             I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

   No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who
   are so shallow that they cannot separate their identity from what they
   own. However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any
   form of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs
   to be discussed more.

   The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages
   individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As
   Kropotkin noted, "individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and
   in practice, more illusory than real" and that the "want of development
   of the personality (leading to herd-psychology) and the lack of
   individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief
   defects of our time. Economical individualism has not kept its promise:
   it did not result in any striking development of individuality."
   [Ethics, p. 27 and p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has reduced
   individuality to a parody of what it could and should be (see
   [1]section I.7.4). Little wonder Emma Goldman argued that:

     "The oft repeated slogan of our time is . . . that ours is an era of
     individualism . . . Only those who do not probe beneath the surface
     might be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated
     the wealth of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute
     kings of the situation? Their success, however, is due not to
     individualism, but the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission
     of the mass. The latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be
     coerced. As to individualism, at no time in human history did it
     have less chance of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in
     a normal, healthy manner." [Anarchism and Other Essays, pp. 70-1]

   So we see a system which is apparently based on "egotism" and
   "individualism" but whose members are free be standardised individuals,
   who hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing
   individuality, capitalism standardises it and so restricts it -- that
   it survives at all is more an expression of the strength of humanity
   than any benefits of the capitalist system. This impoverishment of
   individuality is hardly surprising in a society based on hierarchical
   institutions which are designed to assure obedience and subordination.
   Given this, it comes as no surprise to find libertarian communists like
   Kropotkin suggesting that "as for knowing what will be the essence of
   individual development, I do not think it could be along individualist
   lines. Individual -- yes, without doubt, but individualist -- I have my
   doubts. That would mean: narrow egoism -- regressive evolution and even
   that would be limited to a certain number." [Kropotkin, quoted by Ruth
   Kinna, "Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context", pp.
   259-283, International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 268]

   So, can we say that libertarian socialism will increase individuality
   or is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of
   the human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we
   have to look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will
   discuss tribal cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in
   [2]section I.7.1. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist
   organisations will protect and increase an individual's sense of self.

   Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote
   individuality. They are decentralised, participatory organisations and
   so they give those involved the "social space" required to express
   themselves and develop their abilities and potential in ways restricted
   under capitalism. As Gaston Leval noted in his book on the anarchist
   collectives during the Spanish Revolution, "so far as collective life
   is concerned, the freedom of each is the right to participate
   spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative to the
   full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty; it
   is nothingness." [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 346]

   By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes
   which directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is
   increased and so you are constantly developing your abilities and
   personality. The spontaneous activity described by Leval has important
   psychological impacts. Thus Erich Fromm: "In all spontaneous activity,
   the individual embraces the world. Not only does his [sic] individual
   self remain intact; it becomes stronger and more solidified. For the
   self is as strong as it is active." [Escape from Freedom, p. 225]

   Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist
   organisation as it does under capitalism. It will become stronger as
   people participate and act within the social organisation. In other
   words, individuality requires community. As German philosopher and
   sociologist Max Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired
   when each man decides to fend for himself . . . The absolutely isolated
   individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal
   qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the
   sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully
   developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society."
   [The Eclipse of Reason, p. 135]

   The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a
   healthy community as it is from individual self-realisation and the
   fulfilment of desire. There is a tendency for community to enrich and
   develop individuality, with this tendency being seen throughout human
   history. This suggests that the abstract individualism of capitalism is
   more the exception than the rule in social life. In other words,
   history indicates that by working together with others as equals
   individuality is strengthened far more than in the so-called
   "individualism" associated with capitalism. Hence the need, as Murray
   Bookchin put it, to "arrest the ravaging and simplification of the
   human spirit, of human personality, of human community, of humanity's
   idea of the good." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 409]

   Communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as
   individuality is a product of the interaction between social forces and
   individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off from
   social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This can
   be seen from the 1980's when neo-liberal governments supporting the
   individualism associated with free market capitalism were elected in
   both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces lead to social
   atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised state. As this
   swept across society, the resulting disruption of social life ensured
   that many individuals became impoverished ethically and culturally as
   society became increasingly privatised. Two decades later, David
   Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, complained of a broken
   society in Britain while, of course, skilfully avoiding discussing the
   neo-liberal reforms imposed by his predecessor Thatcher which made it
   so.

   In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a
   developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold your
   own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) social
   skills and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that
   social background and these valued aspects of individuality are
   undermined by lack of use, fear of authority, atomisation and limited
   social interaction. Taking the case of workplaces, for example, surely
   it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical working environment will
   marginalise the individual and ensure that they cannot express their
   opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the full or manage
   their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects of an
   individual's life.

   Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of
   individuality (see [3]section B.1). In such a system, as left-wing
   classical liberal John Stuart Mill argued, the "business" side of group
   activities would be "properly carried out" but at the expense of the
   individuals involved. Anarchists agree with Mill when he called it
   "benevolent dictatorship" and asked "what sort of human beings can be
   formed under such a regimen? What development can either their thinking
   or their active faculties attain under it? . . . Their moral capacities
   are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human beings is
   artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and dwarfed."
   [Representative Government, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, he extended his
   critique of political organisations into all forms of associations and
   stated that if "mankind is to continue to improve" then in the end one
   form of association will predominate, "not that which can exist between
   a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the
   management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of
   equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on
   their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by
   themselves." [The Principles of Political Economy, p. 147]

   Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the
   means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that
   affect them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is built upon the
   central assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be
   considered in isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations
   will create a servile personality, one that feels safest conforming to
   authority and what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation,
   one that is based upon participation and self-management will encourage
   a strong personality, one that knows its own mind, thinks for itself
   and feels confident in its own powers.

   Therefore, as Bakunin argued, liberty "is not a fact springing from
   isolation but from reciprocal action, a fact not of exclusion, but, on
   the contrary, of social interaction -- for freedom of every individual
   is simply the reflection of his humanity or his human right in the
   consciousness of all free men, his brothers, his equals." Freedom "is
   something very positive, very complex, and above all eminently social,
   since it can be realised only by society and only under conditions of
   strict equality and solidarity." Hierarchical power, by necessity,
   kills individual freedom as it is "characteristic of privilege and of
   every privileged position to kill the minds and hearts of men" and
   "power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those
   who are compelled to submit to them." [The Political Philosophy of
   Bakunin, p. 266, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 249]

   A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and
   encourage, a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and
   by participation within self-managed organisations individuals will
   educate themselves for the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As
   Carole Pateman points out, "participation develops and fosters the very
   qualities necessary for it; the more individuals participate the better
   able they become to do so." [Participation and Democratic Theory, pp.
   42-43] This, of course, implies a mutually interactive transformation
   of individuals, their social relationships and organisations (in the
   words of Spanish anarchist Garcia Oliver: "Who hasn't been changed by
   the revolution? It wouldn't be worth making it just to continue being
   the same." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, p.
   498]).

   Such a re-organisation (as we will see in [4]section J.2) is based upon
   the tactic of direct action. This tactic also encourages individuality
   by encouraging the individual to fight for themselves, by their own
   self-activity, that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de
   Cleyre put it:

     "Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went
     boldly and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared
     his convictions, was a direct actionist . . .

     "Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did
     it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation
     to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please
     do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative
     experiments are essentially direct action.

     "Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to
     settle, and want straight to the other persons involved to settle it
     . . . was a direct actionist. Examples of such action are strikes
     and boycotts . . .

     "These actions . . . are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel
     oppressed by a situation." [The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, pp.
     47-8]

   Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and
   this can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when
   there is a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based
   upon the principle of direct action ("all co-operative experiments are
   essentially direct action") we can suggest that individuality will have
   little to fear from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly
   stress the importance of individuality within a society. To quote
   communist-anarchist J. Burns-Gibson:

     "[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is
     only realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no
     motive that does not issue from its individual members, no end that
     does not centre in them, no mind that is not theirs. 'Spirit of the
     age,' 'public opinion,' 'commonweal or good,' and like phrases have
     no meaning if they are thought of as features of something that
     hovers or floats between man and woman. They name what resides in
     and proceeds from individuals. Individuality and community,
     therefore, are equally constitutive of our idea of human life."
     [quoted by William R. McKercher, Freedom and Authority, p. 31]

   Little wonder, then, that anarchism "recognises and values
   individuality which means character, conduct and the springs of
   conduct, free initiative, creativeness, spontaneity, autonomy." [J.
   Burns-Gibson, quoted by McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 31f] As Kropotkin put
   it, anarchism "seeks the most complete development of individuality
   combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all
   its aspects . . . ever changing, ever modified". [Anarchism, p. 123]

   For anarchists real liberty requires social equality. For "[i]f
   individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their
   own lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most
   be so organised that they can participate in decision making."
   [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected,
   encouraged and developed in an anarchist society far more than in a
   class ridden, hierarchical society like capitalism. As Kropotkin
   argued:

     "[Libertarian] Communism is the best basis for individual
     development and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to
     the war of each against all . . . but that which represents the full
     expansion of man's [and woman's] faculties, the superior development
     of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness of
     intelligence, feeling and will." [Op. Cit., p. 141]

   It is because wonders are so enriching to life, and none is more
   wonderful than individuality, that anarchists oppose capitalism in the
   name of socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association of
   free individuals.

