Title: Ten Anarchist Principles Author: Peter Kakol Date: May, 1995 Description: A personal manifesto and definition of anarchist theory and praxis intended for both anarchists and non-anarchists alike. Keywords: Anarchism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEN ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES by Peter Kakol Anarchism is greatly misunderstood in the English speaking world where, due to a successful and long-standing propaganda campaign by the wealthy and their servants, anarchism is equated with irrational violence, terrorism, lawlessness, and the misdefinition of the word 'anarchy' to make it synonymous with 'chaos'. But anyone who knows Greek will know that 'anarchy' means 'no rulers'; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Hierarchical order imposed from above is not the only kind of order, as anyone who believes in democracy would readily admit, for there can also be non-hierarchical order that arises from co-operation between people. A similar idea was held by the liberal John Locke, who said that social order would remain intact even if political order were to be dissolved, for individuals are able to organise themselves for mutual aid without the need of an authoritarian structure. The recent science of 'chaos theory' (which is badly named) has discovered a similar tendency in nature - the ability of systems of order to arise from chaos due to an internal principle of self-organisation, in the absence of an external (physical) influence. Of course, for those who believe that nothing can exist unless it be brought into existence by a God who is the Cosmic King, will not believe in the possibility of democratic self-organisation, and their political theory will most probably reflect their understanding of the universal state of affairs - that is, a hierarchy. Being aware of the massive propaganda campaign that is the mass media - which is merely the instrument of the multinational corporations - to restrict public debate and political opinion between the narrow confines of the two-party system (the good-cop/bad-cop routine that rips off the poor) and to cover up the true workings and crimes of the State-as-the-protector-of-the-rich, anarchists find it necessary to 'rectify the names', to call a spade a spade, and to lift the veil of delusion from the eyes of the deceived masses. This job is admirably done by the anarchist Noam Chomsky in his many books that expose imperialist US foreign policy and the mass media. But this is only the first step, for it is not enough to merely criticise the status quo; it is also necessary to 'speak the truth to power' and show people that there is no need to be pessimistic, for there is a viable alternative to the present system: anarchism. It is for this reason that I write these ten principles. Each one derives from the moral principle: 'treat others as you would want to be treated; that is, as ends and not means'. But it is necessary to point out that these ten principles are just one person's opinion of what anarchism is, for there is no 'official anarchism'. Anarchism is not an ideology or club that one can belong to. Anarchism is a form of adventurous skepticism that expects the unexpected with a child-like sense of wonder. There are no anarchist organisations, because anarchists are not exclusivists. We work together with anyone who shares our interests of liberty, equality, and justice, forming together with them temporarily for particular purposes, to fight for certain issues. This is our practice; but in our theory (which is a private thing - an opinion, not a school of thought or mutual admiration society) we formulate our idea of the ideal society and the principles we stand for. Anarchism is a dynamic process, a way of life in the making; not a fixed dogmatic system that already exists in theory and merely awaits to be put into practice. Anarchism is practice itself - for it, the path and the goal are one. The Two Primary Principles 1. *Equal access to political decision-making for all.* All those who are affected by a particular decision should be able to participate in the making of that decision. This requires direct democracy, where people (and not just their 'representatives') vote on issues and policies. This would be based, not on majority-rule, but on consensus-and-dissensus; that is, the first goal will be to arrive at a consensus, but if this fails the people 'agree to disagree' by splitting the decision and allocating resources to both the majority and minority decisions proportional to their percentages. The problem with modernity is that all governments, whether they be totalitarian or democratic, are, as Plato correctly observed, based on the principle 'might is right', and thus unjust. We can see how a dictator or an oligarchy rule according to this principle, but even a 'democracy', in the sense of 'majoritarianism' is based on strength of numbers and the tyranny of the majority over the minority. This kind of democracy is nothing but 'the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people', as Oscar Wilde put it. But a society that is based upon consensus-and-dissensus (which presupposes the need for discussion and debate) escapes this dilemma since no one is coerced against their will, and so we have the rule of wisdom rather than the rule of force or numbers. This is the only way of doing away with the ruler/ruled dualism and replacing it with a system in which each person is a philosopher-king (or -queen). 