19th century Revolutionary Anarchists

Anarchism
19th century Revolutionary Anarchists
Terese Howard
9/26/09

Anarchist literature can be hard to dive into at first because it has no canon. This is mostly an effect of the anti-authoritarian and egalitarian nature of anarchism. A canon would serve as an authority for anarchism and would exclude some literature based on the standards of the few who chose the canon. Nonetheless, if there were to be an anarchist canon, the 19th century revolutionary anarchists would be in it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, all these and more are key figures in shaping and articulating anarchist theory and revolution. In this paper I will introduce the anarchists listed above by comparing and contrasting their views on four topics: individual/collectivization, logic, property, future society. While attention will be mostly paid to the differences between these anarchists it must be noted that their similarities abound. All of them lived within the years of 1809 and 1932. All of them were European (through almost all spent some time in America). All of them were in close relationship with communists but disagreed with communism, seeing it as authoritarian. All of them were a part of anarchist revolutionary movements. All of them spent time in prison for their actions. All of them believed that an anarchist society was not only possible, but close at hand.

Because all of these anarchists lived during the high period of communist theory and revolutions, and because anarchism has so many of the same hopes and ideals as communism, it was very important for anarchist revolutionaries at that time to differentiate themselves from communism. As stated above, all of these anarchist rejected communism as being too authoritarian. The critique of capitalism and the end goal of equality is somewhat the same in both, but the method is completely different. Communism calls for the “temporary” dictatorship of the proletariat or heavy state control, whereas anarchism calls for the destruction of the state, leaving all organization up to people’s free cooperation. Nonetheless, in spite of the anarchists shared disagreement with the communists, some of them still used the term communism to describe their form of anarchism. At the same time, others saw anarchism as a much more individualist goal. (Though the individualists here are not near as individualistic in their form of anarchism as individualist anarchists in the latter half of the 1900’s).
Three of these anarchists put extensive focus on the role of community in anarchism. Bakunin argued for a form of anarchism he called “collectivism,” Malatesta rejected Bakunin’s collectivism and turned to “libertarian communism,” and Kropotkin called for “anarchist communist.” Though each of these forms differ, they all see the existence of anarchism as dependant on the joint efforts of people to share labor, resources, and all other needs. Bakunin believes that equality in society “should be established in the world by means of the spontaneous organization of labor and of collective ownership of producers’ associations freely organized and federated into communes” (No Gods No Masters, Bakunin, 148). Kropotkin similarly calls for “The expropriation of social capital and the taking of it into common ownership” (Kropotkin, 275). The individual literally cannot survive without community. For these anarchists society has to be of equal or higher priority to the individual. Bakunin goes so far to say that one must “look upon his duty to this society as his primary duty, relegating to second position his duty to each member of the society” (Bakunin, 161).
Proudhon and Goldman, however, see the freedom of the individual as more primary than that of society. Goldman sees anarchism as “the philosophy of the individual” (Anarchism What It Really Stands For, Goldman, 41). She understands part of the goal of anarchism to be the guarantee of “full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations” (Goldman, 38). Similarly, Proudhon argues “Community is essentially contrary to the unfettered exercise of our faculties…anything that one might devise to reconcile it with the requirements of individual reasoning and will” (Proudhon, 51). For Goldman and Proudhon the privilege of society or community over the individual is the reason for the lack of freedom for the individual. Society over rides all efforts of the individual such that the individual becomes only a function of the societal whole.
These different approaches to individuals and communities are mirrored in their focus in writing and revolution. Those who privilege the community over the individual tend to focus on articulating the methods of the future anarchist society. Whereas those who privilege the individual tend to put more focus on articulating the problems of the state.