I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends individuality?

   Yes. In many tribal cultures (or aboriginal cultures), we find a strong
   respect for individuality. As anthropologist Paul Radin pointed out,
   "respect for the individual, irrespective of age or sex" was one of
   "the outstanding features of aboriginal civilisation" as well as "the
   amazing degree of social and political integration achieved by them"
   and "a concept of personal security." [quoted by Murray Bookchin,
   Remaking Society, p. 48] Murray Bookchin commented on Radin's
   statement:

     "respect for the individual, which Radin lists first as an
     aboriginal attribute, deserves to be emphasised, today, in an era
     that rejects the collective as destructive of individuality on the
     one hand, and yet, in an orgy of pure egotism, has actually
     destroyed all the ego boundaries of free-floating, isolated, and
     atomised individuals on the other. A strong collectivity may be even
     more supportive of the individual as close studies of certain
     aboriginal societies reveal, than a 'free market' society with its
     emphasis on an egoistic, but impoverished, self." [Op. Cit., p. 48]

   This individualisation associated with tribal cultures was also noted
   by historian Howard Zinn. He quotes fellow historian Gary Nash
   describing Iroquois culture (which appears typical of most Native
   American tribes):

     "No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries,
     or courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European
     societies -- were to be found in the north-east woodlands prior to
     European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly
     set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the
     Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong." [quoted by
     Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 21]

   This respect for individuality existed in a society based on
   communistic principles. As Zinn notes, in the Iroquois "land was owned
   in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the
   catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were
   considered common property and were shared by several families. The
   concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the
   Iroquois." In this communal society women "were important and
   respected" and families were matrilineal. Power was shared between the
   sexes (unlike the European idea of male domination). Similarly,
   children "while taught the cultural heritage of their people and
   solidarity with the tribe, were also taught to be independent, not to
   submit to overbearing authority. They were taught equality of status
   and the sharing of possessions." As Zinn stresses, Native American
   tribes "paid careful attention to the development of personality,
   intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency,
   to their partnership with one another and with nature." [Op. Cit., p.
   20 and pp. 21-2]

   Thus tribal societies indicate that community defends individuality,
   with communal living actually encouraging a strong sense of
   individuality. This is to be expected, as equality is the only
   condition in which individuals can be free and so in a position to
   develop their personality to its full. Furthermore, this communal
   living took place within an anarchist environment:

     "The foundation principle of Indian government had always been the
     rejection of government. The freedom of the individual was regarded
     by practically all Indians north of Mexico as a canon infinitely
     more precious than the individual's duty to his [or her] community
     or nation. This anarchistic attitude ruled all behaviour, beginning
     with the smallest social unity, the family. The Indian parent was
     constitutionally reluctant to discipline his [or her] children.
     Their every exhibition of self-will was accepted as a favourable
     indication of the development of maturing character. . ." [Van
     Every, quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 136]

   In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living
   and high standards of living can and do go together. For example,
   during the 1870s in the Cherokee Nation "land was held collectively and
   life was contented and prosperous" with the US Department of the
   Interior recognising that it was "a miracle of progress, with
   successful production by people living in considerable comfort, a level
   of education 'equal to that furnished by an ordinary college in the
   States,' flourishing industry and commerce, an effective constitutional
   government, a high level of literacy, and a state of 'civilisation and
   enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 'What required five
   hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this direction they have
   accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department declared in wonder."
   [Noam Chomsky, Year 501, p. 231]

   Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited in 1883 and described what
   he found in glowing terms: "There was not a pauper in that nation, and
   the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol . . . and it
   built its schools and its hospitals." No family lacked a home. In spite
   of this (or, perhaps, more correctly, because of this), Dawes
   recommended that the society must be destroyed: "They have got as far
   as they can go, because they own their land in common . . . there is no
   enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbours.
   There is no selfishness, which is the bottom of civilisation. Till this
   people will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among their
   citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not
   make much more progress." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 231-2] The
   introduction of capitalism -- as usual by state action -- resulted in
   poverty and destitution, again showing the link between capitalism and
   high living standards is not clear cut, regardless of claims otherwise.

   Undoubtedly, having access to the means of life ensured that members of
   such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which
   could produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to
   follow the orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others
   and so could develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This
   self-government allowed the development of a custom in such tribes
   called "the principle of non-interference" in anthropology. This is the
   principle of defending someone's right to express the opposing view and
   it is a pervasive principle in the tribal world, and it is so much so
   as to be safely called a universal.