2. *Equal access to society's common wealth for all.* But it is also necessary to dissolve the dualism of employer and employee, for if there is a disparity of wealth then the first principle of decentralisation of power will remain a pipe dream. Because those who have more wealth will have more influence over the political system than those poorer than them (via donations to political parties, use of advertising to influence the media, use of capital flight to put pressure on governments to change their policies, etc.), and in the sphere of justice those who have the money can afford the best legal advice. The only way of overturning the present dualistic state of affairs is by extending the democratic principle (of participation, not representation) to *all* institutions in society, including corporations which at present resemble fascist states in which all decisions are decided at the top of a hierarchy. Possession of the wealth of society should be needs-based rather than profit-based: 'to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability'. This is the principle of 'common storehouse economics' in which the people have control of the means of production, distribution and exchange; where people take what they want in times of plenty and what they need in times of scarcity. There is absolutely no reason why some people ought to consume significantly more than others. People should not be rewarded for luck or genetic endowment, for it would be unjust to become rich at the expense of others' misfortunes or to become richer than someone simply because you were lucky enough to be born strong whereas someone who is weak and disabled (who put in the same amount of effort as you but could not produce as much) is penalised for this. Note, however, that equal access to wealth is not the same as the equal distribution of wealth for it is unjust to give someone who is small the same amount as to someone who is large and has greater needs; hence the principle 'to each according to their needs'. Also, it must be realised that true equality is compatible with diversity and complementarity, and has nothing to do with enforcing Procrustean uniformity and sameness. Anarchist Theory 3. *The four alternatives.* Anarchism is the fourth alternative: libertarian socialism (as opposed to authoritarian socialism, authoritarian capitalism, and libertarian capitalism, which are the other three). Those on the Right believe that privatisation and the free market are the solutions to all our problems, whereas Leftists say that State ownership and nationalisation are the answers. Both the Right and the Left seem to agree that freedom and equality are incompatible, but the Right sides with freedom and thus seeks to decentralise political power and centralise wealth, whereas the Left favours equality and desires to decentralise wealth and centralise power. But anarchists do not see freedom and equality as incompatible. Indeed, we say that the two are *interdependent* as you cannot have true freedom unless all people have equal access to society's wealth, or else, as is the case in capitalist countries, those with more wealth will end up with more power and thus be 'more free'. The American philosopher John Dewey understood this when he said that 'the State is the shadow cast over society by big business'. The big businesses know that free market (libertarian) capitalism is unworkable and only for the poor countries, so they depend on a strong government (fascism) for protection and subsidies. And in the former communist countries, those who had more power became corrupt, 'for power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely', as the saying goes. And this of course lead to an inequality of wealth distribution in those countries. This interdependence of wealth and power means that both the 'salvation via market forces' of the Right and the 'salvation via the State' of the Left are impossible oxymorons. No wonder Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the United States all turned out to be fairly similar, in the sense that they all tended in varying degrees towards the centralisation of both wealth and power; that is, fascism. Now, there are only two ways of escaping these three positions (fascism, communism, and free market capitalism). One, is by staying within the system and on the Left/Right spectrum by proposing some kind of 'democratic socialism' as a central position between centralisation and decentralisation of both wealth and power. But why compromise between two bad extremes, when there is another alternative, which is the only truly just alternative, being a Middle Way that takes the good and discards the bad from both sides? Libertarian socialism (anarchism), which is the decentralisation of both wealth and power, is this other alternative. Instead of State or private ownership and State or private power, we should have people's ownership and people's power. 4. *Libertarian Socialism.