Other forms of authority are more acceptable to anarchists, it depends whether the authority in question becomes a source of power over others or not. That is the key to understanding the anarchist position on authority -- if it is hierarchical authority, then anarchists are against it. . The reason is simple:
"[n]o one should be entrusted with power, inasmuch as anyone invested with authority must . . . became an oppressor and exploiter of society." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 249]
This distinction between forms of authority is important. As Erich Fromm pointed out, "authority" is "a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it." [To Have or To Be, pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin over 100 years earlier when he indicated the difference between authority and "natural influence." For Bakunin, individual freedom "results from th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every individual around him [or her] and which society . . . continually exercise . . . To abolish this mutual influence would be to die." Consequently, "when we reclaim the freedom of the masses, we hardly wish to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of individual's natural influence upon the masses. What we wish is to abolish artificial, privileged, legal, and official influences." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140 and p. 141]
It is, in other words, the difference between taking part in a decision and listening to alternative viewpoints and experts ("natural influence") before making your mind up and having a decision made for you by a separate group of individuals (who may or may not be elected) because that is their role in an organisation or society. In the former, the individual exercises their judgement and freedom (i.e. is based on rational authority). In the latter, they are subjected to the wills of others, to hierarchical authority (i.e. is based on irrational authority). This is because rational authority "not only permits but requires constant scrutiny and criticism . . . it is always temporary, its acceptance depending on its performance." The source of irrational authority, on the other hand, "is always power over people . . . Power on the one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses on which irrational authority is built." Thus former is based upon "equality" while the latter "is by its very nature based upon inequality." [Erich Fromm, Man for Himself, pp. 9-10]
This crucial point is expressed in the difference between having authority and being an authority. Being an authority just means that a given person is generally recognised as competent for a given task, based on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently, it is socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is a social relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical position, not on individual ability. Obviously this does not mean that competence is not an element for obtaining a hierarchical position; it just means that the real or alleged initial competence is transferred to the title or position of the authority and so becomes independent of individuals, i.e. institutionalised (or what Bakunin termed "official").
This difference is important because the way people behave is more a product of the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent nature. In other words, social relationships shape the individuals involved. This means that the various groups individuals create have traits, behaviours and outcomes that cannot be understood by reducing them to the individuals within them. That is, groups consist not only of individuals, but also relationships between individuals and these relationships will effect those subject to them. For example, obviously "the exercise of power by some disempowers others" and so through a "combination of physical intimidation, economic domination and dependency, and psychological limitations, social institutions and practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her or his place in it." This, as we discuss in the next section, impacts on those involved in such authoritarian social relationships as "the exercise of power in any institutionalised form -- whether economic, political or sexual -- brutalises both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." [Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p. 41]
Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the few) order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the individuals involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society as a whole. Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by authority, not liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom, authoritarian social relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and cannot educate a person in freedom -- only participation (self-management) in all areas of life can do that. "In a society based on exploitation and servitude," in Kropotkin's words, "human nature itself is degraded" and it is only "as servitude disappears" shall we "regain our rights." [Anarchism, p. 104]
Of course, it will be pointed out that in any collective undertaking there is a need for co-operation and co-ordination and this need to "subordinate" the individual to group activities is a form of authority. Therefore, it is claimed, a democratically managed group is just as "authoritarian" as one based on hierarchical authority. Anarchists are not impressed by such arguments. Yes, we reply, of course in any group undertaking there is a need make and stick by agreements but anarchists argue that to use the word "authority" to describe two fundamentally different ways of making decisions is playing with words. It obscures the fundamental difference between free association and hierarchical imposition and confuses co-operation with command (as we note in section H.4, Marxists are particularly fond of this fallacy). Simply put, there are two different ways of co-ordinating individual activity within groups -- either by authoritarian means or by libertarian means. Proudhon, in relation to workplaces, makes the difference clear:
"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] have a voice in the council, in a word he will become an associate."In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216]
In other words, associations can be based upon a form of rational authority, based upon natural influence and so reflect freedom, the ability of individuals to think, act and feel and manage their own time and activity. Otherwise, we include elements of slavery into our relationships with others, elements that poison the whole and shape us in negative ways (see section B.1.1). Only the reorganisation of society in a libertarian way (and, we may add, the mental transformation such a change requires and would create) will allow the individual to "achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst continuing to develop" and banish "that spirit of submission that has been artificially thrust upon him [or her]" [Nestor Makhno, The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays, p. 62]
So, anarchists "ask nothing better than to see [others]. . . exercise over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted, and never imposed . . . We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but none of right." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 255] Anarchist support for free association within directly democratic groups is based upon such organisational forms increasing influence and reducing irrational authority in our lives. Members of such organisations can create and present their own ideas and suggestions, critically evaluate the proposals and suggestions from their fellows, accept those that they agree with or become convinced by and have the option of leaving the association if they are unhappy with its direction. Hence the influence of individuals and their free interaction determine the nature of the decisions reached, and no one has the right to impose their ideas on another. As Bakunin argued, in such organisations "no function remains fixed and it will not remain permanently and irrevocably attached to one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist. . . In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 415]
Therefore, anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social institutions include the state (see section B.2), private property and the class systems it produces (see section B.3) and, therefore, capitalism (see section B.4). Due to their hierarchical nature, anarchists oppose these with passion. "Every institution, social or civil," argued Voltairine de Cleyre, "that stands between man [or woman] and his [or her] right; every tie that renders one a master, another a serf; every law, every statue, every be-it-enacted that represents tyranny" anarchists seek to destroy. However, hierarchy exists beyond these institutions. For example, hierarchical social relationships include sexism, racism and homophobia (see section B.1.4), and anarchists oppose, and fight, them all. Thus, as well as fighting capitalism as being hierarchical (for workers "slave in a factory," albeit "the slavery ends with the working hours") de Cleyre also opposed patriarchal social relationships which produce a "home that rests on slavery" because of a "marriage that represents the sale and transfer of the individuality of one of its parties to the other!" [The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 72, p. 17 and p. 72]
Needless to say, while we discuss different forms of hierarchy in different sections this does not imply that anarchists think they, and their negative effects, are somehow independent or can be easily compartmentalised. For example, the modern state and capitalism are intimately interrelated and cannot be considered as independent of each other. Similarly, social hierarchies like sexism and racism are used by other hierarchies to maintain themselves (for example, bosses will use racism to divide and so rule their workers). From this it follows that abolishing one or some of these hierarchies, while desirable, would not be sufficient. Abolishing capitalism while maintaining the state would not lead to a free society (and vice versa) -- if it were possible. As Murray Bookchin notes:
"there can be a decidedly classless, even a non-exploitative society in the economic sense that still preserves hierarchical rule and domination in the social sense -- whether they take the form of the patriarchal family, domination by age and ethnic groups, bureaucratic institutions, ideological manipulation or a pyramidal division of labour . . . classless or not, society would be riddles by domination and, with domination, a general condition of command and obedience, of unfreedom and humiliation, and perhaps most decisively, an abortion of each individual's potentiality for consciousness, reason, selfhood, creativity, and the right to assert full control over her or his daily live." [Toward an Ecological Society, pp. 14-5]
This clearly implies that anarchists "challenge not only class formations
but hierarchies, not only material exploitation but domination in every
form." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 15] Hence the anarchist stress on opposing
hierarchy rather than just, say, the state (as some falsely assert) or
simply economic class and exploitation (as, say, many Marxists do). As
noted earlier (in section A.2.8), anarchists consider all hierarchies to be not only
harmful but unnecessary, and think that there are alternative, more egalitarian
ways to organise social life. In fact, we argue that hierarchical authority
creates the conditions it is presumably designed to combat, and thus tends
to be self-perpetuating. Thus hierarchical organisations erode the ability of those at the
bottom to manage their own affairs directly so requiring hierarchy
and some people in positions to give orders and the rest to follow
them. Rather than prevent disorder, governments are among its primary
causes while its bureaucracies ostensibly set up to fight poverty wind
wind up perpetuating it, because without poverty, the high-salaried
top administrators would be out of work. The same applies to agencies
intended to eliminate drug abuse, fight crime, etc. In other words, the
power and privileges deriving from top hierarchical positions constitute a
strong incentive for those who hold them not to solve the problems
they are supposed to solve. (For further discussion see Marilyn French,
Beyond Power: On Women, Men, and Morals, Summit Books, 1985.)
Or, in the words of Bakunin, "the principle of authority, applied to men
who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a monstrosity, a
source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity." [God and the
State, p. 41]
This is echoed by the syndicalist miners who wrote the classic The Miners'
Next Step when they indicate the nature of authoritarian organisations and
their effect on those involved. Leadership (i.e. hierarchical authority)
"implies power held by the leader. Without power the leader is inept. The
possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. . . in spite of. . . good
intentions . . . [Leadership means] power of initiative, this sense of
responsibility, the self-respect which comes from expressed manhood [sic!],
is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their
initiative, their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his . . .
[and the] order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the
men, from being independent thinkers into being 'the men' . . . In a word, he
is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy." Indeed, for the
"leader," such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader "sees no need
for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud
his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding
criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion."
[The Miners' Next Step, pp. 16-17 and p. 15]
Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a negative
effect on those subject to them, who can no longer exercise their critical,
creative and mental abilities freely. As Colin Ward argues, people "do
go from womb to tomb without realising their human potential, precisely
because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, judging,
and deciding is reserved for the top men" (and it usually is men!) [Anarchy
in Action, p, 42]. Anarchism is based on the insight that there is an
interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and the
psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals. Following orders all
day hardly builds an independent, empowered, creative personality ("authority
and servility walk ever hand in hand." [Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 81]). As Emma
Goldman made clear, if a person's "inclination and judgement are subordinated
to the will of a master" (such as a boss, as most people have to sell their
labour under capitalism) then little wonder such an authoritarian relationship
"condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities." [Red Emma Speaks,
p. 50]
As the human brain is a bodily organ, it needs to be used regularly in
order to be at its fittest. Authority concentrates decision-making in the
hands of those at the top, meaning that most people are turned into
executants, following the orders of others. If muscle is not used, it
turns to fat; if the brain is not used, creativity, critical thought and
mental abilities become blunted and side-tracked onto marginal issues,
like sports and fashion. This can only have a negative impact:
And so, in the words of Colin Ward, the "system makes its morons, then despises
them for their ineptitude, and rewards its 'gifted few' for their rarity."