   The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends
   from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life
   (significantly, tribal groups "respect the personality of their
   children, much as they do that of the adults in their communities."
   [Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 115]). Most people today, used as
   they are to hierarchy everywhere, are aghast when they realise the
   extent to which it is practised, but it has proven itself to be an
   integral part of living anarchy. It means that people simply do not
   limit the activities of others, period (unless that behaviour is
   threatening the survival of the tribe). This in effect makes absolute
   tolerance a custom (the difference between law and custom is important
   to point out: Law is dead, and Custom lives -- see [5]section I.7.3).
   This is not to idealise such communities as they are must be considered
   imperfect anarchist societies in many ways (mostly obviously in that
   many eventually evolved into hierarchical systems so suggesting that
   informal hierarchies, undoubtedly a product of religion and other
   factors, existed).

   As people accustomed to authority we have so much baggage that relates
   to "interfering" with the lives of others that merely visualising the
   situation that would eliminate this daily pastime for many is
   impossible. But think about it. First of all, in a society where people
   do not interfere with each other's behaviour, people tend to feel
   trusted and empowered by this simple social fact. Their self-esteem is
   already higher because they are trusted with the responsibility for
   making learned and aware choices. This is not fiction; individual
   responsibility is a key aspect of social responsibility.

   Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes
   with no private property, no state and little or no other hierarchical
   structures within them, can we not conclude that anarchism will defend
   individuality and even develop it in ways blocked by capitalism? At the
   very least we can say "possibly", and that is enough to allow us to
   question that dogma that capitalism is the only system based on respect
   for the individual.

I.7.2 Do anarchists worship the past or the "noble savage"?

   No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of
   capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is
   "backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on
   inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists
   maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of
   the "noble savage" (see, for example, free market capitalist guru
   Frederick von Hayek's work Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism).

   Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive
   communist" societies they have used as examples of anarchistic
   tendencies within history or society. They are also aware of the
   problems associated with using any historical period as an example of
   "anarchism in action." Take for example the "free cities" of Medieval
   Europe, which was used by Kropotkin as an example of the potential of
   decentralised, confederated communes. He was sometimes accused of being
   a "Medievalist" (as was William Morris) while all he was doing was
   indicating that capitalism need not equal progress and that alternative
   social systems have existed which have encouraged freedom in ways
   capitalism restricts.

   In a similar way, Marxists often accuse Proudhon of being
   "petty-bourgeois" and looking backward to a pre-industrial society of
   artisans and peasants. Of course, nothing could be further from the
   truth. Proudhon lived in a France which was predominantly
   pre-industrial and based on peasant and artisan production. He,
   therefore, based his socialist ideas on the needs of working people as
   they required them at the time. When Proudhon did look at large-scale
   production (such as railways, factories and so on) he proposed
   co-operative associations to run them. These associations would
   maintain the dignity of the worker by maintaining the essential feature
   of artisan and peasant life, namely the control of work and product by
   the labourer. Thus he used "the past" (artisan production) to inform
   his analysis of current events (industrialisation) to create a solution
   to the social problem which built upon and extended a freedom crushed
   by capitalism (namely workers' self-management in production). Rather
   than being backward looking and worshipping a past which was
   disappearing, Proudhon analysed the present and past, drew any positive
   features he could from both and applied them to the present and the
   future (see also [6]section I.3.8). Unlike Marx, who argued that
   industrialisation (i.e. proletarianisation) was the pre-conditions of
   socialism, Proudhon wanted justice and freedom for working class people
   during his lifetime, not some (unspecified) time in the future after
   capitalism had fully developed.

   Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of
   capitalism ignore the insights that can be gained by studying tribal
   cultures and the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom.
   Instead, they duck the issues raised and accuse socialists of
   idealising the "noble savage." As indicated, nothing could be further
   from the truth. Indeed, this claim has been directed towards Rousseau
   (often considered the father of socialist and anarchist idealisation of
   the "noble savage") even though he explicitly asked "must societies be
   totally abolished? Must meum and tuum be annihilated, and must we
   return again to the forests to live among bears? This is a deduction in
   the manner of my adversaries, which I would as soon anticipate as let
   them have the shame of drawing." Similarly, Rousseau is often thought
   of idealising "natural man" but he actually wrote that "men in a state
   of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations one
   with another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious."
   [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 112 and p. 64] Rousseau failed
   to understand that his adversaries, both then and now, seem to know no
   shame and will happy suggest that he advocated the exact opposite of
   what he actually wrote. Anarchists are also subject to this
   (particularly by Marxists), particularly when we look through history,
   draw libertarian currents from it and are then denounced as backward
   looking utopians.