* The abolition of the State, paternalism, and authority is necessary if we are to have a truly 'natural socialism' based on voluntary association, as opposed to artificial socialism imposed upon an unwilling populace by the State. Self-sufficiency and self-rule is better than government from the top-down. We should not be like children dependent on the State, but grow up and become self-masters who can organise themselves without the need of order imposed from above. In a fully functional Stateless society everyone helps and protects everyone else and does not need the State's fatherly protection. All anarchists hate the State, that 'cold monster' that speaks the lie: 'I, the state, am the people', as Nietzsche describes it, for it removes all individuality and reduces the people to a herd. This is true, whether it is a totalitarian or 'democratic' State. The US president Thomas Jefferson said 'that government is best that governs least'; but anarchists take this logic one step further and say, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, 'that government is best that governs not at all'. There is nothing radical about this; it is merely the true definition of 'democracy' as 'government by the people', which is a form of non-government in the sense that there is no authority over and above the people who are (self) governed. As the *Tao Te Ching* says: 'The best way to run the world is to let it take its course - and to get out of the way of it!' (ch.48). What is needed is a redefinition of authority as prophetic leadership and rational persuasion. The only legitimate authority is that of the prophet, who leads by example and rational persuasion; rather than the illegitimate authority of the priest, who rules with an iron sceptre and force. True authority is internal, not external; for the true leader awakens the truth in others so that they can become self-masters who rule themselves. For we are all kings and queens, whose domain is the Universe. 5. *Social Individualism,* based on the realisation that we are social animals that need to cooperate, and that the full development of each person's individuality and freedom is dependent on equality and cooperation. This is a truth that is not realised by most today due to the prevalent belief that individuality, the desire to be separate from others, is incompatible with collectivism, the desire to merge with others in social togetherness. But we must acknowledge that these two desires do exist within us, each one struggling to become dominant. What is needed is a Middle Way between these two, a balance that comes when we realise that all things, including people, are interdependent and cannot exist separately; for there is only unity-in-diversity and diversity-in-unity, both the One and the Many being of equal importance. The pre-modernists, such as Aristotle, understood that we a 'social animals' that require one another. Is not the individual less free when alone in the world and more free when joined with a society in which cooperation and mutual aid lead to more freedom for all? And in a society an individual has more freedom to develop his or her full potential as a human being, due to the division of labour and the time saved thereby. As life evolves into more complex forms, three things increase: society, individuality, and freedom, as can be seen if we compare lower life-forms, which have less individuality, society, and freedom, to humans, who have these three to a much greater degree. Thus, anarchists advocate 'social individualism'. Yet the individual is more important than society, for although society can neither be a mere collection of atomised individuals nor a monolithic totality in which individuals are merged into a herd-like conformity, nevertheless, the individual is the beginning and end of our endeavours, while society is merely the means to this end; for society is an abstraction - it is the individual that is the concrete reality. The aim of each individual is self-mastery: the development of his or her full potentiality, to unfold and blossom forth in full flower; but this can only happen if the perfect nurturing environment exists, one in which all people cooperate socially such that no one rises above any other, but all develop equally, yet in different individual directions spontaneously and naturally without hindrance. For we can only unfold our full potential naturally, without being hindered by others and artificial barriers such as interfering laws, which cause stagnation. It is the belief of anarchists that both capitalism and Statism retard such growth and development of people's characters, and thus must be replaced with Stateless socialism. For capitalism and the State create a parasitic society in which only the lucky few are allowed to develop full individuality at the expense of the many, which is not in accord with justice. We can see how this principle of 'social individualism' is interdependent with the previous principle of libertarianism, for individuality is dependent on 'letting alone', or non-government. For, as Oscar Wilde says, 'individualism exercises no compulsion over man. One the contrary, it says to man that he should suffer no compulsion to be exercised over him. It does not try to force people to be good. It knows that people are good when they are let alone'. 6. *Self-government and federation.