First off, as part of the Second Nottingham Radical Bookfair, I will be marking the publication by AK Press of the last book Peter Kropotkin published in his lifetime, Modern Science and Anarchy (1913):
First off, as part of the Second Nottingham Radical Bookfair, I will be marking the publication by AK Press of the last book Peter Kropotkin published in his lifetime, Modern Science and Anarchy (1913):
Peter Kropotkin: Science and Syndicalism
Saturday, 17th November
12.15-13.15
Nottingham Mechanics Institute
3 North Sherwood Street
Nottingham
NG1 4EZ
As well as the full translation of the 1913 French edition, the 2018 translation includes related material in the form of letters, articles and the pamphlet Anarchy: Its Philosophy, Its Ideal, along with an introduction and notes by my good self. The full contents are as follows (more details here):
Introduction: Reality Has a Well-Known Libertarian Bias
· A Publication History
· Further Reading
· Notes on the text
· Acknowledgements
Modern Science and Anarchy
Preface (newly translated)
Part I: Modern Science & Anarchy
I. The Origins of Anarchy
II. The Intellectual Movement of the Eighteenth Century
III. The Reaction at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century
IV. Comte’s Positive Philosophy
V. The Awakening in the Years 1856–1862
VI. Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy
VII. The Role of Law in Society
VIII. The Position of Anarchy in Modern Science
IX. The Anarchist Ideal and Previous Revolutions
X. Anarchy
XI. Anarchy (continued)
XII. Anarchy (continued)
XIII. Anarchy (continued)
XIV. Some Conclusions of Anarchy
XV. The Means of Action
XVI. Conclusion
Part II: Communism & Anarchy
I. Anarchist Communism (newly translated)
II. Authoritarian Communism—Communist Communities
III. Small Communist Communities—Causes of Their Failures
IV. Does Communism Imply the Diminishing of the Individual?
Part III: The State: Its Historic Role
Part IV: The Modern State
I. The Essential Principle of Modern Societies
II. Serfs of the State
III. Taxation: A Means of Creating the Powers of the State
IV. Taxation: A Means of Enriching the Wealthy
V. Monopolies
VI. Monopolies in the Nineteenth Century
VII. Monopolies in constitutional England–In Germany–Kings of the Era (newly translated)
VIII. War
IX. War and Industry
X. The Essential Characteristics of the State (newly translated)
XI. Can the State Be Used for the Emancipation of the Workers? (newly translated)
XII. The Modern Constitutional State (newly translated)
XIII. Is it Sensible to Strengthen the Current State? (newly translated)
XIV. Conclusions (newly translated)
Part V: Appendices
I. Explanatory Notes
II. Herbert Spencer: His Philosophy
Supplementary Material
Charles Darwin (newly translated)
Anarchy: Its Philosophy, Its Ideal
Co-operation: A Reply to Herbert Spencer (from Freedom, first time in book)
Letter to Comradeship (first time in book)
Organised Vengeance Called Justice (new translation)
The State: Creator of Monopolies (newly translated)
Of note is that Kropotkin included two parts on Herbert Spencer (Part I: VI – Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy; an Appendix – Herbert Spencer: His Philosophy). I also decided to add the two-part article from Freedom entitled “Co-operation: A Reply to Herbert Spencer” as this has never been republished, as far as I am aware. I did ponder including the chapter on Herbert in his Ethics, but decided against it as it is easily accessible. I do quote from it in the introduction, where I also discuss Kropotkin’s critique of Spencer and why it is quite sympathetic – Spencer’s initial position on landownership and later recognition of the authoritarian nature of wage-labour point beyond liberalism towards socialism. Kropotkin, thought, does not spare his words on Spencer’s inability to hold to these radical positions and his descent into the crudest defence of bourgeois property, power and privileges.
In terms of Kropotkin and Spencer, Matthew Adams article “Formulating an anarchist sociology: Peter Kropotkin’s reading of Herbert Spencer” (Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 77, Number 1, January 2016) is excellent. This is included in his book Kropotkin, Read, and the Intellectual History of British Anarchism: Between Reason and Romanticism (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). Adams other articles on Kropotkin are also recommended.