These anarchists also utilize a variety of logics or philosophies in their politics. The two philosophies which differ most and are most articulated in this bunch are Proudhon’s and Bakunin’s. Proudhon studies philosophy in college and used this to develop the philosophy which he applies to politics and economics. Proudhon’s philosophy is of a rationalist bent. He treats logic as a system which has universal rules and absolute conclusions. Proudhon begins his political theory with the belief that “any principle which – taken to its logical conclusion – would result in a contradiction, [and] had to be regarded as mistaken and rejected” (Proudhon, 46). Using this logic, he concludes that the idea of property is a contradictory idea, that the state is unnecessary, and more. Bakunin, on the other hand, who also studies philosophy in college, draws his philosophy mostly from Hegel. Bakunin takes Hegel’s dialectic as well as his union, the Real, but flips them around. For Bakunin it is the negative instead of the positive that does the action and becomes the Real. While Bakunin also believes in reason, he does not give it the unfettered power that Proudhon does. In this way Bakunin comes out with a much more communal anarchist theory than does Proudhon.

All of these anarchists argue for the abolition of private property, the ones who emphasis communities all ultimately argue for various forms of collective property. Kropotkin points out the illogical nature of property in that a few people claim ownership of property that was the result of the work of others who came before the owners. He says, “Today the soil, which actually owes its value to the needs of an increasing population, belongs to a minority who prevent the people from cultivating it”(Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin, 16). Property is completely disconnected from its material existence and causes. From this reasoning, Kropotkin concludes that property should be collectively owned by those who labor for its production. Proudhon, on the other hand, leaves no room for collective property in his famous saying “Property is Theft.” Any idea that and individual or a collective can own something is illogical as everyone comes into the world with nothing and everyone needs the same things to survive. To own property is to exclude those things from those who need those things.

For each of these anarchists the future society, anarchy, looks a little different. Kropotkin and Bakunin discuss the working of this society most extensively. Kropotkin develops a theory of “mutual aid” as the economic, political, and interpersonal structure of society. Starting from the idea that the instruments of labour are our common inheritance, this society would “find itself forced from the very outset to abandon all forms of wages” (Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin, 32). Instead, in this society everyone poles their labour and resources together and gives it freely in exchange for every other laborer giving their resources freely. He states, “we must offer to the peasant in exchange for his toil not worthless paper-money, but the manufactured articles of which he stands in immediate need” (Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin, 69). Direct trade takes the place of money, and communal interdependence takes the place of individual competition.
For Bakunin, the future anarchist society is more federally organized than any other of the anarchists discussed here sees it as being. He explains,
“It is absolutely necessary that any country aiming to belong to this free federation of peoples should replace centralistic, bureaucratic and military organization at home with a federal organization rooted solely in the absolute liberty and autonomy of regions, provinces, communes, associations and individuals, with elective officials answerable to the people, and with arming of the nation, an organization that will no longer operate, as it does today, from the top down and from center to periphery, according to the unity principle, but rather from the bottom up, from periphery to center, in accordance with the basic principle of free federation, on the bases of free individuals who will form the associations and autonomous communes” (Bakunin, 162).
This bottom up organization of society is a free networking of communes around the world. The communes have a right to what they directly work for that those who do not work for it do not have. But anybody can work the land and reap its resources anywhere that is not being worked by some other individual or commune. Communal labour just makes things easier. It is also through the communes that global social networking is executed. For Bakunin, this global scope is vital to the security of these anarchist societies. This communal and regional organization Bakunin ultimately treats as a form of government. It is an anarchist government – always free to reject its governance and create a new one.

Within all of their similarities and differences, these 19th century revolutionary anarchists created a body of literature and life stories that has given anarchism a visible (though often ignored) place in European history. It is these anarchists who have produced the most written anarchist political theory and acted in the most anarchist revolutions. Throughout prisons across the globe they have brought us living proof that there are anarchist and that they are willing to fight to their death for the hope of anarchism becoming a reality in the world.


No Gods No Masters, AK press: 2005.
- Bakunin, Mikhail
- Kropotkin, Peter
- Malatesta, Errico
- Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings, Cambridge University Press: 1995.

Goldman, Emma. Anarchism and Other Essays, Voasha Publishing LLC, 2008.