* This is the principle of direct democracy and self-government in all institutions, including corporations (workplace democracy) and federation from the bottom-up. It is only the indivisible parts, the individuals, that have true reality in this Universe, as societies are abstractions. Only one society, the Universe, is organic and non-abstract; but this is because each individual is the Universe, as each contains the whole. Thus, all social structures should be organised from the bottom up, democratically, rather than from the top down in an authoritarian hierarchy, as found even in our so-called 'democracies'. Individuals may voluntarily form into small communities in which wealth and power are shared equally. This should apply to all institutions, all situations where people come together for a common purpose. Then, these communities may choose to unite together with other communities, for some mutually beneficial reason, in a federation in which each provides delegates who are recallable and answerable to their communities. The sole purpose of a delegate is coordination, so s/he must go back to the community for ratification of any agreement; never should a delegate be given the power to make decisions without the consent of the community. As Rousseau has correctly observed, the people's 'Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; its essence is the general will, and will cannot be represented - either it is the general will or it is something else; there is no intermediate possibility. Thus the people's deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally. Any law which the people has not ratified in person is void; it is not law at all.' And each ederation may federate with other federations, and so on, all the way up to the global level if they so choose, but always the individuals in each community must govern each level directly with the aid of delegates. Anarchist Practice 7. *Skeptical attitude.* Anarchism is a non-dogmatic philosophy de-emphasising theory and emphasising praxis, based on a healthy skepticism, tolerance, and the relativity of all points of view. In a pluralist and relative world where all things are interdependent and people are finite and limited, it is impossible to expect anyone to have the whole truth, so it is necessary to assume that all worldviews and theories have some truth and some error in them. Rather than being a handicap, this can lead to an attitude of healthy skepticism that questions all ideologies and dogmatic positions, and an understanding that the encounter between divergent beliefs is not an either/or confrontation, but an opportunity for mutual enrichment and creative transformation, leading to clearer and less distorted theories that are closer to the truth on both sides. This skeptical attitude will also lead to more liberal ideas regarding freedom of speech, for if no one has the whole truth then, as J.S. Mill has said, 'the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.' It is true that many skeptics have argued for conservative positions, believing that if you can never be absolutely certain of the rightness or wrongness of any particular action, then it is best to be safe and preserve the status quo, or be pragmatic and proceed hesitantly one step at a time. But this is not the case for, as Simone Weil says, 'blind men [sic] such as we are in these days have only the choice between surrender and adventure'. Rashness and foolhardiness are wrong, but so is cowardice and procrastination; what is needed is a Middle Way, a way of courage and bravery in the face of danger that is willing to be adventurous in ideas and actions. The skeptical anarchist is such a scientifically-minded person, someone who is not so much interested in theory as in practice and experiment. 8. *Follow the natural law within.* Anarchists believe in the abolition of all human-devised laws, which are artificial and externally-imposed hindrances; instead, we should follow the everlasting natural law within our hearts. Rather than make laws, the people (being judges) should interpret the natural law, which is our true constitution, the 'absolute horizon' or context for freedom. According to William Gowdin, the only just law is the law of Reason: 'Her decrees are irrevocable and uniform. The functions of society extend, not to the making, but to the interpreting of law; it cannot decree, it can only declare that which the nature of things has already decreed'. And this requires discussion and debate as a preliminary to decision-making, for natural law can only be discovered by reason. If we like, we may call this natural law 'God', or just 'Reason'; but we must recognise that its authority does not come from overwhelming force and coercion, such as the false authority of earthly dictators, but from the persuasive power of Reason and Grace, which are compatible with freedom. Anarchists have enough faith in the power of Reason and Truth to transform society without the aid of coercive laws and enforcement (that is, the State), for the Truth can stand up on its own feet and will be victorious in the end. And the transformation of society is dependent on the moral transformation (a moral revolution) within each individual, who, being persuaded by Reason, sees the Truth and acts accordingly. For surely it is better to have a society in which all people treat each other justly and compassionately out of an intuitive conviction of conscience that this is the right thing to do, than to have a society in which everyone acts *as if* they treated each other justly and kindly out of fear of punishment from a State system of terror, laws, and enforcement. A society in which individuals act morally out of a habit that has arisen from conscience (internal law) is far better than a society in which the moral habit has been enforced and maintained with external laws. There is no doubt that a society in which 'law is king' is better than one in which the king is above the law, but the law we appeal to is not any temporal tradition or convention that has arisen in the world, but the primordial natural law of Reason found within us as the voice of conscience and Truth. 