Andrews, A Handbook of Anarchy

8/8/2019 Andrews, A Handbook of Anarchy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/andrews-a-handbook-of-anarchy 1/11

MONTVrtteRpRessl+^( rn

^},t'rffil-7----

by J.A.ANDREWSP( Box 92 BrcnCway vdteil 20OT Attstralta EDITED & INTRODUCEDby BOB JAMES



The HandbookofAnarchy

bY-

J. A. ANDREWS

Edited and lntroduced by Bob James

MONTY MILLER PRESS Sydney

LIBERTARIANRESOURCES MEIbOuTNC



HANDBOOKOF ANARCHY - J. A. AndrewsEdited and Introduced by Bo b James

First publ ished in Syr lnr :y 1t l1)4.Repr inted in tRca<lr :rof Arrs;tr i r l r ;rn r r ;r r r : l r t l ;r r r ,i l tJ( ; t l {Xj ledi ted by []ot; .J l tntc:;,O;tr t lxrnr l1] t l .

This Edit ion publrsl rc<1or the Austral ianAnarchist Corr tt- 'r r ;r ry elebrations,Melbourrre Ma y 1-4, 1986, joint ly by

LIBERTARIANRESOURCESc/- P.O. Bo x 20 Parkv i l le ,V ic tor ia 3052,

MOiITY MILLER PRESSP.O. Bo x 92 Broadway,N.S.W.2007,

INTRODUCTION

ll t ma y be as Wel l to point out here that the dynamite pol icyhas nothing to do with Anarchyi .. .JAA, 1894.

A letter from the Chief Secretary and Premier, Dibbs, l4 June1894 to the Hon. C.G.Heydon, (Sol ic i tor-General?) with a copy ofth e pamphlet,r rHandbook of Anarchyttattached, asked for his carefulperusal rwi th a view of consider ing whether any action should be

taken regarding i tr . In th e context of th e time, Dibbs doubUess ha dsome charge l ikersedi t ionror r inci tement

to murderr in mind. Aftersome del iberations, Andrews wa s prosecuted an d convicted for sel l ingthisrpamphlett wi thout legal impr int, even though many other publ ic-ations including the Hansard of the NSW parl iament, were ser iouslyin breach of th e rule. Andrews ha d his name and address on thepubl ication' but not in th e rcorrectrplace.

The Bul let in receivedonly a pol i te letter of censure for a simi lar , technical breach.

What does this vindictive hypocr isy tel l us about the state of mindof NSW Government off ic ials?

Th e core of the stigma which restr icts general comprehension ofth e message of ranarchismr

is the insistence by tthe author i t iest thattheir def ni t ion of what is rviolentr

behaviour an d what is t legi t imate'

or rrespectabletbehaviour wi l l be the dominant one. Just as today

th e United states Administrat ion and i ts parasi t ic fol lowers insist

that Palestinian violence is terror ism an d their own violence is not,so ranarchistst

were an d arerviolentr , tblood-thirstytetcneven in

their case, if they remain total ly transfixed in one spot.There is no way around this confidence tr ick, this sl ight-of- tongue.

It must be confronted head-on, an d cal led what i t is , ra l ie,.Consider th e part icular case of Andrews in Sydney, l8g4. For rnore

than 2 yearsn he had been on the move, continual ly dodging pol iceattempts to frame hi m by planting bombs near hi s lodgings, by tryingto ge t his handwri t ing on explosive formulae, by try ing to steal histype-faces to use on bogusrdynamite maifestoestand by trying totr ick some of th e younger radicals to involve hirn in a shoot-outwith th e pol ice or the mi l i tary at a protest demonstration or MayDa y march. Fo r more than f ive years he had been pointing ou tni s o.wn lack of support forrpropaganda of the deedt. For exarnple:

l . .Let revolutionists think as much as they l ike about Ineans

of personal an d col lective secur i ty in cases of emergency, bu tto study arnrarnents of warfare as their enernies do, is to mymind both useless and absurdr.

(Sydney Truth, 10 July, 1892.)He was not a paci f ist, he was a real ist. He had no reason to supp-

ose that the Chicago author i t ies were an y worse than those in Syd-ney, and i f th e North American pol ice- jud.oes-business nterests couldhang 4 anarchists on total ly trurnped-up charges in lBB7, then th eSydney status-quo wa s equal ly capable of i t . And he knew that i fanyone wa s to be the target of State-conspiracy i t would be himand/or his comrades who would be in danqer of execution.



