Two Caricatures of Anarchism : Or Tolstoy Revisited

By Albert Meltzer

Entry 5863

Public

From: holdoffhunger [id: 1]
(holdoffhunger@gmail.com)

../templates/revoltlib/view/display_childof_anarchism.php

Revolt Library Anarchism Two Caricatures of Anarchism

Not Logged In: Login?

0
0
Comments (0)
Permalink
(1920 - 1996)

British Anarcho-Syndicalist and CNT-FAI Activist during the Spanish Civil War

: A lifelong trade unionist he fought Mosley's blackshirts; actively supported the Spanish revolution's anarchist communes and militias and the German anti-Nazi resistance and was a key player in the second world war Cairo mutiny. (From: AInfos.ca Bio.)
• "If Government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order." (From: "Anarchism: Arguments for and against," by Albert ....)
• "If we accept the principle of a socialized society, and abolish hereditary privilege and dominant classes, the State becomes unnecessary. If the State is retained, unnecessary Government becomes tyranny since the governing body has no other way to maintain its hold." (From: "Anarchism: Arguments for and against," by Albert ....)
• "Nobody is fit to rule anybody else. It is not alleged that Mankind is perfect, or that merely through his/her natural goodness (or lack of same) he/she should (or should not) be permitted to rule. Rule as such causes abuse." (From: "Anarchism: Arguments for and against," by Albert ....)


On : of 0 Words

Two Caricatures of Anarchism

There may be an obvious answer as to why those who think Tolstoy the greatest mind of the century assume they know better than he did himself as to what he believed. In an introduction to a new selection of Tolstoy’s essays, David Stephens trashes Black Flag for saying he wasn’t an Anarchist (neither was he as supposed a Christian or a Pacifist). Stephens cites Woodcock to prove his case, wow, that’s us squashed. A few pages later we read Tolstoy never called himself an Anarchist, but how would he know what he was? (He never read Prof. Woodcock).

Stephens also admits Tolstoy attacked the Church — and was excommunicated — for his opposition to Christianity as generally understood. But how would the Church know? (Read his ‘Resurrection’ for a bit of superb blasphemy, he wasn’t half as bad as admirers of his writings make you think).

There is no mention of his not being a Pacifist in this book as his writings on guerrilla warfare are dismissed as belonging to the time when he was a ‘dissolute novelist’. (Consider Shakespeare’s philosophy, but you must start from King Lear! When he wrote Hamlet he was still a dissolute playwright).

Stephens thinks our rejection of the Count as an Anarchist is because of an ‘antipathy’ existing between aspects of anarchist thought — a typical liberal pacifist remark (usually they put it down to personal antipathy, never to fundamental political differences: they have no politics). Our ‘uncompromising rejection’ of Tolstoyans — rather than Tolstoy — he thinks, finds no echo among Anarchists in other countries and he cites Germany, though there the kingdom-of-love-within-you-resist-not-evil crap gets very short shrift in anarchist circles.

What did Tolstoy really think about Anarchism? In ‘On Anarchy’ he writes:
The Anarchists are right in everything...they are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by revolution’. In this edition, inserted before the word revolution is [violent,. Ed]! Ignoring the editorial advice that Tolstoy didn’t mean what he said, the message is plain and later made plainer. The transformation to anarchy, used as a synonym for the Kingdom of Heaven, is within you, transform your lives, do as you would be done by, rulers and rulers alike obey the teachings of Jesus and ignore those laid down by Christianity and the State. Live under tyranny but do not join it.

This is Anarchism turned inside-out and made into its opposite. In other hands it is an excuse to attack Anarchism, but nothing else, as ‘violent’ (echoed by the media and judges, ignoring Tolstoy’s comments on government) unless accepting impossible conditions. It plainly differs from anarchism as conceived by working people in terms of struggle. It doesn’t work — Tolstoy’s own life was a testimony it didn’t, as also shown by the neo-Tolstoyans who worship their State hand outs and reject revolution, or the drop-out middle class woolly-hats/woolly-minds regarding themselves as peasants. It is the alternative caricature of Anarchism to the mindless-violent caricature it originated.

The politico most influenced by Tolstoy was Gandhi, neither an Anarchist, a Christian nor precisely a Pacifist (he didn’t mind people getting killed for his glory so long as they didn’t kill). Tolstoy’s problem was the old ‘Buddhist’ one: when he said stop
worshiping Jesus and instead listen to what he had to say, his followers worshiped Tolstoy instead and never listened to him either (not that it was always worthwhile doing so).
Another lasting minor Buddha was Mary Baker Eddy. There are Christians who are scientists, but her philosophy of Christian Science is neither scientific nor (as normally understood) Christianity. It is a magic cult. Similarly, it is not to say pacifists (as the term is normally understood) or Christians could not possibly be Anarchists. They could. But the words Christian anarchism or Anarcho-Pacifism are usually synonyms for a type of liberalism, often the worst kind.

From : TheAnarchistLibrary.org

Chronology

Back to Top
An icon of a news paper.
January 9, 2021; 4:38:34 PM (America/Los_Angeles)
Added to https://www.RevoltLib.com.

An icon of a red pin for a bulletin board.
February 16, 2022; 7:07:38 PM (America/Los_Angeles)
Updated on https://www.RevoltLib.com.

Comments

Back to Top

Login through Google to Comment or Like/Dislike :

No comments so far. You can be the first!

Navigation

Back to Top
<< Last Entry in Anarchism
Current Entry in Anarchism
Two Caricatures of Anarchism
Next Entry in Anarchism >>
All Nearby Items in Anarchism
Home|About|News|Feeds|Search|Contact|Privacy Policy