288
Anarchism and practicability
JEFF ROBINSON
Ask the present people of Britain if they would like to live in a peaceful, classless, raceless society and the only dissenters would be those who imagined they had something to lose or who for reasons of personal inadequacy or support of reactionary ideas approve of hierarchical society and dread a world of free and equal human beings. Explain to the assenters the probable time scale, the fact that much of ‘our British way of life’ must be discarded, and that the personal effort involves much more than a vote every 5 years and their number greatly diminished. There remains those people who are disenchanted with present society, see the need for radical change and, most important, are prepared to do something about it.
Now tell these remaining people that you are describing an anarchist society and that the method of achieving it is anarchism and you are left with a few curious people and the convinced libertarians. Why then do so many well-intentioned people reject anarchism and devote their energies to short-term solutions to human problems which rarely deal to lasting good? One of the main reasons is that they regard anarchism as impracticable. The arguments used to support this assertion fall into two categories: the first concerns assumptions which anarchists are falsely accused of making; the second concerns views they do express. The first group are the familiar ‘rationalisation’ based on fear, prejudice and ignorance. Such as ‘anarchists believe people are naturally good’ when all that is maintained is that they could be good enough to live in a free society. Or that ‘you can’t change human nature’ (whatever that is) when what you hope to change is human behaviour. Or that ‘men are concerned primarily with self-interest’ which is true and the creation of a harmonious society is surely in everyone’s self interest. Or it is pointed out that private grief and personal antagonisms would still exist in a free society as though lovers’ quarrels necessitate a standing army.
The second category of objections, however, those based on actual anarchist ideas includes many valid points which must be considered if anarchism is ever to become a practical, positive force in society. There must be plenty of people, perhaps even a few in high places, who would be glad to adopt libertarian solutions to human problems if they thought such solutions realistic. They often do adopt them in
289
limited fields but this is not enough.
Pre-Hitler Germany was full of experiments in
art and
films,
psycho-analysis,
nudism,
wandering idealistic youth movements but the resulting mental climate did little to prevent
Hitler’s rise to power. Indeed, really clever controlling classes would encourage libertarianism in unimportant fields to divert attention from the main issue which is economic.
Many anarchist ideas are of no practical use, have no relevance in the modern world and should be consigned to the museum. Before going on to discuss some of these useless ideas and trying to suggest realistic alternatives, the word ‘practicability’ must be defined, for according to how long you are prepared to wait and bearing in mind the state of flux prevailing in present society it is possible to argue that anything, even the most Utopian science-fiction type society is practicable! In this article, however, the word means {{q|that which can reasonably be regarded as practical either now or in the foreseeable future.
Many objections concern the shape of an anarchist society and while this can only be described in the broadcast of broad outlines there are two often heard versions which can well be set aside. The first is of a totally agricultural (or even pastoral) society with machinery discarded. If individuals want this well and good and there is nothing to prevent them starting next week providing they are capable of making the necessary effort. But to expect whole populations to revert to the simple-life is mere wishful thinking. The ultimate end of some simple-lifers, the sort of ego-projection they mistake for the future was aptly described by Ted Kavanagh in Anarchy 28 as ‘groups of ballet dancers cavorting on verdant lawns with the Mantovani Strings in the background and groups of fair-haired children singing the verses of Patience Strong’.
At the other extreme from the dream of rustic simplicity is the vision of a society in which the smallest whim can be satisfied by pressing a button. This may be possible in the extreme long run but the time-
scale is enormous, the degree of planning and organisation required is difficult to visualise in a free society and the material resources of the world would probably not permit such massive materialism. The time scale is the most relevant point. To expect people to work now for something which may be possible 1,000 years hence, is a waste of time. However, left-
wing ideas about societies which belong to the remote future, instead of stressing the time-
scale, often give the impression that such societies are realisable in the next few years. The
Labour Party made this mistake before
coming to power in 1945. Their pre-election propaganda promised a higher standard of living, less work and to free the
Empire on which the meagre living standards largely depended. All this in the aftermath of a destructive
war. They forgot to make clear the length of time necessary to effect such a programme and the result was that many Labour voters became disillusioned when the Socialist Utopia wasn’t created between 1945 and 1951. The hard fact is that there isn’t enough productive capacity in existence now to provide the whole world with the standard of the
290
British working-class of 1900. Before going any further with ideas of a shiny new world with everything on tap remember that at this moment most people haven’t got the bare essentials and that due to population increases the average world living standard is actually decreasing. In world terms they British are exploiters. Our standard of living still depends very much on the sweat of Asia and Africa. Coupled with the fact that people in rich countries will probably have to tighten not loosen their belts if a universal healthy living standard is to be reached and maintained is the fact that people in a heavy-
consumption free society would have to show a great deal of patience while the garden cities and automated factories were being constructed. Who gets the first and who gets the ones inherited from the preceding capitalism? Remember it’s not a matter of waiting ten minutes in a bus queue but of waiting years, possibly decades, while construction is going on. If people in such a free society can voluntarily restrict consumption in the initial stages and wati their turn for new products then they can surely do without luxury gimmicks and gadgets altogether.
A sensible material standard for any type of society, free or not, is one which is healthy and wholesome and easily attainable on a large scale.