[Op. Cit., p. 43]
In a nutshell, "[h]ierarchies, classes, and states warp the creative
powers of humanity." However, that is not all. Hierarchy, anarchists
argue, also twists our relationships with the environment. Indeed,
"all our notions of dominating nature stem from the very real domination
of human by human . . . And it is not until we eliminate domination in
all its forms . . . that we will really create a rational, ecological
society." For "the conflicts within a divided humanity, structured
around domination, inevitably leads to conflicts with nature. The
ecological crisis with its embattled division between humanity and
nature stems, above all, from divisions between human and human."
While the "rise of capitalism, with a law of life based on competition,
capital accumulation, and limitless growth, brought these problems --
ecological and social -- to an acute point," anarchists "emphasise
that major ecological problems have their roots in social problems
-- problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric
culture itself." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 72, p. 44,
p. 72 and pp. 154-5]
Thus, anarchists argue, hierarchy impacts not only on us but also our
surroundings. The environmental crisis we face is a result of the
hierarchical power structures at the heart of our society, structures
which damage the planet's ecology at least as much as they damage humans.
The problems within society, the economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender
conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious
ecological dislocations we face. The way human beings deal with each
other as social beings is crucial to addressing the ecological crisis.
Ultimately, ecological destruction is rooted in the organisation of our
society for a degraded humanity can only yield a degraded nature (as
capitalism and our hierarchical history have sadly shown).
This is unsurprising as we, as a species, shape our environment and,
consequently, whatever shapes us will impact how we do so. This means
that the individuals produced by the hierarchy (and the authoritarian
mentality it produces) will shape the planet in specific, harmful,
ways. This is to be expected as humans act upon their environment
deliberately, creating what is most suitable for their mode of existence.
If that mode of living is riddled with hierarchies, classes, states and
the oppression, exploitation and domination they create then our relations
with the natural world will hardly be any better. In other words, social
hierarchy and class legitimises our domination of the environment,
planting the seeds for the believe that nature exists, like other
people, to be dominated and used as required.
Which brings us to another key reason why anarchists reject hierarchy.
In addition to these negative psychological effects from the denial of
liberty, authoritarian social relationships also produce social inequality.
This is because an individual subject to the authority of another has to
obey the orders of those above them in the social hierarchy. In capitalism
this means that workers have to follow the orders of their boss (see
next
section), orders that are designed to make the boss richer. And richer
they have become, with the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of big firms
earning 212 times what the average US worker did in 1995 (up from a mere
44 times 30 years earlier). Indeed, from 1994 to 1995 alone, CEO
compensation in the USA rose 16 percent, compared to 2.8 percent for
workers, which did not even keep pace with inflation, and whose
stagnating wages cannot be blamed on corporate profits, which rose a
healthy 14.8 percent for that year.
Needless to say, inequality in terms of power will translate itself
into inequality in terms of wealth (and vice versa). The effects of
such social inequality are wide-reaching. For example, health is
affected significantly by inequality. Poor people are more likely
to be sick and die at an earlier age, compared to rich people.
Simply put, "the lower the class, the worse the health. Going beyond
such static measures, even interruptions in income of the sort caused
by unemployment have adverse health effects." Indeed, the sustained
economic hardship associated with a low place in the social hierarchy
leads to poorer physical, psychological and cognitive functioning
("with consequences that last a decade or more"). "Low incomes,
unpleasant occupations and sustained discrimination," notes Doug
Henwood, "may result in apparently physical symptoms that confuse
even sophisticated biomedical scientists . . . Higher incomes are
also associated with lower frequency of psychiatric disorders, as
are higher levels of asset ownership." [After the New Economy,
pp. 81-2]
Moreover, the degree of inequality
is important (i.e. the size of the gap between rich and poor). According to
an editorial in the British Medical Journal "what matters in determining
mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society
and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is
distributed the better the health of that society." [vol. 312, April 20,
1996, p. 985]
Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kaplan and
his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared it to
the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged:
the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate.
In other words, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average
income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state.
["Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of
mortality and potential pathways," British Medical Journal, vol. 312,
April 20, 1996, pp. 999-1003]
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social
conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the
distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher
rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income
assistance and food stamps, a greater percentage of people without
medical insurance, greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight,
higher murder rates, higher rates of violent crime, higher costs per-person
for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
Moreover states with greater inequality of income distribution
also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the
schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading
skills, worse mathematics skills, and lower rates of completion of high
school.
As the gap grows between rich and poor (indicating an increase in social
hierarchy within and outwith of workplaces) the health of a people
deteriorates and the social fabric unravels. The psychological hardship of
being low down on the social ladder has detrimental effects on people,
beyond whatever effects are produced by the substandard housing, nutrition,
air quality, recreational opportunities, and medical care enjoyed by the
poor (see George Davey Smith, "Income inequality and mortality: why are
they related?" British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, April 20,
1996, pp. 987-988).
So wealth does not determine health. What does is the gap between
the rich and the poor. The larger the gap, the sicker the society.
Countries with a greater degree of socioeconomic inequality show
greater inequality in health status; also, that middle-income groups
in relatively unequal societies have worse health than comparable, or
even poorer, groups in more equal societies. Unsurprisingly, this is
also reflected over time. The widening income differentials in both
the USA and the UK since 1980 have coincided with a slowing down of
improvements in life-expectancy, for example.
Inequality, in short, is bad for our health: the health of a population
depends not just on the size of the economic pie, but on how the pie is
shared.
This is not all. As well as inequalities in wealth, inequalities in
freedom also play a large role in overall human well-being. According
to Michael Marmot's The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects
Our Health and Longevity, as you move up any kind of hierarchy your
health status improves. Autonomy and position in a hierarchy are
related (i.e. the higher you are in a hierarchy, the more autonomy
you have). Thus the implication of this empirical work is that
autonomy is a source of good health, that the more control you have
over your work environment and your life in general, the less likely
you are to suffer the classic stress-related illnesses, such as heart
disease. As public-Health scholars Jeffrey Johnson and Ellen
Hall have noted, the "potential to control one's own environment is
differentially distributed along class lines." [quoted by Robert
Kuttner, Everything for Sale, p. 153]
As would be expected from the very nature of hierarchy, to "be in a
life situation where one experiences relentless demands by others,
over which one has relatively little control, is to be at risk of
poor health, physically as well as mentally." Looking at heart
disease, the people with greatest risk "tended to be in occupations
with high demands, low control, and low social support. People in
demanding positions but with great autonomy were at lower risk."
Under capitalism, "a relatively small elite demands
and gets empowerment, self-actualisation, autonomy, and other work
satisfaction that partially compensate for long hours" while
"epidemiological data confirm that lower-paid, lower-status workers
are more likely to experience the most clinically damaging forms
of stress, in part because they have less control over their work."
[Kuttner, Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]
In other words, the inequality of autonomy and social participation
produced by hierarchy is itself a cause of poor health. There would
be positive feedback on the total amount of health -- and thus of
social welfare -- if social inequality was reduced, not only in terms
of wealth but also, crucially, in power. This is strong evidence in
support of anarchist visions of egalitarianism. Some social structures
give more people more autonomy than others and acting to promote social
justice along these lines is a key step toward improving our health.
This means that promoting libertarian, i.e. self-managed, social
organisations would increase not only liberty but also people's health
and well-being, both physical and mental. Which is, as we argued above,
to be expected as hierarchy, by its very nature, impacts negatively on
those subject to it.
This dovetails into anarchist support for workers' control. Industrial
psychologists have found that satisfaction in work depends on the "span
of autonomy" works have. Unsurprisingly, those workers who are continually
making decisions for themselves are happier and live longer. It is the
power to control all aspects of your life -- work particularly -- that
wealth and status tend to confer that is the key determinant of health.
Men who have low job control face a 50% higher risk of new illness: heart
attacks, stroke, diabetes or merely ordinary infections. Women are at
slightly lower risk but low job control was still a factor in whether
they fell ill or not.
So it is the fact that the boss is a boss that makes the employment
relationship so troublesome for health issues (and genuine libertarians).
The more bossy the boss, the worse, as a rule is the job. So part of
autonomy is not being bossed around, but that is only part of the story.
And, of course, hierarchy (inequality of power) and exploitation (the
source of material inequality) are related. As we indicate in the
next
section, capitalism is based on wage labour. The worker sell their liberty
to the boss for a given period of time, i.e. they loose their autonomy.
This allows the possibility of exploitation, as the worker can produce
more wealth than they receive back in wages. As the boss pockets the
difference, lack of autonomy produces increases in social inequality
which, in turn, impacts negatively on your well-being.
Then there is the waste associated with hierarchy. While the proponents
of authority like to stress its "efficiency," the reality is different.
As Colin Ward points out, being in authority "derives from your rank in
some chain of command . . . But knowledge and wisdom are not distributed
in order of rank, and they are no one person's monopoly in any undertaking.