   What libertarian socialists point out from this analysis of history is
   that the atomised individual associated with capitalist society is not
   "natural" and that capitalist social relationships help to weaken
   individuality. All the many attacks on libertarian socialist analysis
   of past societies are a product of capitalists attempts to deny history
   and state that "Progress" reaches its final resting place in
   capitalism. As David Watson argues:

     "When we consider people living under some of the harshest, most
     commanding conditions on earth, who can nevertheless do what they
     like when the notion occurs to them, we should be able to witness
     the contemporary doubt about civilisation's superiority without
     growing indignant. Primitivism, after all, reflects not only a
     glimpse of life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate
     response to real conditions of life under civilisation . . . Most
     people do not live in aboriginal societies, and most tribal peoples
     themselves now face wholly new contexts which will have to be
     confronted in new ways if they are to survive as peoples. But their
     lifeways, their histories, remind us that other modes of being are
     possible. Reaffirmation of our primal past offers insight into our
     history -- not the only possible insight, to be sure, but one
     important, legitimate entry point for a reasoned discussion about
     (and an impassioned reaction to) this world we must leave behind."
     [Beyond Bookchin, p. 240]

   This essential investigation of history and modern society to see what
   other ways of living have and do exist is essential. It is too easy to
   forget that what exists under modern capitalism has not always existed
   (as neo-classical economics does with its atomistic and ahistoric
   analysis, for example). It is also useful to remember what many people
   now consider as "normal" was not always the case. As we discussed in
   [7]section F.8.6, the first generation of industrial wage slaves hated
   the system, considering it both tyranny and unnatural. Studying
   history, previous cultures and the process of hierarchical society and
   the resistance of the oppressed to it can enrich our analysis and
   activity in the here and now and help us to envision an anarchist
   society, the problems it could face and possible solutions to them.

   If the challenge for anarchists is to smash power-relations and
   domination, it would make sense to get to the root of the problem.
   Hierarchy, slavery, coercion, patriarchy, and so on far outdate
   capitalism and it is hardly enough to just analyse the economic system
   of capitalism, which is merely the current and most insidious form of
   hierarchical civilisation. Similarly, without looking to cultures and
   communities that functioned quite well before the rise of the state,
   hierarchies and classes, anarchists do not really have much solid
   ground to prove to people that anarchy is desirable or possible. For
   this reason, historical analysis and the celebration of the positive
   aspects of tribal and other societies is essential.

   Moreover, as George Orwell pointed out, attacks that reject this
   critical analysis as worshipping the "noble savage" miss the point:

     "In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you
     that it is impossible to 'go back' . . . and will then accuse you of
     being a medievalist and begin to descant upon the horrors of the
     Middle Ages . . . As a matter of fact, most attacks upon the Middle
     Ages and the past generally by apologists of modernity are beside
     the point, because their essential trick is to project a modern man,
     with his squeamishness and his high standard of comfort, into an age
     when such things were unheard of. But notice that in any case this
     is not an answer. For dislike of the mechanised future does not
     imply the smallest reverence for any period of the past . . . When
     one pictures it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend
     that it has ever existed in space and time." [The Road to Wigan
     Pier, p. 183]

   We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of
   past cultures assumes that these cultures have no good aspects at all
   and so indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to
   modern life. The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have
   got some things right and others wrong and should be investigated is
   rejected for a totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern
   society. Of course, the well known "free market" capitalist love of
   19th century capitalist life and values (specifically the grim reality
   of Victorian Britain or Gilded Age America) warrants no such claims of
   "past worship" by the supporters of the system.

   Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage"
   ideal indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of
   looking at the implications of the system they support than about
   anarchist theory.

I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?

   No, far from it. It is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, "[n]o society
   is possible without certain principles of morality generally
   recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men; if
   we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone
   treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare is
   justified -- no society could exist." [Anarchism, p. 73] However, this
   does not mean that a legal system (with its resultant bureaucracy,
   vested interests and inhumanity) is the best way to protect individual
   rights within a society.

