The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought

• Published date: 01 December 1972
• DOI: 10.1177/106591297202500412
• Author: R.B. Fowler
• Date: 01 December 1972
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE ANARCHIST TRADITION OF
POLITICAL THOUGHT
R. B. FOWLER
University of Wisconsin -
Madison
HIS
ARTICLE considers the defining aspects of nineteenth-century Euro-
~ pean anarchist theory -
the values nineteenth-century anarchist thinkers
held
in common. While this discussion is occasioned by the recent revival of
interest in anarchism, it purposely focuses on the classical anarchist tradition from
the nineteenth century. In that period, anarchism reached a level of articulation
that distinguished it as a serious political theory.
The following analysis results from a substantial exploration of primary and
secondary sources.~ It attempts to generate an interpretation and synthesis of nine-
teenth-century anarchist theorizing in the body of the text, while the footnotes
allude to the specific evidence. The study is deliberately circumscribed in four ways :
it is restricted in time, location, theorists, and goals. It does not encompass all anar-
chists of the past. It certainly does not venture into the disappointing world of con-
temporary anarchists.2 Nor does this article range over all countries in the nine-
teenth century. It discusses only European anarchist thinking. The focus is limited
to a sensible range of seven anarchist theorists : Mikhail Bakunin ( 1814-1876 ) ,
William Godwin ( 1756-1836 ) , Alexander Herzen ( 1812-1870) , Peter Kropotkin
( 1842-1921 ) , Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ( 1809-1865 ) , Max Stirner ( 1806-1856 ) ,
1
Some works in English used in this study with which a serious examination of nineteenth cen-
tury anarchist thought might begin : W. Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice,
2 vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1946) ; M. Stirner, The Ego and His Own
(London: A. C. Fifield, 1912) ; P. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nine-
teenth Century (London : Freedom House. n.d.) and S. Edwards, ed., Selected Writings
of Pierre Joseph Proudhon (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969) ; A. Herzen, From the Other
Shore (New York: George Braziller, 1966) ; G. P. Maximoff, ed., The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin (New York: Free Press, 1964) ; L. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within
You (Noonday, 1966) ; P. Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin, 1899), Mutual Aid (New York: McClure, 1907), and Conquest of Bread (New
York: Putnam, 1907) ; also see M. Miller, ed., P. Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anar-
chism and Revolution (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1970). Some general secondary sources
include G. Woodcock, Anarchism (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1962); J. Joll, The
Anarchists (New York: Universal Publishing Co., 1966) ; I. L. Horowitz, ed., The Anar-
chists (New York: Dell, 1964); A. Carter, The Political Theory of Anarchism (New
York: Harper & Row, 1971); A. Ritter, "Anarchism and Liberal Theory in the Nine-
teenth Century," paper delivered at the 1970 meeting of the American Political Science
Association. More specific secondary sources worth examining include: P. Avrich, The
Russian Anarchists (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967) ; E. H. Carr, The
Romantic Exiles (New York: F. A. Stokes, 1933) ; G. Woodcock and I. Avakumovic.
The Anarchist Prince (New York: Schoken Books, 1971); M. Nomad, Apostles of Revo-
lution (New York: Collier Books, 1962); I. Kramnick, "On Anarchism and the Real
World," American Political Science Review, 66 (March 1972), 114-28; A. Ritter, The
Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Princeton: Princeton University Press.
1969). But all these are only the beginning of a vast literature. These works will be cited
hereafter only by author’s name, with brief title where necessary.
2
Paul Goodman may be an exception, but his anarchism, if it is that, is gentler than many
current versions. D. Cohn-Bendit has received some publicity, but M. Bookchin is far
more enlightening. D. Guerin’s Anarchism (New York: Montly Review Press, 1970) is
a serious work, sympathetic to historical anarchism and enthusiastic about the present.
For a survey see D. Apter and J. Joll, Anarchism Today (Garden City: Doubleday,
1972).
738