The fantastic inefficiency of any hierarchical organisation -- any factory,
office, university, warehouse or hospital -- is the outcome of two almost
invariable characteristics. One is that the knowledge and wisdom of the
people at the bottom of the pyramid finds no place in the decision-making
leadership hierarchy of the institution. Frequently it is devoted to
making the institution work in spite of the formal leadership structure,
or alternatively to sabotaging the ostensible function of the institution,
because it is none of their choosing. The other is that they would rather
not be there anyway: they are there through economic necessity rather than
through identification with a common task which throws up its own shifting
and functional leadership." [Op. Cit., p. 41]
Hierarchy, in other words, blocks the flow of information and knowledge.
Rulers, as Malatesta argued, "can only make use of the forces that
exist in society -- except for those great forces" their action "paralyses
and destroys, and those rebel forces, and all that is wasted through
conflicts; inevitable tremendous losses in such an artificial system."
And so as well as individuals being prevented from developing to their
fullest, wasting their unfulfilled potentialities, hierarchy also harms
society as a whole by reducing efficiency and creativity. This is because
input into decisions are limited "only to those individuals who form
the government [of a hierarchical organisation] or who by reason of
their position can influence the[ir] policy." Obviously this means "that
far from resulting in an increase in the productive, organising and
protective forces in society," hierarchy "greatly reduce[s] them,
limiting initiative to a few, and giving them the right to do everything
without, of course, being able to provide them with the gift of being
all-knowing." [Anarchy, p. 38 and p. 39]
Large scale hierarchical organisations, like the state, are also marked
by bureaucracy. This becomes a necessity in order to gather the necessary
information it needs to make decisions (and, obviously, to control those
under it). However, soon this bureaucracy becomes the real source of
power due to its permanence and control of information and resources.
Thus hierarchy cannot "survive without creating around itself a new
privileged class" as well as being a "privileged class and cut off from
the people" itself. [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36] This means
that those at the top of an institution rarely know the facts on the
ground, making decisions in relative ignorance of their impact or the
actual needs of the situation or people involved. As economist Joseph
Stiglitz concluded from his own experiences in the World Bank, "immense
time and effort are required to effect change even from the inside, in
an international bureaucracy. Such organisations are opaque rather than
transparent, and not only does far too little information radiate from
inside to the outside world, perhaps even less information from outside
is able to penetrate the organisation. The opaqueness also means that
it is hard for information from the bottom of the organisation to
percolate to the top." [Globalisation and its Discontents, p. 33]
The same can be said of any hierarchical organisation, whether a
nation state or capitalist business.
Moreover, as Ward and Malatesta indicate, hierarchy provokes a struggle
between those at the bottom and at the top. This struggle is also a source
of waste as it diverts resources and energy from more fruitful activity
into fighting it. Ironically, as we discuss in section H.4.4, one weapon
forged in that struggle is the "work to rule," namely workers bringing
their workplace to a grinding halt by following the dictates of the boss
to the letter. This is clear evidence that a workplace only operates
because workers exercise their autonomy during working hours, an autonomy
which authoritarian structures stifle and waste. A participatory workplace,
therefore, would be more efficient and less wasteful than the hierarchical
one associated with capitalism. As we discuss in section J.5.12, hierarchy
and the struggle it creates always acts as a barrier stopping the increased
efficiency associated with workers' participation undermining the autocratic
workplace of capitalism.
All this is not to suggest that those at the bottom of hierarchies are
victims nor that those at the top of hierarchies only gain benefits -- far
from it. As Ward and Malatesta indicated, hierarchy by its very nature
creates resistance to it from those subjected to it and, in the process,
the potential for ending it (see section B.1.6
for more discussion).
Conversely, at the summit of the pyramid, we also see the evils of
hierarchy.
If we look at those at the top of the system, yes, indeed they often do
very well in terms of material goods and access to education, leisure,
health and so on but they lose their humanity and individuality. As
Bakunin pointed out, "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. 249] Power operates destructively, even on those who have
it, reducing their individuality as it "renders them stupid and brutal,
even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who
is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last
becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling." [Rudolf Rocker,
Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 17-8]
When it boils down to it, hierarchy is self-defeating, for if "wealth is other
people," then by treating others as less than yourself, restricting their
growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals
have, so impoverishing your own life and restricting your own growth.
Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form
of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and
leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places
the individual within society, one that recognises that relationships with
others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class based
society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."
Looking at the environment, the self-defeating nature of hierarchy also becomes
clear. The destiny of human life goes hand-in-hand with the destiny of the
non-human world. While being rich and powerful may mitigate the impact of
the ecological destruction produced by hierarchies and capitalism, it will
not stop them and will, eventually, impact on the elite as well as the many.
Little wonder, then, that "anarchism . . . works to destroy authority
in all its aspects . . . [and] refuses all hierarchical organisation."
[Kropotkin, Anarchism, p. 137]
As Carole Pateman argues:
You need only compare this to Proudhon's comments quoted in
section B.1 to see that anarchists have long recognised that capitalism
is, by its very nature, hierarchical. The worker is subjected to the
authority of the boss during working hours (sometimes outside work too).
As Noam
Chomsky summarises, "a corporation, factory of business is the economic
equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down."
[Letters from Lexington, p. 127] The worker's choices are extremely
limited, for most people it amount to renting themselves out to a
series of different masters (for a lucky few, the option of being a
master is available). And master is the right word for, as David Ellerman
reminds us, "[s]ociety seems to have 'covered up' in the popular
consciousness the fact that the traditional name [for employer and
employee] is 'master and servant.'" [Property and Contract in
Economics, p. 103]
This hierarchical control of wage labour has the effect of alienating
workers from their own work, and so from themselves. Workers no longer
govern themselves during work hours and so are no longer free. And so,
due to capitalism, there is "an oppression in the land," a "form of
slavery" rooted in current "property institutions" which produces
"a
social war, inevitable so long as present legal-social conditions
endure." [Voltairine de Cleyre, Op. Cit., pp. 54-5]
Some defenders of capitalism are aware of the contradiction between
the rhetoric of the system and its reality for those subject to it.
Most utilise the argument that workers consent to this form of
hierarchy. Ignoring the economic conditions which force people to
sell their liberty on the labour market (see
section B.4.3), the
issue instantly arises of whether consent is enough in itself to
justify the alienation/selling of a person's liberty. For example,
there have been arguments for slavery and monarchy (i.e.
dictatorship) rooted in consent. Do we really want to say that
the only thing wrong with fascism or slavery is that people do not
consent to it? Sadly, some right-wing "libertarians" come to that
conclusion (see section B.4).
Some try to redefine the reality of the command-and-obey of wage
labour. "To speak of managing, directing, or assigning workers to
various tasks is a deceptive way of noting that the employer
continually is involved in re-negotiation of contracts on terms
that must be acceptable to both parties," argue two right-wing
economists. [Arman Alchian and Harold Demsetz, quoted by Ellerman,
Op. Cit., p. 170] So the employer-employee (or, to use the old,
more correct, terminology, master-servant) contract is thus a
series of unspoken contracts.
However, if an oral contract is not worth the paper it is
written on, how valuable is an unspoken one? And what does
this "re-negotiation of contracts" amount to? The employee
decides whether to obey the command or leave and the boss
decides whether the employee is obedient and productive enough
to remain in under his or her control. Hardly a relationship
based on freedom between equal partners! As such, this capitalist
defence of wage labour "is a deceptive way of noting" that the
employee is paid to obey. The contract between them is simply
that of obedience on one side and power on the other. That both
sides may break the contract does not alter this fact. Thus the
capitalist workplace "is not democratic in spite of the 'consent
of the governed' to the employment contract . . . In the
employment contract, the workers alienate and transfer their
legal rights to the employer to govern their activities 'within
the scope of the employment' to the employer." [David Ellerman,
The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm, p. 50]
Ultimately, there is one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned,
namely the right to personality. If a person gave up their personality
they would cease to be a person yet this is what the employment contract
imposes. To maintain and develop their personality is a basic right
of humanity and it cannot be transferred to another, permanently or
temporarily. To argue otherwise would be to admit that under certain
circumstances and for certain periods of time a person is not a
person but rather a thing to be used by others. Yet this is precisely
what capitalism does due to its hierarchical nature.
This is not all. Capitalism,
by treating labour as analogous to all other commodities denies the key
distinction between labour and other "resources" - that is to say its
inseparability from its bearer - labour, unlike other "property,"
is endowed with will and agency. Thus when one speaks of selling labour
there is a necessary subjugation of will (hierarchy). As Karl Polanyi
writes:
In other words, labour is much more than the commodity to which
capitalism tries to reduce it. Creative, self-managed work is a source
of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human. Wrenching
control of work from the hands of the worker profoundly harms his or her
mental and physical health. Indeed, Proudhon went so far as to argue that
capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of the wage-workers"
and were an "outrage upon human dignity and personality." [Op. Cit.,
p. 219] This is because wage labour turns productive activity and the
person who does it into a commodity. People "are not human beings
so much as human resources. To the morally blind corporation, they
are tool to generate as much profit as possible. And 'the tool can be
treated just like a piece of metal -- you use it if you want, you
throw it away if you don't want it,' says Noam Chomsky. 'If you can
get human beings to become tool like that, it's more efficient by some
measure of efficiency . . . a measure which is based on dehumanisation.
You have to dehumanise it. That's part of the system.'" [Joel Bakan,
The Corporation, p. 69]
Separating labour from other activities of life and subjecting it to the
laws of the market means to annihilate its natural, organic form of
existence -- a form that evolved with the human race through tens of
thousands of years of co-operative economic activity based on sharing and
mutual aid -- and replacing it with an atomistic and individualistic one
based on contract and competition. Unsurprisingly, this relationship
is a very recent development and, moreover, the product of substantial
state action and coercion (see section F.8
for some discussion of this).
