{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72001/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72001","id":"gutenberg_72001","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72001","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism -- History","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Libertarianism"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note\n  Italic text displayed as: _italic_\n\n\n\n\n  ANARCHY\n\n\n  [Illustration: Tree]\n\n\n  by Robert LeFevre\n\n\n\n\n  Copyright 1959, by Robert LeFevre\n\n  Permission to reprint in whole or in part\n  granted without special request.\n\n  PRINTED IN COLORADO SPRINGS, U.S.A.\n\n  Published June, 1959\n\n  _Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:\n  59-13480_\n\n\n  THE FREEDOM SCHOOL\n  P.O. Box 165\n  Colorado Springs, Colorado\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR\u2019S NOTE\n\n\nRobert LeFevre, president and founder of the Freedom School, has also\nserved as the editorial writer for the Gazette Telegraph in Colorado\nSprings, since 1954. In addition to several thousand editorials, he\nhas written numerous articles for the Freeman Magazine, including:\n\u201c_The Straight Line_,\u201d \u201c_Jim Leadbetter\u2019s Discovery_,\u201d \u201c_Shades of\nHammurabi_,\u201d \u201c_Grasshoppers and Widows_,\u201d and \u201c_Coercion at the Local\nLevel_.\u201d\n\nHis article \u201cEven the Girl Scouts\u201d (Human Events, 1953) led to a recall\nof the Handbook of this organization and extensive revisions. His book,\n\u201cThe Nature of Man and His Government,\u201d has recently been published by\nCaxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.\n\n\n\n\nANARCHY\n\n\nA rational being, intent upon learning the nature of liberty or\nfreedom, is confronted almost at once with innumerable instances of\ngovernmental predation against liberty.\n\nAs the subject of liberty is pursued, the more frequently and the more\npersistently the fact emerges that governments have been one of the\nprincipal opponents if not the only principal opponent to liberty.\n\nInvariably, this discovery leads the perspiring seeker after truth to a\nfork in the road. Is it possible, the aspirant to libertarian certainty\nasks himself, to pursue the end of the rainbow of liberty into a miasma\nof quicksand and uncertainty?\n\nMight I not end at a place where I would advocate the cessation of all\ngovernment? And if I reached such a conclusion, would I not find myself\naligned with the very forces I sought to oppose in the beginning,\nnamely, the forces of lawlessness, chaos and anarchy?\n\nAt this fork in the road, libertarians hesitate, some briefly and some\nfor lengthy periods of time. The choice to be made is a difficult one.\nTo abandon liberty at this juncture and to endorse minimal governments\nas devices which might prevent license, could cause the devotee of\nliberty to endorse the active enemy of liberty, albeit in small doses.\nOn the other hand, to pursue liberty to its logical conclusions might\nend in an endorsement of license, The very antonym of liberty.\n\nIt is at this juncture that the word \u201canarchy\u201d rears its dreadful\nvisage. It becomes incumbent upon sincere seekers after liberty to\ngrapple with this word and to seek to understand its implications.\n\nAnarchy has very ancient roots. It is not wholly essential to probe to\nthe last hidden tendril altho such a probe can be highly instructive.\nWhat does appear to be a necessary minimal effort, however, is to\nexplore at least the principal authors of anarchistic thought with the\nview to discovering what it was that motivated these men.\n\nWe can begin with William Godwin of England. Godwin is noteworthy as\nthe \u201cfather of anarchistic communism\u201d (Encyclopaedia Britannica).\n\nIn 1793 he published the first of several works on this subject\nentitled, \u201cInquiry Concerning Political Justice.\u201d He is probably most\nfamous as the author of an anarchistic novel which he named, \u201cCaleb\nWilliams.\u201d\n\nIt was Godwin\u2019s thesis that governments are instruments of eternal\nbickering and war; that wars are fought over property; that the\nownership of property privately is the greatest curse ever to beset the\nhuman race. As a specific example of tyranny in its worst form, Godwin\nsuggests marriage.\n\nBefore we lay the soubriquet \u201ccrackpot\u201d behind his name, let us look\nat the England of Godwin\u2019s time to try to find an explanation for his\nradical conclusions.\n\nIn Godwin\u2019s day (1756-1836) with only a few minor exceptions, all\nproperty was owned by the nobility, which is to say by the persons\nfavored by government. The common people owned little save the shirts\non their backs. As for marriage, women were chattels, given by a male\nparent to another male, during a governmentally approved ceremony.\nThe idea of one person actually owning and controlling another, which\nwe would call slavery, and which Godwin saw as the marriage state, was\nrepellent to him. He insisted that females were human beings and as\nsuch had as much right to individuality as males.\n\nTo cure the malady, which Godwin saw as ownership of property, the\nearly Briton recommended an abolition of governments. It was the\ngovernment which sanctified and protected property rights, even in\nmarriage. To return to a state of nature (see Rousseau) governments\nwould have to be abolished.