One thing which comes across looking through libertarian papers from the pre-1914 era for my A Libertarian Reader is that Spencer is often quoted, usually in passing, in a positive way. This, I think, due to his position as a respected intellectual who was challenging certain aspects of the State and anarchists were linking certain of their ideas with someone their readers may have heard of, to show that they were not as strange as the name suggests. Kropotkin did something similar in the articles for the Nineteenth Century of February (“The Scientific Basis of Anarchy”) and August (“The Coming Anarchy”) 1887, and later revised by the Kropotkin as the 1891 pamphlet Anarchist Communism: Its Aims and Principles. There he linked anarchism to the two theories his readers would recognise (classical liberalism and state socialism) before showing why neither could achieve its stated goals. As regards liberalism:
‘When a workman sells his labour to an employer, and knows perfectly well that some value of his produce will be unjustly taken by the employer; when he sells it without even the slightest guarantee of being employed so much as six consecutive months—and he is compelled to do so because he and his family would otherwise starve next week—it is a sad mockery to call that a free contract. Modern economists may call it free, but the father of political economy—Adam Smith—was never guilty of such a misrepresentation. As long as three-quarters of humanity are compelled to enter into agreements of that description, force is, of course, necessary both to enforce the supposed agreements and to maintain such a state of things. Force—and a good deal of force—is necessary for preventing the labourers from taking possession of what they consider unjustly appropriated by the few; and force is necessary for always bringing new “uncivilised nations” under the same conditions. The Spencerian no-force party perfectly well understand that; and while they advocate no force for changing the existing conditions, they advocate still more force than is now used for maintaining them. As to anarchy, it is obviously as incompatible with plutocracy as with any other kind of –cracy.’ (Kropotkin, “Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles,” Anarchism and Anarchist-Communism [London: Freedom Press, 1987], 52–53)
And as Thatcherism showed, neo-liberalism is marked by an increase in the authoritarian State – at least for the many. This was also seen by Ludwig von Mises, that guru of propertarianism, and fascism. Talking of which, here are some comments based on Jörg Guido Hülsmann’s Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007).
Needless to say, our hagiographer, sorry, biographer seeks to downplay von Mises support for fascism. So he cannot bring himself to admit that Dollfuss was a fascist, although he has to admit that Dollfuss “abolished the parliamentary republic” and “ruled dictatorially” (676) He also notes “the government of Engelbert Dollfuss, which had reintroduced authoritarian corporatism into Austrian politics to resist the socialism of both the Marxist and the Nazi variety.” (683)
Not that the Nazis were socialists, of course, but apparently all you need to do is look at what someone calls themselves… so, presumably, the People’s Democratic Republic of China isn’t a horrible dictatorship? For some reason I doubt Hülsmann would argue that, but logically he must.
And why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? Because they wanted to appeal to a population with a significant number of socialists in it and where even the conservatives embraced some form of social reform (Bismarck famously built elements of the welfare state decades before to tempt workers away from social democracy). So the German fascist right stole “socialist” from the left – just as the American propertarian right knowingly stole “libertarian” from the left decades later (although few propertarians seem to know that, for if they did surely their ideology would mean rejecting stolen goods and stop calling themselves “libertarians”? I would not recommend holding your breath…).
We should remember that regardless of right-wing revisionism, at the time the right supported all forms of fascism – including the Nazis. The right, along with business, saw the benefits of such support in terms of breaking unions, removing agitators, and such like – not to mention getting funds from the new regime. After all, the Nazis coined the term privatisation and placed many formally nationalised enterprises back into private hands.
Our author also takes pains to distance von Mises from fascism, but his support for Dolfuss was very much in line with his late 1920s eulogising of fascism in his book Liberalism:
“It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not the kind which could promise continued success.”
Hülsmann does quote this, but in a footnote (560) and also refutes his own position by noting:
“Dollfuss’s authoritarian policies were in his view only a quick fix to safeguard Austria’s independence—unsuitable in the long run, especially if the general political mentality did not change.” (684)
So a dose of fascism in the short-term is fine, but not as a long-term solution… this, for Hülsmann, does not make von Mises a supporter of fascism. For some reason.
