Submitted by subrosa in Anarchism (edited )

Many radicals seem to be under the impression that anarchism got started some time around the 1870s, primarily on anti-capitalist and anti-statist notes, and that therefore it is best understood as something like libertarian socialism. Which isn't entirely unfair or without use. But that impression is usually coupled to the idea that anarchist critiques of civilization amount to a recent departure from "classical anarchism" — starting in the 1980s with primitivism, with figures like Fredy Perlman and John Zerzan. Which may be convenient but is probably not much else.

Here's some unfinished notes on anti-civilizational perspectives from before all that.


"Utopian socialist" Charles Fourier

The philosopher of liberated passions (as we might call him) had influence on figures like P.-J. Proudhon and Jeanne Deroin, but also on more contemporary anarchist developments. You can encounter 'Fourierist' ideas in May 68 crowds and in Raoul Vaneigem's writings, in the anti-work anarchy of Bob Black, in discussions about Kropotkin's communes, in the neo-Proudhonian project of Shawn Wilbur, in the mutualist sociology of Cayce Jamil, etc.

Charles Fourier is no lightweight, I don't dare attempt a summary of his ideas or what we might make of them as anarchists. But you wouldn't be entirely off the mark to take Fourier's first publication The Theory of the Four Movements in 1808 as the beginning of the socialist literary tradition. Long before there was any talk of "capitalism" the early socialist aimed his entire critique at civilization:

As I had no connection with any scientific school, I decided to apply doubt to all opinions without exception, even regarding with suspicion arrangements which had universal agreement; for although this Civilisation is the idol of all philosophical schools, and the one they believe to be most nearly perfect, what could be more imperfect than Civilisation, and all the scourges it brings with it? What more dubious than its necessity and its future permanence?

As biographer Jonathan Beecher notes:

Fourier's contempt for the respectable thinkers and ideologies of his age was so intense that he always used the terms philosopher and civilization in a pejorative sense. In his lexicon civilization was a depraved order, a synonym for perfidy and constraint ... Fourier's attack on civilization had qualities not to be found in the writing of any other social critic of his time.


Early libertarian communist paper L'humanitaire

I have not looked into this much, but anarchist historian and communist Max Nettlau notes that...

There were, in fact, some communists who published a periodical written in a cool, level-headed tone, resolute but without acrimony, and carefully edited: L’Humanitaire, Organe de la science sociale (The Humanitarian, Organ of Social Science), under the direction of G. Charavay. The group was prosecuted as an illegal association, and, since the periodical was published without legal formalities, the members received prison terms; the contents of the journal, however, could not be incriminated. Nevertheless, the public indictment, the press, and all the communist and socialist journals cried out against the immoral opinions of the group, which, according to a statement issued by the publishing committee on 20 July (the document was confiscated), proclaimed the following ideas as ‘egalitarian communist doctrine’: the truth, materialism, abolition of the individual family, abolition of marriage. Art was to be accepted only as recreation; luxury was to disappear; the cities, as centres of domination and corruption, were to be destroyed; each community was to specialise in one type of production only; man’s development was to advance through frequent travel. These ideas, however, were set forth with greater clarity in the periodical itself, which also featured a well-documented article on Sylvain Maréchal, recommending ‘anti-political and anarchist ideas’. The periodical also repudiated class discrimination, and showed that almost all the famous communists, and the men who were considered as ‘our masters’ were not members of the working class, citing Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Thomas More, Campanella, Mably, Morelly, Babeuf, Buonarroti.

The names of the group members are known only through their trial. Most outstanding were Jean Joseph May, considered to be the leader (he took refuge in London, was later sent, as a rebel, into military service in Africa, where he soon died); G. Charavay, a capmaker (member of a family later well known as dealers in autographs); and Page, a young goldsmith, the orator of the group.

It's not surprising that an early 'libertarian communist' paper advocating for the destruction of cities would also discuss Sylvian Maréchal (in whose more or less anarchistic writing we can find anti-civilizational elements as well.)


Anarchist Joseph Déjacque

That is to say Harmony, that oasis of our dreams, no longer fleeing like a mirage before the caravan of the generations and delivering to each and all, under the shade of fraternity and in universal unity, the sources of happiness, the fruits of liberty: a life of delights, finally, after an agony of more than eighteen centuries in the sandy desert of Civilization!

Today Déjacque is often embraced as a forerunner for a specifically anarchist communism. And he is known as the first person to use libertarian (libertaire) in the familiar political sense. You would'nt be entirely off the mark to see in Déjacque's paper the beginning of the libertarian tradition.

More often than not what's ignored is Déjacque's positioning against civilization and his unforgiving attacks on the 'civilizées'. I have quoted the opening lines to his "The Humanisphere" a couple times before, I'm trying to keep this post short.


Anarchist Ernest Cœurderoy

After civilized generations, socialist generations!

Ernest Cœurderoy is today perhaps best known for the argument that liberty in Europe could only be made possible if a Cossack invasion first wiped away civilization. If you want to learn more about this lesser known anarchist I would recommend the book Disruptive Elements, the whole first chapter is on Cœurderoy.


"The English Tolstoy", near-anarchist Edward Carpenter

Author of Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure

[to be continued]

Louise Michel

[to be continued]

edited out that last part about non-anarchist influences, it's not good
21

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Exciting! If I come by some more and remember this I'll try add some comments here.

10

ruminator wrote

Hmm, are you trying to create an alternative genealogy for the prior of anarchism. Or trying to suggest this prior is the actual/better origin of anarchism? Fourier, for example, has been taken up/integral for so many philosophers and political theorists, including you know…

It’s an interesting project. I like thinking so I am sharing what came to mind wrt your framing.

