Towards an understanding of Anarchism—An Essay in irony (1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The writer has recently undertaken an intensive study of the Anarchist philosophy, involving considerable reading and research, and now feels the time has come for him to put on paper the conclusions at which he has arrived. He does this not to parade his erudition before an admiring political world but because he believes the working class movement generally will benefit from what he has to say on this very difficult subject. Before, however, he proceeds to engrave, as it were, his ideas on the plaque of history, he wishes to give warning to the reader who may possess an intellect not immediately capable of assimilating the complex statement of the theoretical system which is to follow. It is this—do not be disheartened or downcast if at first you are unable fully to comprehend the inner meaning, or essence, or shall we say guts—for we are all workers together!—of the subject. The cost of understanding is great but the reward even greater.

It was only after many months of effort and much revisionary study that the writer was at last able to grasp the fundamental concept of anarchism, and there were times when he felt that the task was beyond him and that the labour movement would have to await the birth and maturing of a greater intellect than his. But ever before him, ever driving him on, was the consciousness of the need of the working class for someone to lay bare with crystal clarity the fundamental idea of anarchist philosophy. The acute reader will have observed that the writer has referred to fundamental “concept” and “idea” using in each case the singular noun. This he has done deliberately, for he believes the whole anarchist philosophy can be reduced, nay triumphantly acclaimed, to the single idea of trend-classification. His scientifically-inclined readers will know that perhaps the main task of science is to classify, or to use a colloquism, to sort out (this, of course, not in its aggressive sense).

What is to follow then is an attempt, the writer believes successful, to classify the main anarchist groups possessing independent trends. Further, the writer claims that an understanding of the complementary and distinguishing characteristics of these groups forms the theoretical basis of the understanding of anarchism.

At the time of writing the world anarchist movement is formed by 197 different philosophical trends or schools of thought, but the current shortage of paper prevents an analysis of all these schools, and in this article the writer will deal with a mere dozen or so. At this point another warning to the reader is necessary. Do not be misled by the similarity of names. An anarcho-communist, for instance, is not the same as a communist-anarchist. Actually they hate the sight of each other.

The main division in anarchist philosophy is that of Authoritarian and Libertarian, and it is this classification which is most used by the movement itself. It is a concept which, of course, can be extended beyond the field of politico/philosophical speculation. Mr. Barrett of Wimpole Street was, for instance, an authoritarian father, William Godwin a libertarian father.

An excellent example of this division can be found in a group in the Home Counties. This consists of eight members all of whom at one time or another have actively advocated or inclined towards every one of the 197 main philosophical trends. Half of this group are at present courting the sympathy of a group of Authoritarian Council-Communists who meet in a nearby air-raid shelter. The other half of the group achieve the adjectival distinction of libertarian by an as yet coquettish flirtation with a group of libertarian-un-Marxist-Socialists.

The groups divide on the issue of the theoretical approach to the question of poetry. The authoritarian group insisting that poetry should emphasise the communal basis of anarcho/syndicalism, revealing the social ego. The libertarian group counter this idea with an approach coming near to the Freudian id/ego/super-ego concept. Poetry they say should project the personal psyche into the social ego but should not be submerged by it. The reader will detect the libertarian emphasis on the freedom of the personality. At rock bottom then this problem of the role of the ego provides the main division in the anarchist movement.

An important group coming within, and to a certain extent sagging over the edge of the libertarian group-trend, is the philosophical-revolutionary-syndicalists. The origin of this group is somewhat obscure but is believed to have started as a breakaway movement from the egalitarian-revolutionary-syndicalists, who of course come within the authoritarian school. This group, the philosophical-revolutionary-syndicalists, pursue a tactic known as the dialectical creep, this being a process whereby the group gradually moves from one group to another pausing only to insinuate their philosophical-revolutionary-syndicalism into the concepts of the particular group in which they have settled. Their ubiquity brings upon them a certain disfavour in the movement generally and they are known as the creepers. And if the writer may be allowed a slight criticism, he feels that the efforts of this group would be more effective if its personnel were known to each other. Too often has he witnessed the tragic picture of two philosophical-revolutionary-syndicalists desperately trying to convert each other not knowing that they are of the same group.

Perhaps the least known of all anarchist groups arc the Epicurean/Federalists, the Epicurean aspect of their philosophy provides the libertarian motif, the Federalist the authoritarian. It is somewhat difficult to place, this group in a definite school since the balance between the two trends is not always maintained. Sometimes the authoritarian-element overwhelms the libertarian, and vice-versa. And whilst this is often very entertaining to its members, it is disturbing to the libertarian-council-communists and the authoritarian-council-communists, for they rely on the Epicurean/Federalists for a certain amount of ethico-politico support. The two factions never knowing which is to receive the support next.

The last group to come within the analytical purview of the writer is the Walden-wood choppers, these being the followers of that great American Anarchist, Henry David Thoreau. Briefly, they advocate a return to the woods, the ponds, and the trees. Their scorn of material comfort is legion and their annual conference (held, as a protest against bourgeois uniformity, every three years) in Epping Forest, provides a welcome sight to the jaded eyes of the brick-conditioned town-dweller.

The question of the wages system looms large in all anarchist theory, and it is precisely here that the reader can fully appreciate the liberty of ideas as expressed by the movement. Some of the groups oppose the wages system, others haven’t made up their minds, and a few just love it. It is this indifference to intellectual discipline, to theoretical unity, which cuts off the anarchist movement from all the non-emotional, materialistic concepts which constitute the basis of other social movements.

The writer recalls an incident more eloquent in its expression of the anarchist’s scorn of authoritarian agreement over principle than could be contained in a hundred books. The incident occurred after a conference convened by the South Hiding group of anti-statist/materialists to discuss the possibility of synthesising the vegetarian and anti-vivisectionalist trends which had arisen in their group. The writer met one of the attending members outside the conference hall and on enquiring as to the result of the meeting was informed that it had been a complete failure, reconciliation having been achieved.

In conclusion it remains for the writer but to express the hope that his herculean labours have not been in vain and that the worker-student will have gained some inkling and understanding of the complexities of the anarchist philosophy.

J. Lockwood