Simply put, "the early labourer . . . abhorred the factory, where he
[or she] felt degraded and tortured." While the state ensured a steady
pool of landless workers by enforcing private property rights, the
early manufacturers also utilised the state to ensure low wages,
primarily for social reasons -- only an
overworked and downtrodden labourer with no other options would agree
to do whatever their master required of them. "Legal compulsion and
parish serfdom as in England," noted Polanyi, "the rigors of an
absolutist labour police as on the Continent, indented labour as in
the early Americas were the prerequisites of the 'willing worker.'"
[Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]
Ignoring its origins in state action, the social relationship of wage
labour is then claimed by capitalists to be a source of "freedom,"
whereas in fact it is a form of (in)voluntary servitude (see sections B.4 and A.2.14 for more discussion). Therefore a libertarian who did
not support economic liberty (i.e. self-government in industry,
libertarian socialism) would be no libertarian at all, and no believer in liberty. Capitalism is based upon hierarchy and the denial of liberty. To
present it otherwise denies the nature of wage labour. However, supporters
of capitalism try to but -- as Karl Polanyi points out -- the idea that wage
labour is based upon some kind of "natural" liberty is false:
As noted above, capitalism itself was created by state violence and
the destruction of traditional ways of life and social interaction was
part of that task. From the start, bosses spent considerable time and
energy combating attempts of working people to join together to resist
the hierarchy they were subjected to and reassert human values. Such
forms of free association between equals (such as trade unions) were
combated, just as attempts to regulate the worse excesses of the system
by democratic governments. Indeed, capitalists prefer centralised, elitist
and/or authoritarian regimes precisely because they are sure to be outside
of popular control (see section B.2.5). They are the only way that contractual
relations based on market power could be enforced on an unwilling population.
Capitalism was born under such states and as well as backing fascist
movements, they made high profits in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Today
many corporations "regularly do business with totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes -- again, because it is profitable to do so." Indeed, there is
a "trend by US corporations to invest in" such countries. [Joel Bakan,
Op. Cit., p. 89 and p. 185] Perhaps unsurprisingly, as such regimes are
best able to enforce the necessary conditions to commodify labour fully.
As we argued in section A.2.19,
ethics is dependent on
both individual liberty and equality between individuals.
Hierarchy violates both and so the "great sources of moral
depravity" are "capitalism, religion, justice, government."
In "the domain of economy, coercion has lead us to industrial
servitude; in the domain of politics to the State . . .
[where] the nation . . . becomes nothing but a mass of obedient
subjects to a central authority." This has "contributed and
powerfully aided to create all the present economic, political,
and social evils" and "has given proof of its absolute impotence
to raise the moral level of societies; it has not even been able
to maintain it at the level it had already reached." This is
unsurprising, as society developed "authoritarian prejudices"
and "men become more and more divided into governors and governed,
exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell . . . and the spirit
of the age declined." By violating equality, by rejecting social
co-operation between equals in favour of top-down, authoritarian,
social relationships which turn some into the tools of others,
capitalism, like the state, could not help but erode ethical
standards as the "moral level" of society is "debased by the
practice of authority." [Kropotkin, Anarchism, pp. 137-8, p. 106
and p. 139]
However, as we as promoting general unethical behaviour, capitalism
produces a specific perverted hierarchy of values -- one that
places humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues:
Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the
commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a thing. Instead of
being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral
and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts. This replacement of human relationships by economic ones soon results in
the replacement of human values by economic ones, giving us an "ethics" of
the account book, in which people are valued by how much they earn. It
also leads, as Murray Bookchin argues, to a debasement of human values:
With human values replaced by the ethics of calculation, and with only the
laws of market and state "binding" people together, social breakdown is
inevitable. Little wonder modern capitalism has seen a massive increase in crime and
dehumanisation under the freer markets established by "conservative"
governments, such as those of Thatcher and Reagan and their transnational
corporate masters. We now live in a society where people live in
self-constructed fortresses, "free" behind their walls and defences
(both emotional and physical).
Of course, some people like the "ethics" of mathematics. But this is
mostly because -- like all gods -- it gives the worshipper an easy rule
book to follow. "Five is greater than four, therefore five is better"
is pretty simple to understand. John Steinbeck noticed this when he wrote:
The debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time is
spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn carries over
into the way he or she acts in other areas of life. If one is regarded as
a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and others in that way
also. Thus all social relationships -- and so, ultimately, all
individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism, literally nothing
is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it dignity, self-worth,
pride, honour -- all become commodities up for grabs. Such debasement produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism" is
one example which can be traced directly to the commodification of the
individual under capitalism. To quote Fromm again, "Things have no self,
and men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour market] can
have no self." [Op. Cit., p. 143]
However, people still feel the need for selfhood, and so try to fill the
emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be
complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately,
since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for
selfhood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course,
encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy
what we don't need because it will make us popular/sexy/happy/free/etc.
(delete as appropriate!). But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs
that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be
satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by
creative, self-directed work.
This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher living
standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise that liberty
and a good life are only possible when one does not have to worry about
having enough food, decent housing, and so forth. Freedom and 16 hours of
work a day do not go together, nor do equality and poverty or solidarity
and hunger. However, anarchists consider consumerism to be a distortion
of consumption caused by the alienating and inhuman "account book"
ethics of capitalism, which crushes the individual and his or her sense
of identity, dignity and selfhood.
We will take each form of bigotry in turn.
From an economic standpoint, racism is associated with the exploitation of
cheap labour at home and imperialism abroad. Indeed, early capitalist
development in both America and Europe was strengthened by the bondage of
people, particularly those of African descent. In the Americas, Australia and
other parts of the world the slaughter of the original inhabitants and the
expropriation of their land was also a key aspect in the growth of capitalism.
As the subordination of foreign nations proceeds by force, it appears to
the dominant nation that it owes its mastery to its special natural qualities,
in other words to its "racial" characteristics. Thus imperialists have
frequently appealed to the Darwinian doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest"
to give their racism a basis in "nature."
In Europe, one of the first theories of racial superiority was proposed by
Gobineau in the 1850s to establish the natural right of the aristocracy to
rule over France. He argued that the French aristocracy was originally of
Germanic origin while the "masses" were Gallic or Celtic, and that since
the Germanic race was "superior", the aristocracy had a natural right to
rule. Although the French "masses" didn't find this theory particularly
persuasive, it was later taken up by proponents of German expansion and
became the origin of German racial ideology, used to justify Nazi
oppression of Jews and other "non-Aryan" types. Notions of the "white
man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny" developed at about the same time
in England and to a lesser extent in America, and were used to rationalise
Anglo-Saxon conquest and world domination on a "humanitarian" basis.
Racism and authoritarianism at home and abroad has gone hand in
hand. As Rudolf Rocker argued, "[a]ll advocates of the race doctrine
have been and are the associates and defenders of every political and
social reaction, advocates of the power principle in its most brutal
form . . . He who thinks that he sees in all political and social
antagonisms merely blood-determined manifestations of race, denies all
conciliatory influence of ideas, all community of ethical feeling,
and must at every crisis take refuge in brute force. In fact, race
theory is only the cult of power." Racism aids the consolidation of
elite power for by attacking "all the achievements . . . in the
direction of personal freedom" and the idea of equality "[n]o better
moral justification could be produced for the industrial bondage
which our holders of industrial power keep before them as a picture
of the future." [Nationalism and Culture, pp. 337-8]
The idea of racial superiority was also found to have great domestic
utility. As Paul Sweezy points out, "[t]he intensification of social
conflict within the advanced capitalist countries. . . has to be directed
as far as possible into innocuous channels -- innocuous, that is to say,
from the standpoint of capitalist class rule. The stirring up of
antagonisms along racial lines is a convenient method of directing
attention away from class struggle," which of course is dangerous to
ruling-class interests. [Theory of Capitalist Development, p. 311]
Indeed, employers have often deliberately fostered divisions among
workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and rule"
(in other contexts, like Northern Ireland or Scotland, the employers
have used religion in the same way instead).
Employers and politicians have often deliberately fostered divisions
among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and
rule." In other contexts, like Tzarist Russia, Northern Ireland or
Scotland, the employers have used religion in the same way. In
others, immigrants and native born is the dividing line. The net
effect is the same, social oppressions which range from the extreme
violence anarchists like Emma Goldman denounced in the American South
("the atrocities rampant in the South, of negroes lynched, tortured
and burned by infuriated crowds without a hand being raised or a
word said for their protection" [Emma Goldman: A Documentary History
of the American Years, vol. 1, p. 386]) or the pogroms against Jews
in Tsarist Russia to discrimination in where people can live, what
jobs people can get, less pay and so on.
For those in power, this makes perfect sense as racism (like other
forms of bigotry) can be used to split and divide the working class
by getting people to blame others of their class for the conditions
they all suffer. In this way, the anger people feel about the problems
they face are turned away from their real causes onto scapegoats. Thus
white workers are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) encouraged,
for example, to blame unemployment, poverty and crime on blacks or
Hispanics instead of capitalism and the (white, male) elites who run
it and who directly benefit from low wages and high profits.
Discrimination against racial minorities and women makes sense for
capitalism, for in this way profits are enlarged directly and indirectly.
As jobs and investment opportunities are denied to the disadvantaged
groups, their wages can be depressed below prevailing levels and profits,
correspondingly, increased. Indirectly, discrimination adds capitalist
profits and power by increasing unemployment and setting workers
against each other. Such factors ensure that capitalism will never
"compete" discrimination way as some free-market capitalist economists
argue.
In other words, capitalism has benefited and will continue to benefit
from its racist heritage. Racism has provided pools of cheap labour for
capitalists to draw upon and permitted a section of the population to
be subjected to worse treatment, so increasing profits by reducing
working conditions and other non-pay related costs. In America, blacks
still get paid less than whites for the same work (around 10% less
than white workers with the same education, work experience, occupation
and other relevent demographic variables). This is transferred into
wealth inequalities. In 1998, black incomes were 54% of white incomes
while black net worth (including residential) was 12% and nonresidential
net worth just 3% of white. For Hispanics, the picture was similar with
incomes just 62% of whites, net worth, 4% and nonresidential net worth 0%.