He had also thought long an d hard on th e questiorr ,' l .' t ,1, ' t tr : t . '

as a possible means to achieve social change and_ hc tt:1, l , , l r l i t l ;

anarchists must:tl t ComeS no t to death bu t to l i f et, F{ e i t l ' ;o rr ' l " r ' tr ) ( l

organisation an d de f ensive pre-planning vrhich wa s a trr :r l , l" . l tr r t

he was wel l aware of the dangers of a group sett ing i tt ;r : l l tp t t

from ri tsrcommunity an d attempting to predictr the revolutiorr ' :rW e dOntt advocate any organised conSpiracy to overt l tr t t \nJ t ro

exist ing powerS' as SUch is I ikeIy to be disappointing an d r;r ;t t l ; t t t l : ;

th e geims of ne w author i ty. We can sirnply advise each t. t t t ; t l<,:

as rnany corrverts as he (sic) ca n do without Inore r isk t l t i t t t

he is prepared to incur, t i l l th e extension of ou r ideas atnottgth e people makes it easier to ac t more boldly. And at length'

in answer to some act of tyranny will come th e spontaneous

irresist ible man-storm of revolution that wi l l sweep want an d

oppression from the land, and the martyrs of the past will be

avenged by victorYl .( tAnarchYt, No.l , November, t891)

Despite his clear opposi t ion to any kind of individual ist c viol . .- 'r rcer

and despi te his not having any off ic ial posi t ion withln t l tc l ;r tror r l love-

mentr he was st i l l being harassed and conspired:t<l l lnr ;t l) y t l ro orrcrn-

ie S Of that movement. He was, indeed, an extr{) r I l t l k i t t<l rt f ottts lder '

an intel lectual ly incl ined inventor an d tftcort- ' t i r ; iatt , r tr tr l poor it s wel l ,

whiCh meant he went about in thr t- 'a<l t l i tr t : : l t l t l l r : l ; , r t t t l ; l t i tvrr t l ,di r ty,

wi th straw in hlS hair . FOr reasotls <l f l l r i r t t : i ; l l t l , t l tgtt , attr l for f inanC-

ial f eaSOnS, he di d not COnf rt n ;tt tr l hi s l istr l t t t :rs w(: l 'o vtt lnerable

to arguments in whichrrespectablet

bclr i tv iour wirs l r l iqt lcd withrrespectabler pol i t ics.

Th e author l t ies were ou t to ge t hlrn (ancl a f 'w otl tors) precisely

because he , personal ly, posed no threat at al l , arrr j br :catt l ;e an attack

on him would no t cost Votes, Just aS in later t lmes th e Attar tt l i t Marga

posed no direct threat. Anarchism an d Andrews, In part icular , could

be label led violent an d pu t away in a rshowt tr ial that would lrnpress

Government supporters, sway some undecided middle-ground voters

an d intimidate those in th e middle-ground who tended to oppose

th e Government. The charges that received publ ic i ty were to be

extremer but the penalt ies were of l i t t le pol i t ical account. l f the

int im idation worked, i t was unimportant whether anarchists hanged

or not. What mattered wa s the ef f ect on th e publ ic perception of

what was acceptable behaviour an d what wasntt. Keep in mind that

th e whole debate about par l iamentary versus non-par l iamentary pol i t-

ic s (direct action) turns on th e question of whether th e status-quois im moral or not. l f i t is, i t can be swept away, root an d branch.

l f i ts merely an accident, sl ightly f lawed or a resul t of a miscor l -

ception among otherwise reasonable people, i ts supporters carr bc

negotiated ou t of their opinions with talk.

when the author i t ies came to peruse rThe Handbook of Attr trCl ty"

which should be considered Andrewrs defini tve statement, t l r r :y found

nothing they could hang ser ious charges on . so, through tl l ( ) [) ( ) rson

of Whitt ingdale Johnson wh o ha d already sentenced Brokt:r t I i l l str ike

leaders to jai l in 1892, they sett le fo r per jury of thernsr: lv9r ; t t tr l fo r

a minor curtai lment of Andrewst activ i t ies and of that of '. ) r ;ottr rad-

es , wh o were arrested for dist r ibut ing the pamphlet .No court recordremainsof thls ' t r ia l t becauseno t t r ia l 'actual ly occurred.No wi tness-es were cal led, no evidence aken. Th e judge, bouncingup and down,shout ing, lBut you must no t publ lsh srt rJi t lonlYo u must no t publ ishsedi t ion! thanded down penal t ies which bore no relat ion to a chargeof sedi t ionr an d no relat ion to rc; r l i ty. l le sl rnply refused to l istento Andrewrsdefence. Se eBul let in, 3 Novr. . rrrber,8g4,p3. )