Why was von Mises so keen on fascism as “a quick fix”? Some of this was the danger of (state) socialism – whether in the Bolshevik or social democratic form. Some of it was based on von Mises’ position on the Great Depression, namely that the Great Depression in Austria was caused by “the main culprits—the welfare state and the labor unions.” (615) High unemployment? “The main cause of unemployment was clear: government-supported labor unions.” (619) Let us ignore that mass unemployment in America came after the collapse of trade unionism in the 1920s – or that unemployment fell there as the unions grew in influence, as I blogged previously. Which means that von Mises was of that school whose perspective was memorably summarised by Proudhon in 1846:
“Political economy – that is, proprietary despotism – can never be in the wrong: it must be the proletariat.” (Système des contradictions économiques ou Philosophie de la misère [Paris: Guillaumin, 1846] I: 176)
In short, von Mises was of the opinion that soup kitchens caused the Great Depression (to quote Paul Krugman) and that against all logic and all evidence that unions are strongest in periods of mass unemployment. Which raises the question, what does “government-supported labor unions” actually mean? Here is von Mises as quoted by Hülsmann:
“These union tactics naturally presuppose that the government tolerates this behavior, at the least. Were it to proceed in its usual way and interfere with the criminals who abuse jobseekers and vandalize the machines and other of the entrepreneurs’ facilities, then circumstances would be different. But that it has capitulated to the unions is the precise feature that characterizes the modern state.” (620)
So the problem is that the government does not smash the unions, outlaw picketing, etc. In other words, the problem for von Mises is that the government takes a, what is the expression?, ah, right, a laissez faire approach to labour organisation… Our author then writes these words with no apparent sense of irony or awareness:
“Mises argued that ultimately there was no choice but to abolish all government intervention and to confront union power head on.” (621)
Abolish all government intervention… while sending in the troops against workers? As Kropotkin once put it:
“Furthermore, the state of laissez-faire, which liberal economists like to talk to us about, and against which social-democrats love to break their lances, is a product of the imagination that has never existed and will not exist since it would be a contradiction of principles.
“Fundamentally, liberal economists (including M. Molinari and Adam Smith) never wanted it – their ideal having not been laissez-faire, not laissez-passer, but on the contrary, to do a lot on behalf of the capitalist. Carte Blanche for exploitation guaranteed by the State – they never had another ideal. What can be said of the facts? […] when did the State not take the side of the capitalist against the worker? They have many sabres and bullets for the workers, but have they ever thrashed the exploiters?” (“Une Conférence sur l’Anarchie”, La Révolte, 5 August 18935 August 1893)
While slightly unfair on Adam Smith, this is correct as Hülsmann shows so clearly. The ideological blindness is staggering – government intervention against labour and for property is not government intervention at all in his eyes. In short, the state repressing workers is good but it proving medical care for the cracked heads is wrong.
And did it work? Well, Dollfuss – as a good fascist did crush the labour movement and cut back on welfare, as von Mises (Mises was “one of [Dollfuss’s] closest advisers,” according to propertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe). As I’ve indicated elsewhere, things got worse rather than better. As two historians summarise:
“Beginning in in 1931, unemployment grew rapidly, reaching a peak in 1933–6, with between 24 and 26 per cent of the labour force out of work [….] When, in 1937 and 1938, there was a modest recovery, unemployment never dropped below the 20 per cent value. This had a devastating effect on the legitimacy of the Austrian system” (Gerlich and Campbell, Austria: From Compromise to Authoritarianism,” in D. Berg-Schlosser and J. Mitchell (eds). The Conditions of Democracy in Europe, 1919–39: Systematic Case Studies [Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2000], 55).
Unsurprisingly:
“The standard of living for those in work declined as wages fell further and faster than prices. Unemployment benefits were meagre for only one year […] Rising unemployment strengthened the hand of the employers in the labour, and they attempted to dismantle what was left of the Republic’s labour legislation.” (Tom Kirk, Nazism and the working class in Austria : industrial unrest and political dissent in the ‘national community [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 31-2)
Opps. But, then, Mises argued that if there is a contradiction between your theory and the facts, then the facts are wrong (i.e., ignore reality):
“If a contradiction appears between a theory and experience, we must always assume that a condition pre-supposed by the theory was not present, or else there is some error in our observation. The disagreement between the theory and the facts of experience frequently forces us to think through the problems of the theory again. But so long as a rethinking of the theory uncovers no errors in our thinking, we are not entitled to doubt its truth” (quoted by Homa Katouzian, Ideology and Method in Economics [MacMillian Press Ltd., London, 1980], 39-40)
Still, I guess that it could be argued that the state repression did not go far enough, that wages were not low enough but that seems unlikely.