While just under 15% of white households had zero or negative net worth,
27% of black households and 36% Hispanic were in the same situation. Even
at similar levels of income, black households were significantly less
wealthy than white ones. [Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, p. 99
and pp. 125-6]
All this means that blacks are "subjected to oppression and exploitation on
the dual grounds of race and class, and thus have to fight the extra battles
against racism and discrimination." [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin,
Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite]
Sexism only required a "justification" once women started to act for
themselves and demand equal rights. Before that point, sexual oppression
did not need to be "justified" -- it was "natural" (saying that, of course,
equality between the sexes was stronger before the rise of Christianity as
a state religion and
capitalism so the "place" of women in society has fallen over the last
few hundred years before rising again thanks to the women's movement).
The nature of sexual oppression can be seen from marriage. Emma Goldman
pointed out that marriage "stands for the sovereignty of the man over the
women," with her "complete submission" to the husbands "whims and commands."
[Red Emma Speaks, p. 164] As Carole Pateman notes, until "the late
nineteenth century the legal and civil position of a wife resembled that of a
slave. . . A slave had no independent legal existence apart from his
master, and husband and wife became 'one person,' the person of the
husband." Indeed, the law "was based
on the assumption that a wife was (like) property" and only the
marriage contract "includes the explicit commitment to obey."
[The Sexual Contract, p. 119, p. 122 and p. 181]
However, when women started to question the assumptions of male domination,
numerous theories were developed to explain why women's oppression and
domination by men was "natural." Because men enforced their rule over women
by force, men's "superiority" was argued to be a "natural" product of their
gender, which is associated with greater physical strength (on the premise
that "might makes right"). In the 17th century, it was argued that women
were more like animals than men, thus "proving" that women had as much right
to equality with men as sheep did. More recently, elites have embraced
socio-biology in response to the growing women's movement. By "explaining"
women's oppression on biological grounds, a social system run by men and
for men could be ignored.
Women's subservient role also has economic value for capitalism (we should
note that Goldman considered capitalism to be another "paternal arrangement"
like marriage, both of which robbed people of their "birthright," "stunts"
their growth, "poisons" their bodies and keeps people in "ignorance, in
poverty and dependence." [Op. Cit., p. 210]). Women often provide necessary
(and unpaid) labour which keeps the (usually) male worker in good condition;
and it is primarily women who raise the next generation of wage-slaves (again
without pay) for capitalist owners to exploit. Moreover, women's subordination
gives working-class men someone to look down upon and, sometimes, a convenient
target on whom they can take out their frustrations (instead of stirring up
trouble at work). As Lucy Parsons pointed out, a working class woman is "a
slave to a slave."
Sexism, like all forms of bigotry, is reflected in relative incomes and
wealth levels. In the US women, on average, were being paid 57% the amount
men were in 2001 (an improvement than the 39% 20 years earlier). Part of
this is due to fewer women working than men, but for those who do work
outside the home their incomes were 66% than of men's (up from 47% in 1980
and 38% in 1970). Those who work full time, their incomes 76% of men's,
up from the 60% average through most of the 1970s. However, as with the
black-white gap, this is due in part to the stagnant income of male workers
(in 1998 men's real incomes were just 1% above 1989 levels while women's
were 14% above). So rather than the increase in income being purely the
result of women entering high-paying and largely male occupations and
them closing the gender gap, it has also been the result of the intense
attacks on the working class since the 1980s which has de-unionised and
de-industrialised America. This has resulted in a lot of high-paying male
jobs have been lost and more and more women have entered the job market to
make sure their families make ends. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 91-2]
Turning away from averages, we discover that sexism results in women
being paid about 12% less than men during the same job, with the same
relative variables (like work experience, education and so forth).
Needless to say, as with racism, such "relevant variables" are
themselves shaped by discrimination. Women, like blacks, are less
likely to get job interviews and jobs. Sexism even affects types of
jobs, for example, "caring" professions pay less than non-caring ones
because they are seen as feminine and involve the kinds of tasks which
women do at home without pay. In general, female dominated industries
pay less. In 1998, occupations that were over 90% male had a median
wage almost 10% above average while those over 90% female, almost 25%
below. One study found that a 30% increase in women in an occupation
translated into a 10% decline in average pay. Needless to say, having
children is bad economic news for most women (women with children earn
10 to 15% less than women without children while for men the opposite
is the case). Having maternity level, incidentally, have a far smaller
motherhood penalty. [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 95-7]
The oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is inextricably linked
with sexism. A patriarchal, capitalist society cannot see homosexual
practices as the normal human variations they are because they blur
that society's rigid gender roles and sexist stereotypes. Most young
gay people keep their sexuality to themselves for fear of being kicked
out of home and all gays have the fear that some "straights" will try
to kick their sexuality out of them if they express their sexuality
freely. As with those subject to other forms of bigotry, gays are
also discriminated against economically (gay men earning about 4-7%
less than the average straight man [Henwood, Op. Cit., p. 100]). Thus
the social oppression which result in having an alternative sexuality
are experienced on many different levels, from extreme violence to
less pay for doing the same work.
Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of
capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary
- and inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the
authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of, hierarchy
and subordination - see section B.1.5) as well as provider and carer for
the workforce fulfils an important need for capitalism. Alternative
sexualities represent a threat to the family model because they provide
a different role model for people. This means that gays are going to
be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants to reinforce
"family values" (i.e. submission to authority, "tradition", "morality"
and so on). The introduction of Clause 28 in Britain is a good example
of this, with the government making it illegal for public bodies to
promote gay sexuality (i.e. to present it as anything other than a
perversion). In American, the right is also seeking to demonise
homosexuality as part of their campaign to reinforce the values of
the patriarchal family unit and submission to "traditional" authority.
Therefore, the oppression of people based on their sexuality is unlikely
to end until sexism is eliminated.
This is not all. As well as adversely affecting those subject to them,
sexism, racism and homophobia are harmful to those who practice them
(and in some way benefit from them) within the working class itself.
Why this should be the case is obvious, once you think about it. All
three divide the working class, which means that whites, males and
heterosexuals hurt themselves by maintaining a pool of low-paid
competing labour, ensuring low wages for their own wives, daughters,
mothers, relatives and friends. Such divisions create inferior conditions
and wages for all as capitalists gain a competitive advantage using this
pool of cheap labour, forcing all capitalists to cut conditions and wages
to survive in the market (in addition, such social hierarchies, by undermining
solidarity against the employer on the job and the state possibly create a
group of excluded workers who could become scabs during strikes). Also,
"privileged" sections of the working class lose out because their wages and
conditions are less than those which unity could have won them. Only the
boss really wins.
This can be seen from research into this subject. The researcher Al Szymanski
sought to systematically and scientifically test the proposition that white
workers gain from racism ["Racial Discrimination and White Gain", in
American Sociological Review, vol. 41, no. 3, June 1976, pp. 403-414].
He compared the situation of "white" and "non-white" (i.e. black, Native
American, Asian and Hispanic) workers in United States and found several
key things:
(2) the more "non-white" people in the population of a given
American State, the more inequality there was between whites.
In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed group of
workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did
not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much
("the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people,
the greater the inequality among whites" [p. 410]). So white
workers clearly lost economically from this discrimination.
(3) He also found that "the more intense racial discrimination is,
the lower are the white earnings because of . . . [its effect
on] working-class solidarity." [p. 412] In other words, racism
economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines
the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens
trade union organisation.
So overall, these white workers receive some apparent privileges from racism,
but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of hierarchy
actually works against the interests of those working class people who
practice it -- and, by weakening workplace and social unity, benefits the
ruling class.
In addition, a wealth of alternative viewpoints, insights, experiences,
cultures, thoughts and so on are denied the racist, sexist or homophobe.
Their minds are trapped in a cage, stagnating within a mono-culture -- and
stagnation is death for the personality. Such forms of oppression are
dehumanising for those who practice them, for the oppressor lives as a
role, not as a person, and so are restricted by it and cannot express
their individuality freely (and so do so in very limited ways). This
warps the personality of the oppressor and impoverishes their own life and
personality. Homophobia and sexism also limits the flexibility of all
people, gay or straight, to choose the sexual expressions and relationships
that are right for them. The sexual repression of the sexist and homophobe
will hardly be good for their mental health, their relationships or general
development.
From the anarchist standpoint, oppression based on race, sex or sexuality will
remain forever intractable under capitalism or, indeed, under any economic
or political system based on domination and exploitation. While individual members of
"minorities" may prosper, racism as a justification for inequality is too
useful a tool for elites to discard. By using the results of racism (e.g.
poverty) as a justification for racist ideology, criticism of the status
quo can, yet again, be replaced by nonsense about "nature" and "biology."
Similarly with sexism or discrimination against gays.
The long-term solution is obvious: dismantle capitalism and the hierarchical,
economically class-stratified society with which it is bound up. By getting
rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation and its consequent imperialism
and poverty, we will also eliminate the need for ideologies of racial or
sexual superiority used to justify the oppression of one group by another
or to divide and weaken the working class. However, struggles against
bigotry cannot be left until after a revolution. If they were two things
are likely: one, such a revolution would be unlikely to happen and, two,
if it were then these problems would more than likely remain in the new
society created by it. Therefore the negative impacts of inequality can
and must be fought in the here and now, like any form of hierarchy. Indeed,
as we discuss in more detail section B.1.6 by doing so we make life a bit
better in the here and now as well as bringing the time when such
inequalities are finally ended nearer. Only this can ensure that we can
all live as free and equal individuals in a world without the blights
of sexism, racism, homophobia or religious hatred.