\n\nBe it noted to Godwin\u2019s credit that he despised violence. And in\nthis position he is far removed from both the true communist and the\nanarchists of action who followed him.\n\nThe next anarchist to be examined is Pierre Joseph Proudhon of\nBexancon, France (1809-1865). Proudhon drank deeply from Godwin\u2019s well\nand came forward with certain modifications and extensions of the\nGodwin doctrine.\n\nProudhon acknowledged a debt of gratitude to both Plato and Thomas\nMore, a pair of dedicated socialists (see Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d and More\u2019s\n\u201cUtopia\u201d) and busied himself with some practical means for implementing\nthe socialist dream.\n\nLike his precursors, he was fundamentally opposed to property\nownership. His most famous work, \u201cQu\u2019est-ce que La Propriete?\u201d\n(\u201cWhat Is Property?\u201d), got him into immediate difficulties with the\ngovernment. Proudhon, in this opus, declared that \u201cproperty is robbery\u201d\nand set about outlining a social order in which no property could be\nprivately owned.\n\nThe Encyclopedia Americana says that Proudhon was the \u201cfirst to\nformulate the doctrines of philosophic anarchism.\u201d\n\nIt is probably true that there are no better writings extant extolling\nindividualism as opposed to collectivism than Proudhon\u2019s early essays.\nYet, it should be recalled that Proudhon\u2019s aim, in addition to a\nsociety free of governmental coercion, was a state in which property as\na private device was abolished.\n\nIt is also interesting to recall that Karl Marx was deeply moved by\nProudhon\u2019s arguments. The first of Proudhon\u2019s writings appeared in\nprint in 1840 and formed the basis of Marx\u2019s first expostulations which\nappeared in 1842. Shortly thereafter, Marx veered away from Proudhon\u2019s\nindividualism and contrived his concept of collectivism as the natural\nand the inevitable course of history.\n\nMarx, however, was never an anarchist, despite the well-known phrase\nfrequently attributed to him that in time the government of the\nproletariat would simply \u201cwither away.\u201d This phrase should properly be\nattributed to Lenin.\n\nHowever, it is known that Marx did make an attempt to lure the\nanarchists of France into the first \u201cInternationale\u201d and was hooted\ndown for his pains. The anarchists of that time were shrewd enough to\nsense that the enlargement of government into a general holding company\nfor all property, would never result in the abolition of private\nownership of property. Rather, it would result in the perpetuation of a\nprivileged class of persons who would have possession of the property\nto the exclusion of all others, the very contingency the anarchists\nsought to avoid. And since the aim of the anarchists was to eliminate\nexclusive ownership, they could not agree to the Marxist arguments\nrespecting the usefulness of a government as the repository of all\nproperty.\n\nWe pass from Proudhon to another noteworthy anarchist, the Russian\nPrince Peter Alexeivich Kropotkin (1842-1921). In his hands, the\ndoctrine of anarchism took on an international aspect. In point of fact\nhe added little to either Godwin or Proudhon, except the more grandiose\nconcept of a world order. He suggested that ALL governments must be\noverthrown either peacefully or in any other manner after which \u201cthe\npresent system of class privilege and unjust distribution of the wealth\nproduced by labor that creates and fosters crime\u201d would be abolished.\n\nIt was Kropotkin who endeavored to preserve the ideals of a\nproperty-less society after the most exciting and destructive of all\nthe anarchists had done his work. This was Michael Bakunin (1814-1876).\nBakunin took his ideology both from Proudhon and from Marx and\nendeavored to unite the objectives of the former with the methods of\nthe latter.\n\nBakunin despaired of bringing about a state of universal\nproperty-less-ness by means of education and propaganda. So did Marx.\nMarx declared that those who owned property would never give it up\nwithout a struggle. This idea entranced Bakunin. He devised what was to\nbe called \u201cpropaganda of action.\u201d\n\nIt was Bakunin\u2019s contribution to anarchistic methods that persons\nwho held governmental offices should be assassinated while they held\noffice. Such assassination, he argued, would have a persuasive effect\nupon future politicians. If the offices could be made sufficiently\ndangerous and risky, there would be few who would care to hazard\ntheir necks in such unrewarding positions. The answer to the force of\ngovernment, according to Bakunin, was the force of non-government. As\nan educational device, a thrown bomb was considered to be the final\nargument.\n\nIt is unnecessary to embroider the result. The peaceful arguments\nof Proudhon and Godwin went by the boards as anarchists rallied\nto Bakunin\u2019s banner. Beginning in 1878 there was a series of\nassassinations and attempted assassinations against the heads of\ngovernments.\n\nGermany\u2019s Emperor William had a narrow escape and so did the German\nprinces in 1883. In 1886 in Chicago, a bomb explosion in the Haymarket\nkilled a number of persons. In the resulting hysteria, seven arrests\nwere made, all of persons known to be teaching anarchy. Four were\nhanged, two drew life sentences, and one was imprisoned for 15 years. No\none to this day is certain who threw the bomb.