Submitted by wednesday in Anarchism (edited )

i recently picked up a copy of "Gustav Landauer: Revolution and other writings" (pdf link) which i'm in the middle of reading. i don't read that much theory and hadn't heard of him before; he was apparently quite influential around the late 19c. / early 20c., and later (after his death) from the 1960s onwards.

he is, at least at face value, a left-anarchist who believed in socialism: he called his ideas "anarchist socialism" and seems to have explicitly rejected anarchist communism. but he wasn't a dogmatic socialist; for example he wrote about the idea of trying to plan out post-capitalist social structures:

There is no reason to argue about the organizational details of the future society. It is much more important to combine our forces to establish the social conditions allowing for the practical experiences that will determine these matters.

Anarchy is no lifeless system of ready-made thoughts. Anarchy is life; the life that awaits us after we have freed ourselves from the yoke.

he was clear that his goal was anarchism, not socialism:

Anarchism is the goal that we pursue: the absence of domination and of the state; the freedom of the individual. Socialism is the means by which we want to reach and secure this freedom: solidarity, sharing, and cooperative labor.

he was opposed to the idea of a revolution followed by utopia:

[T]his is yet another crucial fallacy: that one can – or must – bring anarchism to the world; that anarchy is an affair of all of humanity; that there will indeed be a day of judgment followed by a millennial era. Those who want “to bring freedom to the world” – which will always be their idea of freedom – are tyrants, not anarchists. Anarchy will never be a matter of the masses, it will never be established by means of military attack or armed revolt, just as the ideal of federalist socialism will never be reached by waiting until the already accumulated capital and the title of the land will fall into the people’s hands. Anarchy is not a matter of the future; it is a matter of the present. It is not a matter of making demands; it is a matter of how one lives. Anarchy is not about the nationalization of the achievements of the past but about a new people arising from humble beginnings in small communities that form in the midst of the old: an inward colonization. Anarchy is not about a struggle between classes – the dispossessed against the possessors – but about free, strong, and sovereign individuals breaking free from mass culture and uniting in new forms. The old opposition between destruction and construction begins to lose its meaning: what is at stake are new forms that have never been.

and he seems to have had something of a spiritual bent:

To me, someone without a master, someone who is free, an individual, an anarchist, is one who is his own master, who has unearthed the desire that tells him who he truly wants to be. This desire is his life. The way to heaven is narrow. The way to a newer, higher form of human society passes by the dark, fatal gate of our instincts and the terra abscondita – the “hidden land” – of our soul, which is our world. This world can only be constructed from within. We can discover this land, this rich world, if we are able to create a new kind of human being through chaos and anarchy, through unprecedented, intense, deep experience. Each one of us has to do this. Once this process is completed, only then will anarchists and anarchy exist, in the form of scattered individuals, everywhere. And they will find each other. But they will not kill anyone except themselves – in the mystical sense, in order to be reborn after having descended into the depths of their soul. They will be able to say of themselves, in Hofmannsthal’s words:“I have rid myself of anything common in me as completely as I have left the soil underneath my feet.” Only those who have journeyed through their own selves and waded deep in their own blood can help to create the new world without interfering with the lives of others.

anyway, although i haven't finished the book yet, i'm finding it both enjoyable and interesting so far and would recommend having a look if you like that sort of thing.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote

I've quoted Gustav before, and they seemed pretty awesome, but I haven't gotten around to reading up more.

2

cyb3rd4ndy wrote

Nice. I recommend reading about the Bavarian revolution. I think he sat on the interim government council or something. I’d love to know more myself.

1

wednesday OP wrote

there's a biography at the start of the book you might find interesting; it briefly covers his role in the Bavarian revolution, which he supported but seemed a bit uncomfortable with: "As far as I am concerned, I am all right staying here, although I am starting to feel rather useless".

he was arrested when the revolution was defeated, then murdered by SPD troops while in custody.

2

cyb3rd4ndy wrote

The book I have is called "Gustav Landauer: Anarchist and Jew," but I haven't read much of it yet. I have a huge project I'm saving for some later time on Jewish anarchisms. Have you heard of Erich Muhsam? I think the same people who did the Landauer book you are reading did one on him too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_M%C3%BChsam

2