Needless to say, anarchists totally reject the kind of "equality" that
accepts other kinds of hierarchy, that accepts the dominant priorities of
capitalism and the state and accedes to the devaluation of relationships and
individuality in name of power and wealth. There is a kind of "equality" in
having "equal opportunities," in having black, gay or women bosses and
politicians, but one that misses the point. Saying "Me too!" instead of
"What a mess!" does not suggest real liberation, just different bosses and
new forms of oppression. We need to look at the way society is organised,
not at the sex, colour, nationality or sexuality of who is giving the orders!
Wilhelm Reich has given one of the most thorough analyses of the
psychological processes involved in the reproduction of authoritarian
civilisation. Reich based his analysis on four of Freud's most solidly
grounded discoveries, namely, (1) that there exists an unconscious part of
the mind which has a powerful though irrational influence on behaviour; (2)
that even the small child develops a lively "genital" sexuality, i.e. a
desire for sexual pleasure which has nothing to do with procreation; (3)
that childhood sexuality along with the Oedipal conflicts that arise in
parent-child relations under monogamy and patriarchy are usually repressed
through fear of punishment or disapproval for sexual acts and thoughts;
(4) that this blocking of the child's natural sexual activity and
extinguishing it from memory does not weaken its force in the unconscious,
but actually intensifies it and enables it to manifest itself in various
pathological disturbances and anti-social drives; and (5) that, far from
being of divine origin, human moral codes are derived from the educational
measures used by the parents and parental surrogates in earliest
childhood, the most effective of these being the ones opposed to childhood
sexuality.
By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a
woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour
was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as
authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came
to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally
developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a
certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their
sons. In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to
pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her
husband's clan (i.e. the chief's). By arranging many such marriages for
his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of
polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth. Thus society began
to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth.
To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was
required. However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain
without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show,
children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt
successfully to life-long monogamy. Therefore, along with class
stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods
were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the
new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a
historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society,
primitive libertarian communism (or "work democracy," to use Reich's
expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other,
patriarchal society, a private-property economy, economic class
stratification, and sexual repression. As Reich puts it:
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the
transformation of the one organisation into the other. In view of the
fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family
strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the
male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen
interest in making the nuptial ties permanent. At this stage, in other
words, only the man had an interest in marriage. In this way natural
work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any
time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital
relationship of patriarchy. The permanent monogamous marriage became the
basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today. To
safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and
greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings."
[The Mass Psychology of Fascism, p. 90]
The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from
matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives
(sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then
also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality,
which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in
pre-patriarchal societies. In this way, sex began to
be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked," etc. -- which it had
indeed become through the creation of secondary drives. Thus:
Once the beginnings of patriarchy are in place, the creation of a fully
authoritarian society based on the psychological crippling of its members
through sexual suppression follows:
In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for
him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other
forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying,
running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in creating
reactionary personalities. This is why every reactionary politician puts
such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and promoting "family
values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy, premarital chastity,
corporal punishment, etc.). In the words of Reich:
The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because
children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first few
years, from the time of birth to about six years of age, during which time
they are mostly in the charge of their parents. The schools and churches
then continue the process of conditioning once the children are old enough
to be away from their parents, but they are generally unsuccessful if the
proper foundation has not been laid very early in life by the parents.
Thus A.S. Neill observes that "the nursery training is very like the
kennel training. The whipped child, like the whipped puppy, grows into an
obedient, inferior adult. And as we train our dogs to suit our own
purposes, so we train our children. In that kennel, the nursery, the
human dogs must be clean; they must feed when we think it convenient for
them to feed. I saw a hundred thousand obedient, fawning dogs wag their
tails in the Templehof, Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler
whistled his commands." [Summerhill: a Radical Approach to Child
Rearing, p. 100]
The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence, when
sexual energy reaches its peak. This is because the vast majority
of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue undisturbed
sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact actively discourage
such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist Christian families) demanding
complete abstinence -- at the very time when abstinence is most
impossible! Moreover, since teenagers are economically dependent on their
parents under capitalism, with no societal provision of housing or
dormitories allowing for sexual freedom, young people have no
alternative but to submit to irrational parental demands for abstention
from premarital sex. This in turn forces them to engage in furtive sex in
the back seats of cars or other out-of-the-way places where they cannot
relax or obtain full sexual satisfaction. As Reich found, when sexuality
is repressed and laden with anxiety, the result is always some degree of
what he terms "orgastic impotence": the inability to fully surrender to
the flow of energy discharged during orgasm. Hence there is an
incomplete release of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic
bioenergetic stasis. Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding
ground for neuroses and reactionary attitudes. (For further details see
the section J.6).
In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive" societies,
such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing
patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community houses
where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy undisturbed sexual
relationships -- and this with society's full approval. Such an
institution would be taken for granted in an anarchist society, as it is
implied by the concept of freedom. (For more on adolescent sexual
liberation, see section J.6.8.)
Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family. A
child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the basis
of all family ties. Subjectively, the emotional core of the concepts of
homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother is the
homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in miniature."
According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal of Hitler's
"National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct continuation of
the family tie and are rooted in a fixated tie to the mother. As Reich
points out, although infantile attachment to the mother is natural,
fixated attachment is not, but is a social product. In puberty, the tie
to the mother would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual
relations, if the unnatural sexual restrictions imposed on adolescents
did not cause it to be eternalised. It is in the form of this socially
conditioned externalisation that fixation on the mother becomes the basis
of nationalist feelings in the adult; and it is only at this stage that it
becomes a reactionary social force.
Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of creating
reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of his analysis
to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual ones, that are
imposed on children and adolescents. Rianne Eisler, for example, in her
book Sacred Pleasure, stresses that it is not just a sex-negative
attitude but a pleasure-negative attitude that creates the kinds of
personalities in question. Denial of the value of pleasurable sensations
permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the common idea
that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the "animalistic" (and hence
"bad") side of human nature, as contrasted with the "higher" pleasures of
the mind and "spirit." By such dualism, which denies a spiritual aspect
to the body, people are made to feel guilty about enjoying any
pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that does, however, prepare them
for lives based on the sacrifice of pleasure (or indeed, even of life
itself) under capitalism and statism, with their requirements of mass
submission to alienated labour, exploitation, military service to protect
ruling-class interests, and so on. And at the same time, authoritarian
ideology emphasises the value of suffering, as for example through the
glorification of the tough, insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and
inflicts "necessary" suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless
ideal.
Eisler also points out that there is "ample evidence that people
who grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments
are the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents. There is also
ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against
traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and
women)." [Sacred Pleasure, p. 187] This repressed anger then becomes fertile ground
for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually rests in part on
scapegoating minorities for society's problems.
As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in The Authoritarian
Personality, people who have been conditioned through childhood abuse to
surrender their will to the requirements of feared authoritarian parents,
also tend to be very susceptible as adults to surrender their will and
minds to authoritarian leaders. "In other words," Frenkel-Brunswick
summarises, "at the same time that
they learn to deflect their repressed rage against those they perceive as
weak, they also learn to submit to autocratic or 'strong-man' rule.
Moreover, having been severely punished for any hint of rebellion (even
'talking back' about being treated unfairly), they gradually also learn to
deny to themselves that there was anything wrong with what was done to
them as children -- and to do it in turn to their own children." [The Authoritarian Personality, p. 187]
These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by
creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear
freedom. Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional
child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its
"values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the
pleasure-denying, pain-affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in
most schools. In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian,
non-repressive child-rearing practices and educational methods (see
sections J.6 and
secJ.5.13, respectively) whose purpose is to prevent, or at least
minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals, allowing them
instead to develop natural self-regulation and self-motivated learning.
This, we believe, is the only way to for people to grow up into happy,
creative, and truly freedom-loving individuals who will provide the
psychological ground where anarchist economic and political institutions
can flourish.
Anarchists disagree. Hierarchy can be ended, both in specific forms and
in general. A quick look at the history of the human species shows that
this is the case. People who have been subject to monarchy have ended
it, creating republics where before absolutism reigned. Slavery and
serfdom have been abolished. Alexander Berkman simply stated the obvious
when he pointed out that "many ideas, once held to be true, have come
to be regarded as wrong and evil. Thus the ideas of divine right of
kings, of slavery and serfdom. There was a time when the whole world
believed those institutions to be right, just, and unchangeable."
However, they became "discredited and lost their hold upon the people,
and finally the institutions that incorporated those ideas were
abolished" as "they were useful only to the master class" and "were
done away with by popular uprisings and revolutions." [What is
Anarchism?, p. 178] It is unlikely, therefore, that current forms
of hierarchy are exceptions to this process.
Today, we can see that this is the case. Malatesta's comments of over
one hundred years ago are still valid: "the oppressed masses . . .
have never completely resigned themselves to oppression and poverty
. . . [and] show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and
wellbeing." [Anarchy, p. 33] Those at the bottom are constantly
resisting both hierarchy and its the negative effects and, equally
important, creating non-hierarchical ways of living and fighting.
This constant process of self-activity and self-liberation can be
seen from the labour, women's and other movements -- in which,
to some degree, people create their own alternatives based upon
their own dreams and hopes. Anarchism is based upon, and grew out
of, this process of resistance, hope and direct action. In other
words, the libertarian elements that the oppressed continually
produce in their struggles within and against hierarchical systems
are extrapolated and generalised into what is called anarchism. It is
these struggles and the anarchistic elements they produce which make
the end of all forms of hierarchy not only desirable, but possible.