Th e author i t ies were ablc to r; ; r l r r l rc i l r r t i -arrarchist ubl ic i ty thatwould ensure publ ic acct :ptarrccof t lrr, ' jur lgr: 's arbi t rary behaviourif they ever heard of il , r rot t r orn t r is < ;ast - .ince thcy were on suchpart icular ly shaky grorrnd, l rr t f rorrr al l ;r: t of fortu i tous

ci rcumstanceswhich largely dt :pt . ' r r r lcr lor t l rc i r cft t , 'ct on previous ant i -anarchisthyster ia. In Franc;e, us t r l i tys before Ll re Sydneyt t r ia l t, Santo assass-Inated Presldcnt Carnot . On l l0 Jurrc, a scarrdal -sheetal led the BirrJOrFreedorncenter-pageda scurr i lous, vicious at tack on anarchism,Andrews an d a so-cal led anarchist farm at Smithf ield. Using th eFrench murder as th e jumping-of f point the art ic le correlated socialrevolut ion with seas of blood, and wi th men forcing wornen o sharetheir sexual favours around. Marx and Engels were said to have beenthe leaders of the Paris Commune, and anarchists, unionists, Satanand mad fanat ics were al l , l i teral ly, lumped ogether:

tWe have it on the most rel iable authority that both Ravoschol(sic) and Vail lant who have been recently executed for outragesin Paris, were in constant communicat ion with local groups. , .More than that it is whispered... that some recent Europeanexplosionswere to have had an echo in the far south,..

Innuendo,distort ions an d l ies pi le up in this example of yel lowjournal ism, whlch is probably by E.J.Brady, one-t ime fr iend of An -drews. A l i t t le later Cardinal Moran of Sydney,at a packed mernoria lservice for Carnot, displayed his part isan prejudices by attackinganarchism at length, especial ly for anti-rel igious aspects, it s rsatanic

enmity against re l ig ion and moral i tyr .In th e Handbooktsmere t4 pages,Andrews talks a lot about lawless-

ness and the l ikl ihood of violence between people en masse or insmal l groups. At al l t imes against th is vio lence he bel ieves in th enaturalnessof people feeling for one another, sharingr in Joys an dsufferlng of each otherr l f they were only given a chance to decidefo r themseves on the basis of that capacity rather than have that'exerciseof fel low feel ing' taken away through the appl icat ion ofperson-madeaw .

Upon being sentenced, Andrews wa s rel ieved to be temporar i lyout of the f l r ing l ine, but In re-appearinghe decided to conf rontthe hypocrisy of his opponentsdirect ly. In October he took up propa-ganda act ivi t ies enthusiast ical lyarrd prepared rRevol t , No . 2t forpubl icat ion. ln i t he was cr i t lcal of inact ive anarchistsbut cla imeda degree of progress.He thoughtrthe lessonof Ne w Austral iathadinf luenced people towards anarchy an d thought ta very mani festanarchist tendency of thought is ar is ing among th e progressive nion-lsts, whose social ism is now about the standard of the old socialdemocrat ic al l iance at th e tlme of Bakuninr.

In general however, outmanoeuvredon th e question of direct act ion.



th e whole of tthe ( labor) movementr was in tat ters, vigorortsonly

in spasms, subsiding i t fu l ly to a plateaux of aspi rat ion fa r belowthat f rom which i t had begun th e decade. The containmerrtof t l te

democrat ic surge wi thln the parl iamentary bott le wa s very nearly

complete. Country dist r icts were the last to submit r 1894 pr< lvid ing

some of the clearest examplesof determ ned, del iberate ye t largely

spontaneous efensive acts of violence of the whole period of strikes'without so far as I am aware there belng any anarchists on hand.

l l l l le t Andrews el l the rest of the story himsel f :rJudge Darley had made comments on the principles involvedin the case of the Momba shearers who were tried before hirn.