   What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an
   alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is custom
   -- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" which express what
   a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question
   arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just
   outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

   The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than
   the "rule of law". Custom is a body of living institutions that enjoys
   the support of the body politic, whereas law is a codified (read dead)
   body of institutions that separates social control from moral force.
   This, as anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates
   everyone. A just outcome is the predictable, but not necessarily the
   inevitable, outcome of interpersonal conflict because in an anarchistic
   society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists think people
   have to grow up in a social environment free from the confusions
   generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and social
   control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential
   ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to
   come up with functional solutions to interpersonal conflict. This
   stands in sharp contrast with the present situation of people being
   infantilised by the state through a constant bombardment of fixed
   social structures removing all possibility of people developing their
   own unique solutions.

   Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society.
   What was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as
   oppressive and hateful. This is because the "conception of good or evil
   varies according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge
   acquired. There is nothing unchangeable about it." [Kropotkin, Op.
   Cit., p. 92] Only by removing the dead hand of the past can society's
   ethical base develop and grow with the individuals that make it up (see
   [8]section A.2.19 for a discussion of anarchist ethics).

   We should also like to point out here that laws (or "The Law") also
   restrict the development of an individual's sense of ethics or
   morality. This is because it relieves them of the responsibility of
   determining if something is right or wrong. All they need to know is
   whether it is legal. The morality of the action is irrelevant. This
   "nationalisation" of ethics is very handy for the would be capitalist,
   governor or other exploiter. In addition, capitalism also restricts the
   development of an individual's ethics because it creates the
   environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote Shakespeare's
   Richard III:

     "Second Murderer: Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within
     me.

     First Murderer: Remember our reward, when the deed's done.

     Second Murderer: Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.

     First Murderer: Where's thy conscience now?

     Second Murderer: O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."

   Therefore, as far as "The Law" defending individual rights, it creates
   the necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the
   existence of concentrations wealth, and so on) for undermining
   individual ethical behaviour, and so respect for other individual's
   rights. As English libertarian socialist Edward Carpenter put it, "I
   think we may fairly make the following general statement, viz., that
   legal ownership is essentially a negative and anti-social thing, and
   that unless qualified or antidoted by human relationship, it is pretty
   certain to be positively harmful. In fact, when a man's chief plea is
   'The law allows it,' you may be pretty sure he is up to some mischief!"
   The state forces an individual into a relationship with a governing
   body. This means, as anarchist J. B. Smith put it, "taking away from
   the individual his [or her] direct interest in life and in his
   surroundings . . . blunting his [or her] moral sense . . . teaching
   that he [or she] must never rely on himself [or herself] . . . [but]
   upon a small part of men who are elected to do everything . . . [which]
   destroys to a large extent his [or her] perception of right and wrong."
   [quoted by William R. McKercher, Freedom and Authority, p. 48 and p.
   67f]

   Individual rights, for anarchists, are best protected in a social
   environment based on the self-respect and sympathy. Custom, because it
   is based on the outcome of numerous individual actions and thought
   reflects (and so encourages the development of) individual ethical
   standards and so a generalised respect for others. Thus, "under
   anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for
   the guidance of juries which will judge not only the facts but the law,
   the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances,
   and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because if its infraction . .
   . under Anarchism the law will be so flexible that it will shape itself
   to every emergency and need no alteration. And it will be regarded as
   just in proportion to its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion
   to its rigidity." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, pp.
   160-1] Tucker, like other individualist Anarchists, believed that the
   role of juries had been very substantial in the English common-law
   tradition and that they had been gradually emasculated by the state.
   This system of juries, based on common-law/custom could be the means of
   ensuring justice in a free society.

   Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the
   society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if
   the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove
   of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict
   individual rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this
   occurring but given the power of social custom this is often limited in
   scope and has to wait until people recognise the need for change.
   Needless to say, governments can, and have, been far more at the
   forefront of denying and ignoring individual rights and so appealing to
   it for justice is, to say the least, problematic!

   As such, anarchists are well aware that social custom can be oppressive
   and, as discussed in [9]section I.5.6, argue for direct action by
   oppressed minorities to combat any tendency towards "dictatorship by
   the majority". Anarchists, as Kropotkin suggested, are "the last to
   underrate the part which the self-assertion of the individual has
   played in the evolution of mankind." However, this "has often been, and
   continually is, something quite different from, and far larger and
   deeper than, the petty, unintelligent narrow-mindedness which, with a
   large class of writers goes for 'individualism' and 'self-assertion.'"
   There are "two classes of revolted individuals", those who rise up and
   aim to "purify the old institutions [of mutual aid], or to work out a
   higher form of commonwealth, based on the same Mutual Aid principles"
   and those who sought to "break down the protective institutions of
   mutual support, with no other intention but to increase their own
   wealth and their own powers." [Mutual Aid, pp. 18-9] We aim to support
   and encourage the former.