---

739
and Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). Together these men represent the several faces of
European anarchist thought in the last century; yet they are a restricted universe.
An essay which does not concentrate on these renowned anarchists could scarcely
claim to speak authoritatively of nineteenth-century anarchist thought. An attempt
to cover others, including the anarcho-syndicalists, would be too general. Finally,
this article seeks to delineate what perspectives the traditional anarchists shared, to
the exclusion of numerous other goals which might well have been pursued. No
consideration is devoted to the history of anarchism; none is given to the relation of
historical to contemporary anarchist theory. There is no stress on the enduring
anarchist message for us, nor is there a normative argument on the validity of
anarchist propositions about the world. All of these are worthy of study, and there
certainly is a need for much more serious writing about the anarchist outlook. But
to accomplish the substantial task of isolating the essence of nineteenth-century,
European anarchist thought in the pages that follow is sufficiently difficult, without
complicating the enterprise with additional objectives.
I
Our central question is: what was the core of the anarchist tradition in nine-
teenth-century political thought? This essay argues that nineteenth-century anar-
chist theorists agreed on (1) a nearly total rejection of the familiar norms and struc-
tures, especially the political ones, of their age, and (2) a quest for an existence in
a harmonious, &dquo;natural&dquo; world in which government was a remote memory. But it
contends as well that this or any common perspective in anarchist writing is difficult
to discern. This is especially true if one undertakes to approach anarchist theory as
a coherent, uniform set of concepts and ideals. The main reason that no obvious
pattern emerges at first glance is frustratingly simple. Traditional anarchist think-
ing seems to sweep across so long a spectrum that unities are understandably hard to
uncover. Stimer’s consuming egoism, Herzen’s elegant ambiguities, and Kropotkin’s
breathless positivism apparently lie far apart. It would not be a facile conclusion
to suggest that there was no single anarchist tradition in the last century.
Most commentators, however, have agreed that there was a lowest common
denominator in the anti-state impulse of classic anarchism. This view has also been
acknowledged by anarchist theoreticians. Godwin and Tolstoy, among others, often
identified anarchism as the view which opposed all government.3 There is, in fact,
no question that anarchists did share a general antipathy to what they termed &dquo;gov-
ernment,&dquo; but it is not clear what they meant by that crucial concept. Kropotkin
was a pointed exception in his earnest efforts to define his understanding of govern-
ment carefully, but the general ambiguities in nineteenth-century anarchists’ writ-
ings about the state do not make it obvious that they all sought to abolish govern-
ment as we might understand it today. For example, did Godwin really urge people
to give up all coercive institutions concerned with regulating public behavior? He
3
There are many examples of this to be found in the anarchist writings cited in note 1, supra;
for example, Bakunin, Part II ; chaps. 7-9; Tolstoy, chap. 7; Godwin. Book 1. chap. 2;
Kropotkin. Memoirs. p. 148; and Stirner. pp. 242-75 and 128-52.

---

740
and others said they were against &dquo;government,&dquo; but it may be that the intensely
communitarian societies they designed would have performed functions frequently
associated with &dquo;governments.&dquo; The question is whether or not the anarchist oppo-
sition to &dquo;government&dquo; amounted to anything particularly significant.
Anarchist writers from Godwin to Bakunin revile the &dquo;state&dquo; and &dquo;govern-
ment&dquo; principally because they see the political world linked with coercions directed
against both nature and the will of individual people.5 These theorists’ character-
istic image of government was that of a policeman forcing people to violate their
natural consciences. Yet many of these same thinkers intended to use concerted
social pressure to maintain peaceful solidarity within the anarchist community. The
&dquo;government&dquo; policeman was to disappear, but every individual would become a
functional policeman both for himself and others. Kings would be dethroned and
their thrones become relics of the past. National Assemblies would be dissolved, and
their halls transformed into warehouses. Yet a central function would persist, since
intense pressures for &dquo;order&dquo; would continue. It may be that most nineteenth-cen-
tury anarchist theorists, in short, intended social pressure to play a role that turned
out to be little different from what government was to classical liberals. It would
preserve order. Proudhon for one explicitly advocated &dquo;an imposed coercive force.&dquo;
Godwin wanted each citizen to monitor others to see if they were living correctly.
Tolstoy publicly indicated his willingness to rely on social pressure; so did Bakunin.6
It is true that the anarchists were confident that the realm of free choice would
expand exponentially when their ideal societies came into existence. They also did
not see how social pressure and community sentiment could ever be...