9. *Pacifism as means to end.* Our means must agree with our ends: if our means are violent, then we will end up creating a violent society. So we must be pacifists and use direct action of a non-violent kind (civil disobedience), if we want a world in which there is peace, freedom and justice for all. At all times we must be guided by the rational/compassionate principle of treating others as we would want to be treated - as ends and never as means. This means that we should never use force, coercion, or violence (which are all the same thing) as a means or method to further our end of a peaceful society. The problem with Marxists was that they wanted to use force to take State power for themselves and set up a proletarian dictatorship whose job it would be to steer society towards the end of Stateless socialism in the hazy and distant future. But this never eventuated, for they did not realise that power corrupts and that the means we use warp our ends. As C.S. Lewis observed: 'Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.' Meaning well is not enough; we must have the wisdom to use the correct method, and the only method that works is the method of treating others as ends, which leads to pacifism, non-violent resistance, and civil disobedience. The way of the Marxists was the priestly method of seizing power; the way of the anarchists is the prophetic method of working persuasively for social justice and the empowerment of all. So the fundamental principle here is the interdependence and interaction of means and ends, so that the way in which one struggles for freedom and equality will condition the kind of society that one ends up establishing. The word for the struggle should be the same word used to describe the end - and that word is 'anarchy' (no rulers), which is both the method and the goal. 10. *Plant the seeds now.* Rather than reforming the system from within (mere 'pragmatic' tinkering around at the edges, achieving nothing) or rising up in a violent revolution to change the system from without, we should merely act NOW in setting up the ideal society within the dying shell of the old to act as a leaven and example to others. We must sow the seeds first and wait for them to grow. If we cannot use violence and coercion to attain our end, does this mean that we must work within the present system and use the State and its laws to reform present society so that it approximates more and more the utopia of our dreams? No, for we must realise again that means and ends are interdependent, so we cannot use the State and laws - which is after all a system of coercion and violent enforcement - as a means to the end of a Stateless society without coercive laws. So we seem to be in a dilemma: if we can neither attain our end of changing society from without, through the means of violent revolution, nor from within, by means of reforms and taking part in the parliamentary farce, then how do we change society? The answer is that the dualism of within/without or external/internal is misleading, for it is not a case of either/or but both/neither. The answer is that we must work now to plant the seeds, to nurture and create the right conditions to make society ripe for peaceful change, by spreading the good news of the anarchist philosophy and setting up little utopias - collectives, co-ops, mutual aid societies, etc. - as little experiments and examples to others, so that when these non-hierarchical bottom-up societies grow, they will overtake the State and its top-down institutions and cause them to become redundant and wither away. By planting the seeds now, we will not have to resort to violence later. As the *Tao Te Ching* says, 'Take on the largest things when they're still small, Start the hardest things while they're still easy' (ch.63). The anarchist thinker Rudolf Rocker once wrote that 'Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without ... They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.' Apart from the bit about *violent* resistance (there can be other forms), I agree with this as it sums up what anarchists are all about - the creation of a free and just society that is not granted to us from above, but won through the people's own hard struggle and direct action, so that it has become a habit to be free. We admit that the struggle against oppression and injustice will never end and that we can never set up a utopia, but this is no reason for pessimism and the abandonment of the struggle, for, as Oscar Wilde has put it: 'A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.'