So while the negative impact of hierarchy is not surprising, neither
is the resistance to it. This is because the individual "is not a blank
sheet of paper on which culture can write its text; he [or she] is an
entity charged with energy and structured in specific ways, which,
while adapting itself, reacts in specific and ascertainable ways to
external conditions." In this "process of adaptation," people develop
"definite mental and emotional reactions which follow from specific
properties" of our nature. [Eric Fromm, Man for Himself, p. 23 and
p. 22] For example:
So as well as adaptation to hierarchy, there is resistance. This
means that modern society (capitalism), like any hierarchical society,
faces a direct contradiction. On the one hand, "capitalism divides
society into a narrow stratum of directors (whose function is to
decide and organise everything) and the vast majority of the population,
who are reduced to carrying out (executing) the decisions made
by these directors. As a result of this very fact, most people
experience their own lives as something alien to them . . . The
result is not only an enormous waste due to untapped capacity.
The system does more: It necessarily engenders opposition,
a struggle against it by those upon whom it seeks to impose
itself. Long before one can speak of revolution or political
consciousness, people refuse in their everyday working lives to
be treated like objects . . . The net result is not only waste
but perpetual conflict." [Cornelius Castoriadis, Political
and Social Writings, vol. 2, p. 93]
For the inequality in wealth and power produced by hierarchies,
between the powerful and the powerless, between the rich and
the poor, has not been ordained by god, nature or some other
superhuman force. It has been created by a specific social system,
its institutions and workings -- a system based upon authoritarian
social relationships which effect us both physically and mentally. So
there is hope. Just as authoritarian traits are learned, so can they
be unlearned. As Carole Pateman summarises, the evidence supports
the argument "that we do learn to participate by participating" and
that a participatory environment "might also be effective in
diminishing tendencies toward non-democratic attitudes in the
individual." [Participaton and Democratic Theory, p. 105]
So oppression reproduces resistance and the seeds of its own
destruction.
It is for this reason anarchists stress the importance of
self-liberation (see section A.2.7)
and "support all struggles
for partial freedom, because we are convinced that one learns
through struggle, and that once one begins to enjoy a little
freedom one ends by wanting it all." [Malatesta, Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 195] By means of direct
action (see section J.2), people exert themselves and stand up
for themselves. This breaks the conditioning of hierarchy, breaks
the submissiveness which hierarchical social relationships both
need and produce. Thus the daily struggles against oppression
"serve as a training camp to develop" a person's "understanding
of [their] proper role in life, to cultivate [their] self-reliance
and independence, teach him [or her] mutual help and co-operation,
and make him [or her] conscious of [their] responsibility. [They]
will learn to decide and act on [their] own behalf, not leaving
it to leaders or politicians to attend to [their] affairs and
look out for [their] welfare. It will be [them] who will determine,
together with [their] fellows . . . , what they want and what
methods will best serve their aims." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 206]
In other words, struggle encourages all the traits hierarchy erodes
and, consequently, develop the abilities not only to question and
resist authority but, ultimately, end it once and for all. This means
that any struggle changes those who take part in it, politicising
them and transforming their personalities by shaking off the servile
traits produced and required by hierarchy. As an example, after
the sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, in 1937 one eye-witness
saw how "the auto worker became a different human being. The women
that had participated actively became a different type of women
. . . They carried themselves with a different walk, their heads
were high, and they had confidence in themselves." [Genora (Johnson)
Dollinger, contained in Voices of a People's History of the United
States, Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove (eds.), p. 349] Such changes
happen in all struggles (also see section J.4.2). Anarchists are not
surprised for, as discussed in section J.1
and J.2.1, we have long
recognised the liberating aspects of social struggle and the key role
it plays in creating free people and the other preconditions for
needed for an anarchist society (like the initial social structure
-- see section I.2.3).
Needless to say, a hierarchical system like capitalism cannot
survive with a non-submissive working class and the bosses spend a
considerable amount of time, energy and resources trying to break the
spirits of the working class so they will submit to authority (either
unwillingly, by fear of being fired, or willingly, by fooling them
into believing that hierarchy is natural or by rewarding subservient
behaviour). Unsurprisingly, this never completely succeeds and so
capitalism is marked by constant struggles between the oppressed and
oppressor. Some of these struggles succeed, some do not. Some are
defensive, some are not. Some, like strikes, are visible, other less
so (such a working slowly and less efficiently than management desires).
And these struggles are waged by both sides of the hierarchical divide.
Those subject to hierarchy fight to limit it and increase their autonomy
and those who exercise authority fight to increase their power over
others. Who wins varies. The 1960s and 1970s saw a marked increase in
victories for the oppressed all throughout capitalism but, unfortunately,
since the 1980s, as we discuss in section C.8.3, there has been a
relentless class war conducted by the powerful which has succeeded in
inflicting a series of defeats on working class people. Unsurprisingly,
the rich have got richer and more powerful since.
So anarchists take part in the on-going social struggle in society
in an attempt to end it in the only way possible, the victory of the
oppressed. A key part of this is to fight for partial freedoms, for
minor or major reforms, as this strengthens the spirit of revolt and
starts the process towards the final end of hierarchy. In such struggles
we stress the autonomy of those involved and see them not only as the
means of getting more justice and freedom in the current unfree system
but also as a means of ending the hierarchies they are fighting once
and for all. Thus, for example, in the class struggle we argue for
"[o]rganisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory,
on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere,
irrespective of trade, race, or country." [Alexander Berkman,
Op. Cit.,
p. 207] Such an organisation, as we discuss in section J.5.2, would
be run via workplace assemblies and would be the ideal means of replacing
capitalist hierarchy in industry by genuine economic freedom, i.e.
worker's self-management of production (see
section I.3). Similarly,
in the community we argue for popular assemblies (see
section J.5.1)
as a means of not only combating the power of the state but also
replaced it with by free, self-managed, communities (see
section I.5).
Thus the current struggle itself creates the bridge between what is
and what could be:
This is not all. As well as fighting the state and capitalism, we also
need fight all other forms of oppression. This means that anarchists
argue that we need to combat social hierarchies like racism and sexism
as well as workplace hierarchy and economic class, that we need to oppose
homophobia and religious hatred as well as the political state. Such
oppressions and struggles are not diversions from the struggle against
class oppression or capitalism but part and parcel of the struggle for
human freedom and cannot be ignored without fatally harming it.
As part of that process, anarchists encourage and support all sections
of the population to stand up for their humanity and individuality by
resisting racist, sexist and anti-gay activity and challenging such views
in their everyday lives, everywhere (as Carole Pateman points out, "sexual
domination structures the workplace as well as the conjugal home" [The
Sexual Contract, p. 142]). It means a struggle of all working class people
against the internal and external tyrannies we face -- we must fight against
own our prejudices while supporting those in struggle against our common
enemies, no matter their sex, skin colour or sexuality. Lorenzo Kom'boa
Ervin words on fighting racism are applicable to all forms of oppression:
Progress towards equality can and has been made. While it is still true that
(in the words of Emma Goldman) "[n]owhere is woman treated according to the
merit of her work, but rather as a sex" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 177] and that
education is still patriarchal, with young women still often steered away
from traditionally "male" courses of study and work (which teaches children
that men and women are assigned different roles in society and sets them up
to accept these limitations as they grow up) it is also true that the position
of women, like that of blacks and gays, has improved. This is due to the
various self-organised, self-liberation movements that have continually
developed throughout history and these are the key to fighting oppression
in the short term (and creating the potential for the long term solution of
dismantling capitalism and the state).
Emma Goldman argued that emancipation begins "in [a] woman's soul." Only
by a process of internal emancipation, in which the oppressed get to know
their own value, respect themselves and their culture, can they be in a
position to effectively combat (and overcome) external oppression and
attitudes. Only when you respect yourself can you be in a position to
get others to respect you. Those men, whites and heterosexuals who are
opposed to bigotry, inequality and injustice, must support oppressed
groups and refuse to condone racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes
and actions by others or themselves. For anarchists, "not a single
member of the Labour movement may with impunity be discriminated against,
suppressed or ignored. . . Labour [and other] organisations must be built
on the principle of equal liberty of all its members. This equality means
that only if each worker is a free and independent unit, co-operating with
the others from his or her mutual interests, can the whole labour
organisation work successfully and become powerful." [Lorenzo Kom'boa
Ervin, Op. Cit.]
We must all treat people as equals, while at the same time respecting their
differences. Diversity is a strength and a source of joy, and anarchists
reject the idea that equality means conformity. By these methods, of
internal self-liberation and solidarity against external oppression, we
can fight against bigotry. Racism, sexism and homophobia can be reduced,
perhaps almost eliminated, before a social revolution has occurred by those
subject to them organising themselves, fighting back autonomously and
refusing to be subjected to racial, sexual or anti-gay abuse or to allowing
others to get away with it (which plays an essential role in making others
aware of their own attitudes and actions, attitudes they may even be
blind to!).
The example of the Mujeres Libres (Free Women) in Spain during
the 1930s shows what is possible. Women anarchists involved in the
C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised themselves autonomously to raise the
issue of sexism in the wider libertarian movement, to increase women's
involvement in libertarian organisations and help the process of
women's self-liberation against male oppression. Along the way they
also had to combat the (all too common) sexist attitudes of their
"revolutionary" male fellow anarchists. Martha A. Ackelsberg's book
Free Women of Spain is an excellent account of this movement and
the issues it raises for all people concerned about freedom. Decades
latter, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s did much the same
thing, aiming to challenge the traditional sexism and patriarchy of
capitalist society. They, too, formed their own organisations to fight
for their own needs as a group. Individuals worked together and drew
strength for their own personal battles in the home and in wider
society.