And, finally, while Thatcher did not completely destroy union independence, she did regulate it. Her party has followed her (my union failed to get the 50% turn-out required for a pay dispute recently). The Tories made it illegal for unionists to show solidarity with others. Inequality has grown, low wages abound, and productivity gains flow upwards… what a surprise. All of which shows the appeal of von Mises to the master class, or at least certain sections of it (we should not inflate the influence of the propertarianism beyond their well-funded role of defending the power of property).
But, folks, remember when a propertarian supports fascism, urges massive state intervention to break the voluntary associations of working class people, to smash strikes, and so forth then this says nothing about their self-proclaimed “libertarian” politics… but it does point to the heart of the contradiction in properarianism, as Proudhon noted long ago when it was still called liberalism:
“Individualism, incapable of resolving a priori its famous problem of the agreement of interests, and forced to lay down at least provisional laws, abdicates in its turn before this new power, which was excluded by the pure practice of liberty.” (De la Justice dans la Revolution et dans l’Eglise I: 123)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hülsmann downplays the repression. Indeed he writes at one stage:
“The leftover deputies then voted for a ‘new constitution’ that in its essential lines returned to the pre-1907 constitutional model. Members of parliament were no longer elected by universal suffrage, but appointed from among members of the major ‘estates’ such as landowners, clerics, labor unions, industrialists, etc.’ (678)
So unions existed? No, not really. Independent (social-democratic) unions had been repressed in 1934 by Dollfoss. A few Christian unions existed, favouring class collaboration, and members of the industrial “estate” he refers to were elected by seven corporations supposedly representing workers and employers. In short, a corporatist system is described as having or being based on “labor unions”! Clearly, criticising what you don’t understand is fine and this shows:
“Nation, State, and Economy is a rationalist-utilitarian analysis of the three manifestations of German imperialism: (1) past German imperialism for the sake of national greatness, (2) economic central planning in World War I (war socialism), which accelerated the introduction of full-blown socialism, and (3) the blossoming imperialism of the social democrats under the banner of syndicalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (310-1)
This is gibberish. Central planning of the war effort of a capitalist state is not “socialism” but war capitalism (and has any state pursued a laissez-faire approach in a war?). As for “the blossoming imperialism of the social democrats under the banner of syndicalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat,” this is nonsense. The social democrats opposed syndicalism before, during and after the war – as did the Bolsheviks. Both advocated state control, not workers’ control (what I assume he means by syndicalism as this is primarily a tactic, not an end). He also seems unaware that the syndicalists opposed social democracy as well as “the dictatorship of the proletariat” and that the social democrats opposed a Bolshevik-style “dictatorship of the proletariat,” with Kautsky stressing that Marx meant an extension of democracy by this term rather than a party dictatorship. But, then, his quoting of von Mises shows that he follows his master in not understanding the thing he is attacking, as shown by his comments on syndicalism provided uncritically in the book (see here).
All of which, I think, shows why anarchists and genuine libertarians ignore – when not opposing – the modern-day propertarians. The sympathetic treatment Kropotkin showed Spencer was before von Mises embraced the fascism which was killing anarchist workers across Europe (first in Italy), smashing syndicalist unions, and so on. That he supported it as a mere temporary expedient is meaningless – after all, he was happy to use the State against uppity workers in “normal” times. Today, his followers seem unaware that State repression of rebel workers is government intervention… and best not mention that it is the State which imposes capitalist property rights.
