View source for Anarchy 103/Observations on Anarchy 99 and 100

{{header
 | title      = [[../|ANARCHY 103 (Vol 9 No 9) SEPTEMBER 1969]]<br>Observations on {{sc|anarchy}} 99 and 100
 | author     =  
 | section    =
 | previous   = [[../Thoughts on 'participation'|Thoughts on {{q|participation}}]]
 | next       = '''[[Anarchy 104]]'''
 | notes      = 
}}

<div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto;">
<font size="4">'''OBSERVATIONS ON ANARCHY [[Anarchy 99|99]] AND [[Anarchy 100|100]]'''</font>


'''BUREAUCRACY'''


<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|I have frequently disagreed}} with or been irritated by articles in {{sc|anarchy}}, but [[Author:Nicolas Walter|Nicolas Walter]]&rsquo;s [[Anarchy 99/Lessons of the French Revolution|review]] of the [[Author:Daniel Cohn-Bendit|Cohn-Bendit]] book leaves me bewildered, or rather the last part of it does. My Oxford Dictionary tells me what I have always assumed to be so, that bureaucracy means Government from offices. It seems rather strange that a writer in {{sc|anarchy}} should tell us that Government is inevitable in any group which is too large to meet in a room. {{qq|We need leaders&mdash;but they should be followed only as long as they lead in the right direction.}} What is the right direction and who decides it? If the individual followers decide for themselves, why do they need a leader? If they don&rsquo;t, who does and how do we know he&rsquo;s right? I find it impossible to sort my way through this Platonic maze. I would rather say what I have always said, {{qq|I don&rsquo;t need any leaders.}}

{{tab}}As for Cohn-Bendit introducing dogma&mdash;this from a man who says, {{qq|bureaucracy is inevitable}}. You can hardly be more dogmatic than that. In fact I found that one of the agreeable aspects of the Cohn-Bendit book was that it was refreshingly free from dogma. Fortunately I read it before reading the reviews. Whatever faults the book may have, it was a reasonably clear exposition (thank you, [[Author:Gabriel Cohn-Bendit|Gabriel]]) of the writers&rsquo; opinions, which is in happy contrast to most advice that readers of {{sc|anarchy}} could be given is to read the book and ignore the reviews.</div>

''{{l|Somerset|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset}}''

{{r|{{sc|[[Author:Geoffrey Barfoot|geoffrey barfoot]]}}{{tab}}}}

<center>*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *</center>


'''INDIVIDUALISM'''


<div style="text-align:justify">[[Author:Gabriel Cohn-Bendit|Gabriel Cohn-Bendit]]&rsquo;s [[Anarchy 99/Three interviews|statement]] ([[Anarchy 99|{{sc|anarchy}} 99]]) that &ldquo;individualists &hellip; refuse to form groups&rdquo; is false. Individualists do form groups for temporary, specific purposes, as Cohn-Bendit could have discovered in Paris where the Foyer Individualiste meets regularly. What individualists do not do is to allow a group to become an end in itself, able to claim {{qq|loyalty}} (i.e. obedience) from its members, or exercise any kind of authority over them. Nor do they wish to submerge themselves in any organised, pyramidical structure of councils, syndicates, or communes, topped with {{qq|co-ordinators}} who, in practice, would soon turn out to be oligarchs.

{{tab}}However, since the hoary myth that individualists are {{l|anchorites|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorite}} still flourishes, I have little hope that my rectification will have much effect, particularly on persons who can believe that {{qq|in a society which seeks to crush the ''individual''}} salvation can be found in {{qq|a deep feeling of ''collective'' strength}}. To hope that the individual can be liberated from the old collectivism by creating a new one is a tragi-farce of the first order. I am not surprised that such prophets of the new tribalism as the Cohn-Bendits still cling to {{l|Marx|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx}}. Individualists, from their point of view, may be {{qq|rather out of date}}, but if their ideas constitute the future, they are welcome to it.</div>

''{{l|London|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London}}''

{{r|{{sc|[[Author:S. E. Parker|s. e. parker]]}}{{tab}}}}

<center>*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *</center>


'''PROPERTY'''


<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|I am disturbed}} by [[Author:Nicolas Walter|Nicolas Walter]]&rsquo;s frank assertion that Anarchists do not reject property. He states he is or rather he says Anarchists are against such property as can be used to exploit others. All property exploits others to some degree, so long as we have property we will have exploitation be it state property, private property, or any other conceivable kind of property. Let me make myself clearer, let us say one man has six eggs another man has none, the one man clinging to the belief that as he will be undoubtably in need of the six eggs, for he intends to eat them, claims those eggs as his property, assuming property to still exist. You see it seems to me that with the preservation of property you preserve the values of his and mine, them and theirs, with the strong possibilities of more wars and horrors arising from this. Indeed if all the benefits and produce of humanity were common to all then the man with six eggs would share his eggs with the other man, then he would have three eggs so that his fellow brother would not go hungry and even then the three eggs which each of them possess would not be the property of these two men for if other needy comrades are about they will be obliged to share what they have with one another in common as they would the sky, the air, the waters, all things. Let us do away with this talk of property it is ROBBERY, both the existence of private property and the state is the existence of exploitation, domination and oppression.</div>

''{{l|Birmingham|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham}}''

{{r|{{sc|[[Author:Paul Lester|paul lester]]}}{{tab}}}}

<center>*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *</center>


'''DARK SIDE'''


<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|I have just read}} [[Author:Nicolas Walter|Nick Walter]] on the {{qq|dark side}} of anarchism&mdash;which seems a rather sectarian way of referring to those with whom one disagrees&mdash;how about an issue of {{sc|anarchy}} precisely on this? On, say, the protagonists of propaganda by deed, as well as {{l|Malatesta|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errico_Malatesta}} and the Italian terrorists, {{l|Spain|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War}}, etc., up to the present time?</div>

''London''

{{r|{{sc|[[Author:Stuart Christie|stuart christie]]}}{{tab}}}}
</div>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Observations on anarchy 099 and 100}}
[[Category:Collectivism and individualism]]
[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Letters]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
[[Category:Property]]
[[Category:Letters to the editor]]