\n\nAnarchists were pictured in cartoons as bearded radicals carrying\nsmoking bombs. President Carnot of France was assassinated in 1894. The\nEmpress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in 1898. King Humber of\nItaly was assassinated in 1900. President McKinley was assassinated in\n1901.\n\nBut Bakunin\u2019s enthusiasm wrecked the anarchist movement despite all\nKropotkin could do to save the fragments. These excesses, which have\neven been repeated in modern times, have had the effect of uniting\npublic opinion against anything that smacks of anarchy.\n\nThere were, of course, other anarchists. Some have credited Rousseau,\nand some even Zeno with the actual birth of the idea of a property-less\nsociety. But the four men briefly reviewed here, with the possible\nadditions of Elisee Reclus and the American, Benjamin R. Tucker, made\nthe major contributions to anarchist doctrine. There is no serious\ncleavage in anarchist ranks.\n\nIt is these thoughts which must confront the libertarian as he seeks to\nunderstand the meaning of individualism, liberty, property, and so on.\n\nBut in complete candor, the sincere libertarian cannot be called an\nanarchist whichever fork of the road he elects to pursue. It must\nbe recalled that without exception, anarchists wished to do away\nwith private ownership of property. Some advocated peaceful means\nending the abolition of government. Some advocated violent means by\ndestroying politicians in government. But by any yardstick employed,\nand whether we are speaking of \u201cphilosophic anarchists\u201d or \u201canarchistic\ncommunists,\u201d the central aim of the anarchist movement was to eliminate\nprivate ownership. The reduction of the government to zero was simply,\nto them, a necessary first step.\n\nIn contrast, the libertarian is a better economist. From first to last\nhe is in favor of private ownership. It is, in fact, the abuses of\nprivate ownership inflicted by government which arouse the most ardent\nlibertarians.\n\nIf we take the \u201ccommunist\u201d anarchists, we are confronted with violence\nas a means to abolish private ownership with the abolition of\ngovernment as the first step. If we take the \u201cphilosophic\u201d anarchists,\nwe are confronted with essays on individualism and the desire to do\naway with private ownership by means of the elimination of government.\n\nThe aim of the anarchist is to eliminate private ownership. The\nlibertarian is dedicated to the perpetuation and the full enjoyment of\nprivate ownership.\n\nNever could two doctrines be more in opposition.\n\nThe most constructive of the anarchists were, socially speaking,\nindividualists, peaceful and harmless. The least constructive, socially\nspeaking, were dedicated to the overthrow of force by counter force.\nBut without exception, in the realm of economics, every anarchist comes\nunglazed.\n\nIn brief, let us define the anarchist as a political individualist and\nan economic socialist. In contrast, the libertarian can be defined as\nan individualist, both politically and economically.\n\nAs the libertarian approaches or hesitates at the fork in the road, one\ndirection seems to him to indicate anarchy and the other, an advocacy\nof coercion in minor doses. But, on careful analysis, the branch which\nseems to carry the banner \u201canarchy\u201d does no such thing.\n\nThe libertarian, however he mulls over this dilemma to his progress,\nis not concerned with government. His concern is with liberty. He is\nnot opposed to government. He favors freedom. The libertarian wishes to\npreserve all human rights, among which and predominantly among them is\nthe right to own property privately and to enjoy it fully.\n\nThe libertarian is a champion of individualism. He is an advocate of\ntools which can perform certain functions for him. He has no objection\nto the formation of any kind of tool that will assist him to protect\nhis rights or his property. But he cannot brook the forceful compulsive\ntool which he is compelled to pay for when he has no use for it.\n\nHe has no objection to policemen whose function is solely that of\nprotection. But he resists the supposition that others know better than\nhe, how much protection he needs or can afford.\n\nHe sees in government a tool of man\u2019s devising. He has no objection\nto this tool so long as it is totally responsive to the man who hires\nthe tool and pays for its use. He does object to the employment of\nthis tool by some against others in an aggressive manner, since he is\nprimarily concerned with human liberty and the preservation of it for\nall individuals.\n\nBut it is destructive of libertarian aims and objectives to label a\nseeker after total freedom with the opprobrium of \u201canarchist.\u201d\n\nEconomically speaking, all anarchists are, socialists, however they\nmay coalesce to the political spectrum. Economically speaking,\nthe libertarian is an individualist, believing in and supporting\nthe concept of private ownership, individual responsibility and\nself-government.\n\n\nInformation about the Freedom School will be sent on request.","title":"Anarchy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":2376}