   However, while recognising the potential tyranny of custom anarchists
   stress that, firstly, this is a natural part of human society and,
   secondly, it palls into insignificance compared to the actual tyranny
   of the state and the laws it imposes on society in the interests of the
   few. Facts which, needless to say, ruling elites are at pains to hide.
   As Kropotkin explained "all our religious, historical, juridical, and
   social education is imbued with the idea that human beings, if left to
   themselves, would revert to savagery; that without authority men would
   eat one another; for nothing, they say, can be expected from the
   'multitude' but brutishness and the warring of each against all. Men
   would perish if above them soared not the elect . . . These saviours
   prevent, we are told, the battle of all against all." This, he argued,
   was nonsense as "a scientific study of societies and institutions
   brings us to quite different views. It proves that usages and customs
   created by mankind for the sake of mutual aid, mutual defence, and
   peace in general, were precisely elaborated by the 'nameless
   multitude.' And it was these customs that enabled man to survive in his
   struggle for existence in the midst of extremely hard natural
   conditions." The notion that the state was merely the instrument of the
   people is hardly supported by history nor current practice, for what
   the state and its laws have done is to "fix, or rather to crystallise
   in a permanent form, such customs as already were in existence" and
   adding to them "some new rules -- rules of inequality and servile
   submission of the masses in the interest of the armed rich and the
   warlike minorities." [Evolution and Environment, pp. 48-9]
   Unsurprisingly, then, the state perverts social customs for its own,
   and the interests of the economically and socially powerful:

     "as society became more and more divided into two hostile classes,
     one seeking to establish its domination, the other struggling to
     escape, the strife began. Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure
     the results of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place
     them beyond question, to make them holy and venerable by every means
     in his power. Law made its appearance under the sanction of the
     priest, and the warriors club was placed at its service. Its office
     was to render immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the
     dominant minority . . . If law, however, presented nothing but a
     collection of prescriptions serviceable to rulers, it would find
     some difficulty in insuring acceptance and obedience. Well, the
     legislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom . . .
     , the maxims which represent principles of morality and social union
     wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates which
     are meant to ensure external existence to inequality. Customs,
     absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code,
     cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and
     both claim equal respect from the crowd . . . Such was the law; and
     it has maintained its two-fold character to this day." [Kropotkin,
     Anarchism, p. 205]

   In other words, the law has "has used Man's social feelings to get
   passed not only moral precepts which were acceptable to Man, but also
   orders which were useful only to the minority of exploiters against
   whom he would have rebelled." [Kropotkin quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy,
   pp. 24-5]

   Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only
   unneeded to create an ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting
   individuality) but actively undermines such a society. That the
   economically and politically powerful assert that a state is a
   necessary condition for a free society and individual space is hardly
   surprising for, as Malatesta put it, a ruling elite "cannot maintain
   itself for long without hiding its true nature behind a pretence of
   general usefulness . . . it cannot impose acceptances of the privileges
   of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of the rights of
   all." [Op. Cit., p. 24] Thus laws "exist to keep up the machinery of
   government which serves to secure to capital the exploitation and
   monopoly of wealth produced" and "to facilitate the exploitation of the
   worker by the capitalist." And people "who long for freedom begin the
   attempt to obtain it by entreating their masters to be kind enough to
   protect them by modifying the laws which these masters themselves have
   created!" [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 200 and p. 210]

   Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so
   whatever actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to
   protect the powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised
   by the state are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass
   victories in the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling
   elites. In addition, capitalism itself undermines the ethical
   foundations of any society by encouraging people to grow accustomed to
   deceiving their fellows and treating them as a competitor, against whom
   every means of action is justified. Hence capitalism undermines the
   basic social context and customs within which individuals develop and
   need to become fully human and free. Little wonder that a strong state
   has always been required to introduce a free market -- firstly, to
   protect wealth from the increasingly dispossessed and secondly, to try
   to hold society together as capitalism destroys the social fabric which
   makes a society worth living in.

   For more on this issue, Kropotkin's classic essay "Law and Authority"
   cannot be bettered (contained in Anarchism and Words of a Rebel).

I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

   Given that many people claim that any form of socialism will destroy
   liberty (and so individuality) it is worthwhile to consider whether
   capitalism actually does protect individuality. The answer must be no.
   Capitalism creates a standardisation which helps to distort
   individuality and the fact that individuality does exist under
   capitalism says more about the human spirit than capitalist social
   relationships.

   So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit
   result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main
   reasons:

     1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes
     self-government in many areas of life;

     2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the
     necessary supports for the encouragement of individuality;

     3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it
     becomes identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism);

     4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless
     obedience to authority.