I agreed wi th his remarks in the abst ract ' bu t considered hathe was barking up the wrong tree. He said' the country wasvi r tual ly in a state of civi l war; organised gangs were going

about , d ictat ing to workers the terms on whlch they must work,

and even forcibly interfer ing wi th those who re fused to submt

to that dictat ion. To Judge Darley these tyrants were the unionshearers, and the oppressedvict ims, the blacklegs; bu t to me

the tyrants were the squatters' backed by the Goverrttnetlt ,attd

th e vict i rns were the union shearers. Judge Darley said every

man had the rGod-givenrr ight to work when, whc're, how long,

and for what he pleased. said so too - as he pleasr:<1,ot as

master pleased to impose. . .Judgeralcy said that thc t ree marl

had the r ight to de fen d his l iberty by force, r lvct t to t l te last

ext remity; arrdso said lr .Although logic and common sense were ot t AntJt t . lwrsicl t - ' , ecause

th e State di f fered in i ts opinion as to what rt toral l ty th o soc- ' ia l t ruc-ture should ref lect , namely that of th e matster-serfrelat ionship '

Andrews wa s arrested and charged with:rsedi t ious l ibet with intent to just i fy the cr i tne of t r t t t rdcr, and

to inci te divers personsunknown o commit t l te cr i tnes of tnurd-

€r , incendiar ism,pi l lage an d assaul t ; to bring t l re la w of th e

land into contempt , an d make i t appear that i t is unduly adtn nis-

t rated; to Inci te He r Majestyrs iege subjects o r iots artd turnul ts

and breaches of th e peace; to incite evil ly disposed persons

to resist of f cers and membersof th e pol ice force lawful ly seek-

ing to apprehend them, an d to bring th e members of the said

force into hatred and contempt; and to st ir up discontent an d

disaf fect ion among He r MaJestyrs iege subjects. All of which

things were solemnly declared to be subversiveof law an d order

an d good governmentr.

When this trial came on after 2 months in jal l ' Andrews foundthat addit lonal charges had been sandwiched into the indictment

of tgr ieviously scandal is ingan d vi l i fy lng Hi s Honour S i r Frecler ick

Mathew Darley, Knight, Chief Just ice, an d making i t appear that

he hath inci ted divers persons o commlt th e cr i rne of murdert . of

courser Andrews ha d prepared hl s defence In relat ion to the charges

hetd been told about' not the ne w ones:rThe trial was extraordinary. The Crown Prosecutor talkt>d fo r

three quarters of an hour about th e l r ish Fenlan t r ia ls, : r t td sald

scarcely anything about th e case in hand...Eventually.. . tht-'ur y

brought in an emphatic verdict of Inot guiltyr on the count ofjust ifying the crime of murder an d incit ing to murder, Incend-lar ism _andpl l lage. lwas found guilty on th e tw o remainlngcounts (whlch neither slde ha d taken the trouble to argue aOout),whatever they might mean with th e part covered bt the f irstcount subtracted.

This entitled me to a further soJournof flve months ln Darl lng-hurst (Jal l ) ' .

1I

ryATOB@K

FOR RUTH RIqHT



The Handbookof AnarchyAnarchy s freedom.The iteral meaning f the rvord free"

is to love or like; thus when we say that a man is free we imply

that he is "to l ike," that is, he ha sonly to l ike n order o decide

what he will do, or try to do. Among the thingswhich people n

generalike, s to avoidhurt ingothers,and as sometimeso do a

part icular hing which one would like wouid come n confl ict

with this, it becomesa matter for consideration hich course

one likes the best. From this peoplehave roughly set out certain

part icular hings which they supposed, o fa r as hey could see,

that they would prefer not to do towardsothers.saying ha tas t was tlteir wish to saveeach other fr om harm. they would

mutually de fend each other agai nst nyonewho did those hings.

This was law, which at fir st existed without any Governments

since he mere solidarityand fellow-feeling f the peoplesufficed

to ca rry it out. But they erred hrough short-sightedness,or they

could not see urther han he condit ions nd circumstanceshe y

were most famil iarwith, and not only are he general ondit ions

of l i fe constantly changing,bu t the individual circumstances

under an y general ondit ionsar e of almost nf inite variabil i ty.

