could ensue. 36. Bakunin quoted by E. H. Carr, Michael Bakunin (New York: Knopf, 1961), p. 175. 37. A recent statement of this theme can be found in: George Lakey, Strategy for a Living Revolution (San Francisco: Freeman and Company, 1973). 38. He has appropriately summarized the abbivalent potential of technology: 'I make no claim that technology is necessarily liberatory or consistently beneficial to man's development. But I surely do not believe that man is destined to be enslaved by technology and technological modes of thought'. Bookchin, p. 86. For an additional argument of this position, see: R. Buckminister Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Carbondale, Ill.: University of Southern Illinois Press, 1969). 39. Irving Louis Horowitz, The Anarchists (New York: Del Publishers, 1970), p. 38. 40. As a matter of fact, Bakunin and Kropotkin both predicted the embourgeoisementof the industrialized working class with capitalist development, and therefore wanted to form a more powerful coalition not subject to cooptation. Their conception of the Lumpenproletariat was purposefully widely defined. The problems of future human survival with justice are so complex that social activists must include all potential actors in social mobilizations.

The Tradition of Philosophical Anarchism and Future Directions in World Policy From Freedom (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1941) that the human attitude toward accepting all of the reprecussions of liberty is ambivalent. 49. Lenin quoted by Leonard Shapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1955), p. 182. 50. Bookchin, p. 12. This type of investigation actually was foreshadowed by much of Kropotkin's analysis in that he too saw that modern technological advances provided the potential for a new kind of society, based not on the necessity for competition at survival levels, but rather on mutual aid within a society without want. 51. An excellent literary example of such a vision is Robert Theobald and J.M. Scott's Teg's 1994 (Chicago: Swallow Press, 1972). Here a world of completely autonomousand decentralized communities has been made possible by fantastic advances in communications.

17

52. For an excellent summary argument against authoritarian biases in future research, see: Berenice Carroll, 'Peace Research: The Cult of Power', The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. XVI, no. 4, December 1972, pp. 585-616. 53. Horowitz, p. 603.

SUMMARY This essay reflects the fact that under the pressure to think about global crises and problems, too little consideration has been given to the costs and benefits of various global measures in terms of individual and local autonomy. The central hypothesis is that the tradition of philosophical anarchism provides peace researchers scrutinizing global problems with a crucial yet often-ignored perspective. This essay introduces the literature of philosophical anarchism and suggests how it is heuristically useful in global value clarification, and also for formulating action strategies.

Оценить