   We have discussed point one on many occasions (see, for example,
   [10]section B.4). As Emma Goldman put it, under capitalism, the
   individual "must sell his [or her] labour" and so their "inclination
   and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." This,
   naturally, represses individual initiative and the skills needed to
   know and express ones own mind. This "condemns millions of people to be
   mere nonentities, living corpses without originality or power of
   initiative . . . who pile up mountains of wealth for others and pay for
   it with a grey, dull and wretched existence for themselves." "There can
   be no freedom in the large sense of the word," Goldman stressed, "so
   long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an important part
   in the determination of personal conduct." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50]
   Hence Bookchin:

     "With the hollowing out of community by the market system . . . we
     witness the concomitant hollowing out of personality itself. Just as
     the spiritual and institutional ties that linked human beings
     together into vibrant social relations are eroded by the mass
     market, so the sinews that make for subjectivity, character and
     self-definition are divested of form and meaning. The isolated,
     seemingly autonomous ego of 'modernity' turns out to be the mere
     husk of a once fairly rounded individual whose very completeness as
     an ego was possible because he or she was rooted in a fairly rounded
     and complete community." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 211]

   As regards point one, given the social relationships it is based on,
   capitalism cannot foster individuality but only harm it. As Kropotkin
   argued, "obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities . . .
   lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind." [Anarchism, p.
   285] As far as point two goes, we have discussed it above and will not
   repeat ourselves (see [11]section I.7). The last two points are worth
   discussing more thoroughly, and we will do so here.

   Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the
   guiding aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in)
   they usually end up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the
   individual dominating their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they
   end up being possessed by one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness"
   hides the poverty of the ego who practices it. As libertarian Marxist
   psychiatrist Erich Fromm argued:

     "Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very
     opposite. Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all
     greediness, it contains an insatiability, as a consequence of which
     there is never any real satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit
     which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need
     without ever reaching satisfaction . . . this type of person is
     basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes himself.

     "The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve.
     Selfishness is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself . .
     . He does not have the inner security which can exist only on the
     basis of genuine fondness and affirmation." [The Fear of Freedom,
     pp. 99-100]

   In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate
   their ego and they sacrifice their personality feeding this new God.
   This was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a
   "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism" which leads the ego being "ruled
   by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices" [The Ego and
   Its Own, p. 76]. Like all "spooks," capitalism results in the
   self-negation of the individual and so the impoverishment of
   individuality. Little wonder, then, that a system apparently based upon
   "egotism" and "individualism" ends up weakening individuality.

   As regards the fourth point, the effects of competition on
   individuality are equally as destructive. Indeed, a "culture dedicated
   to creating standardised, specialised, predictable human components
   could find no better way of grinding them out than by making every
   possible aspect of life a matter of competition. 'Winning out' in this
   respect does not make rugged individualists. It shapes conformist
   robots." [George Leonard, quoted by Alfie Kohn, No Contest: The Case
   Against Competition, p. 129] Why is this?

   Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if
   you are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the
   most unique thing there is and "unique characteristics by definition
   cannot be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands
   essential conformity." The extensive research into the effects of
   competition suggests that it in fact "encourages rank conformity" as
   well as undermining the "substantial and authentic kind of
   individualism" associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [Alfie
   Kohn, Op. Cit., p. 130 and p. 129] As well as impoverishing
   individuality by encouraging conformity, competition also makes us less
   free thinking and rebellious:

     "Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the
     kinds of competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If
     I want to get the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to
     challenge the teacher's version of whatever topic is being covered.
     After a while, I may cease to think critically altogether . . . If
     people tend to 'go along to get along,' there is even more incentive
     to go along when the goal is to be number one. In the office or
     factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next person for
     a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to extinguish
     the Promethean fire of rebellion." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

   In [12]section I.4.11 we noted that when an artistic task is turned
   into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity
   and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so
   individuality because creativity is "anti-conformist at its core: it is
   nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.
   Competition inhibits this process." Competition, therefore, will result
   in a narrowing of our lives, a failing to experience new challenges in
   favour of trying to win and be "successful." It turns "life into a
   series of contests [and] turns us into cautious, obedient people. We do
   not sparkle as individuals or embrace collective action when we are in
   a race." [Kohn, Op. Cit., p. 130 and p. 131]

   So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of
   barriers (both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are
   trying to express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because
   capitalism has not created the free society it supporters claimed it
   would.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI7.html#seci74
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI7.html#seci71
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI7.html#seci73
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci38
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html#secf86
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca219
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI5.html#seci56
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI7.html
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci411