So von Hayek and Milton Friedman praising Pinochet is not a surprise – so-called “libertarians” are actually quite authoritarian and they are happy to support authoritarian regimes and social relationships (such as wage-labour). Hence the current association of “libertarians” (i.e., propertarians) with conservatives is not surprising:
“Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty—or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.” (Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, [Oxford University Press, 2011], 15-6)
Stating the obvious is always good when it comes to propertarians:
“Despite the very real differences between them, workers in a factory are like secretaries in an office, peasants on a manor, slaves on a plantation—even wives in a marriage—in that they live and labor in conditions of unequal power. They submit and obey, heeding the demands of their managers and masters, husbands and lords. They are disciplined and punished. They do much and receive little. Sometimes their lot is freely chosen—workers contract with their employers, wives with their husbands—but its entailments seldom are. What contract, after all, could ever itemize the ins and outs, the daily pains and ongoing sufferance, of a job or a marriage? Throughout American history, in fact, the contract often has served as a conduit to unforeseen coercion and constraint, particularly in institutions like the workplace and the family where men and women spend so much of their lives. Employment and marriage contracts have been interpreted by judges, themselves friendly to the interests of employers and husbands, to contain all sorts of unwritten and unwanted provisions of servitude to which wives and workers tacitly consent, even when they have no knowledge of such provisions or wish to stipulate otherwise.
[…]
“Every once in a while, however, the subordinates of this world contest their fates. They protest their conditions, write letters and petitions, join movements, and make demands. Their goals may be minimal and discrete—better safety guards on factory machines, an end to marital rape—but in voicing them, they raise the specter of a more fundamental change in power. They cease to be servants or supplicants and become agents, speaking and acting on their own behalf. More than the reforms themselves, it is this assertion of agency by the subject class—the appearance of an insistent and independent voice of demand—that vexes their superiors.” (Robin, 4-6)
And Mises was very vexed by that spectre – so far as to embrace fascism, at least for a while. Once the masses were sufficiently terrorised and internalised their inferior position then a “liberal” regime could and should return. Hence the soft-place most propertarians have for Pinochet – for they defend the dictatorship of the property owner over those who use their property, a despotism which anarchists and genuine libertarians have long recognised.
And talking of Pinochet, this article is of note On your way, Pinochet! The factory workers who fought fascism from Glasgow. Ignoring that East Kilbride is not in Glasgow, it is an inspiring action – and one which is now illegal thanks to Thatcher’s anti-union laws. So now there is government invention to stop people expressing basic solidarity with their fellows and also help a fascist state to murder its subjects – in the name of “freedom”! Strange freedom indeed, which bolsters fascism and hinders free association and – dare I saw it? – human action.
This article co-existed on the webpage with this one: Finally, the Tories are discovering the state can be a force for good. Except, of course, the Tories regularly use the state for what they consider good – and always have. Anti-union laws do not just appear as if by magic, nor are property laws like the law of gravity which does not need police officers to enforce…
Sadly, the liberal left, and many on the left, seem to have taken the neo-liberal mantra of being against “government intervention” at face value – and completely ignore the extensive state action in favour of capital. Which comes as no surprise, for it is a capitalist state…
And it is of interest to note the following:
“Mises championed a program of thorough political centralization […] the state alone should direct the whole administration of the county […] The communal authorities would have to execute the tasks set for them by the general legislation. Their only revenue would come from the state and from public firms and property.” (743-4)
Thatcher did the same in the 1980s. The problem was that people would vote locally for parties which would protect them from the government. This had happened in the past, too, with municipal socialism developing across Britain to counter-act the evils of freer-market capitalism (Kropotkin mentions these experiments in Modern Science and Anarchy). This annoyed her and so people had to be forced to be free – Britain was turned from a relative decentralised system to the most centralised in Europe. This did not stop Tories prattling on about “localism” – as shown most recently when such talk was quickly forgotten to allow fracking to take place against overwhelming local opposition.
But enough of this sorry tale of propertarian support for fascism and neo-liberalism authoritarianism. I have a talk to prepare and texts to pick for A Libertarian Reader – which will include people from the 19th and 20th century who used the term libertarian and opposed fascism (neither of which von Mises did). And I must admit to enjoying reading genuine libertarian thinkers and activists rather than the authoritarians who knowingly stole the term in the 1950s: the poverty of propertarianism is shocking.
Until I blog again, be seeing you…