10

subrosa OP wrote

Probably would be more accurate to say I'm trying to dig up largely ignored or conveniently forgotten 'genealogy' and origins to anarchism. Not to replace but to expand and clarify.

3

ruminator wrote (edited )

“Or trying to suggest this prior is the actual/better origin of anarchism? “

^ So this, which is cool. I’m not sure why genealogy is in scare quotes, but in my reading of the concept (both for nietzsche and foucault) , the method is used precisely to uncover what is there (but not taken up) or that which can be excavated from what is there.

Anyhow, interesting project, like I said. :)

9

subrosa OP wrote

Genealogy is in 'uncertainty quotes' because the term doesn't seem very fitting when we're talking about a movement and history marked by a great number of discontinuations, new beginnings, paths not taken, etc. Not my intention to write a family tree for anarchism.

3

ruminator wrote (edited )

Hmmmm. Genealogy is a method of doing history that undoes “history”= the notion of family tree/linearity/continuity. It has many variations, tho. What you’re describing still sounds like one of them to me.

8

subrosa OP wrote

Foucault I'm guessing. Haven't read him.

3

ruminator wrote

Foucault builds his method off how thought works in Nietzsche (particularly in genealogy of morals), so for me there is no Foucault without Nietzsche. There are many things I dislike about Foucault’s claims, btw, but I think he gives us something very creative and rich with genealogy.

8

ziq wrote

This would make a great book.

9

subrosa OP wrote

True, I'd love to read a thing like that. Would even entertain the idea of writing it myself — if my English were any better, if LittleBlackCart weren't closing down this year, if I would feel comfortable bothering people like Shawn Wilbur, Cayce Jamil, Margaret Killjoy and maybe John Zerzan with questions all year. Guess I'll just focus on adding to my notes then.

10

humanispherian wrote (edited )

I wouldn't worry too much about "bothering" me or Cayce.

You're tugging here on two threads that I've found very interesting: the influence of Fourier's theory and that of Sylvain Maréchal (and Arcadian thought more generally.) Fourier's brand of anti-civ thought shows up Proudhon's work, as well as in that of Louise Michel, and both of them wrote works that adapted Fourier's ideas. E. Armand discussed Maréchal as a precursor of anarchism — and the extent of the Arcadian influence on anarchist individualism is certainly something that deserves more examination.

5

subrosa OP wrote

[Joseph Déjacque] is known as the first person to use libertarian (libertaire) in the familiar political sense. You would'nt be entirely off the mark to see in Déjacque's paper the beginning of the libertarian tradition.

Would you say that's fair, accurate enough? I'm not sure, maybe it's more of a wikipedia thing, with Déjacque unfairly reduced to that role just so we can 'disarm' anti-socialist libertarians.

3

humanispherian wrote

The only contender I'm aware of is a rather offhand use of libertaire by Proudhon in the same year — precisely to designate capitalist free-traders — but Déjacque's is the usage that stuck, at least for a long while. Déjacque, of course, made equally interesting, but not influential use of the term anarchisme around the same time.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think your English is more than good enough. I would be willing to do at least one full readthrough to suggest edits and any changes to phrasing if you like.

Who's Cayce Jamil?

As for the other folks, I am not sure they would mind hearing from you. Shawn and John have been pretty responsive to me before.

I'd also suggest emailing the anarchist academic mailing lists in case folks had suggestions.

4

subrosa OP wrote

I think your English is more than good enough. I would be willing to do at least one full readthrough to suggest edits and any changes to phrasing if you like.

That's generous. Appreciate that.

Who's Cayce Jamil?

A mutualist sociologist I follow on twitter @MutualSociology, been enjoying that feed for a couple months now. They would know some about Fourier and other figures from that time.

Thanks for the info and suggestions but I'm not actually entertaining the idea all that seriously. For now I'm happy to leave it as a side project, as a couple pages of notes that I can add to whenever suits me.

4

stagn wrote

Renzo Novatore, My Iconoclastic Individualism:

I think, I know, that as long as there are men, there will be societies, since this putrid civilization with its industries and mechanical progress has already brought us to the point where it is not even possible to turn back to the enviable age of the caves and divine mates who raised and defended those born of their free and instinctive love like tawny, catlike Lionesses, inhabiting magnificent, fragrant, green and wild forests. But still I know and I think with equal certainty that every form of society — precisely because it is a society — will, for its own good, want to humiliate the individual. Even communism that — as its theorists tell us — is the most humanly perfect form of society would only be able to recognize one of its more or less active, more or less esteemed members in me. I can never be as worthy through communism as I will be as myself, fully my own, as a Unique one and, therefore, incomprehensible to the collectivity. But that within me which is most incomprehensible, most mysterious and enigmatic to the collectivity is precisely my most precious treasure, my dearest good, since it is my deepest intimacy which I alone can explain and love, since I alone understand it.

8

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Not sure, someone's suggested to me you might have some luck with actual Tolstoy, Reclus, Landauer, and Magón.

Less anarchic types:

One I have read is Freud's Civilisation and its Discontents, but it was too long ago to be sure you could use it, but I feel like you'll find something there and perhaps a different geneology to work with.

Finally, a lot of major decolonial people frame things in terms of civilisation and the civilisation imperiative:
Aimé Césaire (a cornerstone of anticolonial thought) inverts the idea that western civilisation is civilised and basically totally rejects the notion that colonising nations are civilised. It could be read in an interesting way. His Discourse on Colonialism is only about 50 pages and it's probably my most recommended intro to anticolonial stuff.
Fanon often speaks more often about Western Civilisation as the problem. He hasn't actually figured out that no modern civilisation is possible, but it's one of many interesting tensions in his work.

7