Another essential part of this process is for such autonomous groups
to actively support others in struggle (including members of the
dominant race/sex/sexuality). Such practical solidarity and
communication can, when combined with the radicalising effects of
the struggle itself on those involved, help break down prejudice
and bigotry, undermining the social hierarchies that oppress us
all. For example, gay and lesbian groups supporting the 1984/5
UK miners' strike resulted in such groups being given pride of
place in many miners' marches. Another example is the great strike
by Jewish immigrant workers in 1912 in London which occurred at the
same time as a big London Dock Strike. "The common struggle brought
Jewish and non-Jewish workers together. Joint strike meetings were held,
and the same speakers spoke at huge joint demonstrations." The Jewish
strike was a success, dealing a "death-blow to the sweatshop system. The
English workers looked at the Jewish workers with quite different eyes
after this victory." Yet the London dock strike continued and many dockers'
families were suffering real wants. The successful Jewish strikers started
a campaign "to take some of the dockers' children into their homes." This
practical support "did a great deal to strengthen the friendship between
Jewish and non-Jewish workers." [Rudolf Rocker, London Years, p. 129
and p. 131] This solidarity was repaid in October 1936, when the dockers
were at the forefront in stopping Mosley's fascist blackshirts marching
through Jewish areas (the famous battle of Cable street).
For whites, males and heterosexuals, the only anarchistic approach is to
support others in struggle, refuse to tolerate bigotry in others and to
root out their own fears and prejudices (while refusing to be uncritical
of self-liberation struggles -- solidarity does not imply switching your
brain off!). This obviously involves taking the issue of social oppression
into all working class organisations and activity, ensuring that no
oppressed group is marginalised within them.
Only in this way can the hold of these social diseases be weakened and
a better, non-hierarchical system be created. An injury to one is an
injury to all.
B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?
Hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the marginalisation
and disempowerment of those without authority. This has negative effects
on those over whom authority is exercised, since "[t]hose who have these
symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their
subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe
the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary], . . .
[so] the mind is lulled into submission by cliches . . . [and] people are
made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust
their eyes and judgement." [Erich Fromm, To Have or To Be?, p. 47]
"Hierarchical institutions foster alienated and exploitative
relationships among those who participate in them, disempowering people
and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people
dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then
use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority.
. . . Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very
characteristics of those subordinate to them . . . Anarchists argue that
to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to
act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who
are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves
soon come to doubt their own capacities . . . [and have] difficulty acting
on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and
expectations." [Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, pp. 40-1]
B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical?
Yes. Under capitalism workers do not exchange the products of their labour
they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves for a
given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey their
paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and managers --
are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the bottom. This
means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical.
"Capacities or labour power cannot be used
without the worker using his will, his understanding and experience,
to put them into effect. The use of labour power requires the presence
of its 'owner,' and it remains mere potential until he acts in the manner
necessary to put it into use, or agrees or is compelled so to act; that
is, the worker must labour. To contract for the use of labour power
is a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the
new owner requires. The fiction 'labour power' cannot be used; what is
required is that the worker labours as demanded. The employment contract
must, therefore, create a relationship of command and obedience between
employer and worker . . . In short, the contract in which the worker
allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot
be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his
body and himself. To obtain the right to use another is to be a (civil)
master." [The Sexual Contract, pp. 150-1]
"Labour is only another name for human activity which goes with
life itself, which is in turn not produced for sale but for entirely
different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of
life itself, be stored or mobilised . . . To allow the market mechanism
to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural
environment . . . would result in the demolition of society. For the
alleged commodity 'labour power' cannot be shoved about, used
indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the
human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar
commodity. In disposing of a man's labour power the system would,
incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral
entity 'man' attached to that tag." [The Great Transformation, p.
72]
"To represent this principle [wage labour] as one of non-interference
[with freedom], as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the
expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a definite kind of
interference, namely, such as would destroy non-contractual relations
between individuals and prevent their spontaneous re-formation."
[Op. Cit., p.163]
B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?
Anarchists argue that capitalism can only have a negative
impact on ethical behaviour. This flows from its hierarchical
nature. We think that hierarchy must, by its very nature,
always impact negatively on morality.
"The use [i.e.
exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the system of values
underlying the capitalistic system. Capital, the dead past, employs
labour -- the living vitality and power of the present. In the
capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour,
amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs
labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands the
person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative
productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between capital
and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than
their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict
between two principles of value: that between the world of things, and
their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity." [The Sane
Society, pp. 94-95]
"So deeply rooted is the market economy in our minds that its grubby
language has replaced our most hallowed moral and spiritual expressions.
We now 'invest' in our children, marriages, and personal relationships, a
term that is equated with words like 'love' and 'care.' We live in a world
of 'trade-offs' and we ask for the 'bottom line' of any emotional
'transaction.' We use the terminology of contracts rather than that of
loyalties and spiritual affinities." [The Modern Crisis, p. 79]
"Some of them [the owners] hated the mathematics that drove them [to kick
the farmers off their land], and some were afraid, and some worshipped
the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling."
[The Grapes of Wrath, p. 34]
B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?
Since racism, sexism and homophobia (hatred/fear of homosexuals) are
institutionalised throughout society, sexual, racial and gay oppression are
commonplace. The primary cause of these three evil attitudes is the need for
ideologies that justify domination and exploitation, which are inherent in
hierarchy -- in other words, "theories" that "justify" and "explain"
oppression and injustice. As Tacitus said, "We hate those whom we injure."
Those who oppress others always find reasons to regard their victims as
"inferior" and hence deserving of their fate. Elites need some way to
justify their superior social and economic positions. Since the social
system is obviously unfair and elitist, attention must be distracted to other,
less inconvenient, "facts," such as alleged superiority based on biology
or "nature." Therefore, doctrines of sexual, racial, and ethnic superiority
are inevitable in hierarchical, class-stratified societies.
(1) the narrower the gap between white and black wages in an American
state, the higher white earnings were relative to white earnings
elsewhere. This means that "whites do not benefit economically by
economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit
economically from the absence of economic discrimination. . .
both in the absolute level of their earnings and in relative
equality among whites." [p. 413] In other words, the less wage
discrimination there was against black workers, the better were
the wages that white workers received.
B.1.5 How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation created?
We noted in section A.3.6 that hierarchical, authoritarian institutions
tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence
creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both
"respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise
it themselves on subordinates. Individuals with such a character
structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are
afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom. It seems
"natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the
authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with
an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey.
Thus we have the spectacle of so-called "Libertarians" and "anarcho"
capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating
factory fascism and privatised states. In short, authoritarian
civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an
intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society,
it creates masses of people who support the status quo.
"Every tribe that developed from a [matricentric] to a patriarchal
organisation had to change the sexual structure of its members to produce
a sexuality in keeping with its new form of life. This was a necessary
change because the shifting of power and of wealth from the democratic
gens [maternal clans] to the authoritarian family of the chief was mainly
implemented with the help of the suppression of the sexual strivings of
the people. It was in this way that sexual suppression became an essential
factor in the division of society into classes.
"The patriarchal- authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the
revolutionary processes of latter-day [matricentrism] (economic
independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing
exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of
production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by
depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom,
making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of
economic subjugation. From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it
becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed." [Reich,
Op. Cit., p. 88]
"The moral inhibition of the child's natural sexuality, the last stage of
which is the severe impairment of the child's genital sexuality, makes
the child afraid, shy, fearful of authority, obedient, 'good,' and
'docile' in the authoritarian sense of the words. It has a crippling
effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now
burdened with severe fear; and since sex is a forbidden subject, thought
in general and man's critical faculty also become inhibited. In short,
morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress
and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the
family is the authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must
learn to adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment
required of him later. Man's authoritarian structure -- this must be
clearly established -- is basically produced by the embedding of sexual
inhibitions and fear." [Reich, Op. Cit.,
p. 30]
"Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in the individual
structures of the masses with the help of the authoritarian family, it
follows that political reaction has to regard and defend the authoritarian
family as the basis of the 'state, culture, and civilisation. . . .'
[It is] political reaction's germ cell, the most important centre for
the production of reactionary men and women. Originating and developing
from definite social processes, it becomes the most essential institution
for the preservation of the authoritarian system that shapes it." [Op.
Cit., pp. 104-105]
B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?
Faced with the fact that hierarchy, in its many distinctive forms, has
been with us such a long time and so negatively shapes those subject to
it, some may conclude that the anarchist hope of ending it, or even
reducing it, is little more than a utopian dream. Surely, it will be
argued, as anarchists acknowledge that those subject to a hierarchy
adapt to it this automatically excludes the creation of people able
to free themselves from it?
"Man can adapt himself to slavery, but he reacts to it by lowering
his intellectual and moral qualities . . . Man can adapt himself to
cultural conditions which demand the repression of sexual strivings,
but in achieving this adaptation he develops . . . neurotic symptoms.
He can adapt to almost any culture pattern, but in so far as these
are contradictory to his nature he develops mental and emotional
disturbances which force him eventually change these conditions
since he cannot change his nature. . . . If . . . man could adapt
himself to all conditions without fighting those which are against
his nature, he would have no history. Human evolution is rooted in
man's adaptability and in certain indestructible qualities of his
nature which compel him to search for conditions better adjusted
to his intrinsic needs." [Op. Cit., pp. 22-23]
"Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process
itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the formation of
assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly
and community must become 'fighting words,' not distant panaceas. They
must be created as modes of struggle against the existing society,
not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions." [Murray Bookchin,
Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 104]
"Racism must be fought vigorously wherever it is found, even if in
our own ranks, and even in ones own breast. Accordingly, we must end the
system of white skin privilege which the bosses use to split the class, and
subject racially oppressed workers to super-exploitation. White workers,
especially those in the Western world, must resist the attempt to use one
section of the working class to help them advance, while holding back the
gains of another segment based on race or nationality. This kind of class
opportunism and capitulationism on the part of white labour must be directly
challenged and defeated. There can be no workers unity until the system of
super-exploitation and world White Supremacy is brought to an end."
[Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite]