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.'