Consequently hen they assumedhat certain hingswcre as a

matter of course pposed o theirgeneral urpose f sparing ach

othersuffering, hey overlookedhe fact ha t therear e two sides

to a question,"and that th e real aspectof a casemight be thevery opposite f what they stoodpledgedn advanceo regard t,

as circumstanceslonegiveeveryaction ts bearing.Had hey not

establishedhe law, they would have akenparton the unbiassed

guidance f the samenaturalsympathies swere at the root of

the law; but havingcreated he law, they had to consider, ot

what part they would like to take according o the realities,but

which part the law piedged hem to. As a consequencef which,

it would happen hat when someperson, et us say A.lfred, id

something iightly to the disadvantagef another,sa y Arthur,

bu t which, n the natureof the circumstances,veryunbiassed

observerwould hold him absolutely justified in doing, they

would, in the false ight of the law, look on it as a crime; while

the law would, through being all on Arthur's side, and, so tospeak, att inghis immediate rievance n the back,leadhim into

the most narrowly selfishand exclusive iew of the matter. Thus

by degrees, s condit ions hanged art ly from naturalevolut ion

and partly from the deliberateexertions of the most cunning o

bend the circumstancesnto the shape hat would give hem most

advantage f the law, the effectsshowed hemselvesn the divi-

sion of society nto two classes those to whom, on the whole,

the restrictionsof law operatedascircumstantialadvantagesver

an d againsthe others; nd hese thers,who were,on the whole,

I

disadvantagednd subordinated y th e operationof th e samerestrictions. Those who received he advantagewere naturallyweeded dowri to consist of the most assertive f those whomchance r cunningha d at an y time favored, nd came o look onthe unequaloperationof la w as the expression f mysterious"rights," nvented, fter th e aw hadunconsciouslyreatedhem,by way of apology fo r their orvn existence. nd of makinq tappear hat law, nstead f unintentionally riginatinghem, ,aditself come nt o existence or th e express urpose f protectingthem; and new aw swerepiled sky-high nd Governmentsstab_

iished o compel he observance f th e vestednterestshu s se tup . When the result ingevilshaveat somestagebecome ntol-erable, hosebelow have ro m time to time revolted,either obring things back to a fresh start, or to pu t the framingan dadministrat ion f laws into th e handsof supposedlympartialpersons, r to take them direct ly nt o theirown hands_ expect_in g to thus remedy he evil, which, however, spointedout, isin the very natureof la w as mposing allacies po n conduct; ndou t of falsehood s he sourceof social elat ions an comeonlvthe pil ingup of social ies,which, ranslatednto material ondi-t ions,mean yranny, slavery, nd misery.No two occurrencesreexactlyalike n their causes nd their effects, nd the essencefla w is that it takesal l cases hichhavea single, nd t ma y be heleast mportant, point in resemblance,nd directs he m to

betreated, n kind i f not in degree, n th e same oot ins.An d asunderno conceivableondi t ionof society s wrong mpossible,the effect of la w is necessari lyo createa vested nterest n al lwrongspossible o occur in conformity with the modes t cry_stallises, or all who are in a position to profit by them at theexpense f thosewh o wil l suffer,and hus o constitutehe attermere cattle for the former; while freedom, by preserving hesocial elasticity, although it cannot prevent wrongs of a purelypersonalcharacter ro m occurring f the elements re present,admits of no such wholesalewrong being foisted upon and over-shadowing ociety. The moment when, insteadof considerinewhat they would really like best to do under the actual circumlstances onfronting hem, people n their ignoranceurned heirwil l to work out the dictatesof a rule, hat moment he y ceasedto be free;an d the fact that they adopted he rule of their ownaccord,could no more alter the natureof their condit ion, ha nthe fact of a man having voluntarily chainedhimself

upcould

prevent the resulting act of his physicalbondage.The fiee mancannotowe obedience r supporteither o a personaluleror toth e fallacious xactionsof an y sort of superit i t ion.Th e recog-nition of this fact is signified n expressingreedom by the woid"Anarchy," which means iterally '\rn-rule,', or l_awlessness.

Now what is lawlessness?t is usually held up as he equiva-9



lent of all wickedness. ut let us see.

Right and wrong are simply good and harm. We define as

right whateverministers o the pleasure.whichwe find in others'

welfare without depriving us of a greateramount of pleasurd n

our own being, and which those whom it is safe for us to

associate ith find reciprocally n our welfare; wrong that which

acts oppositely. Our whole nervous structure makes t a physi-

ological fact that we share n the joys and sufferings of each

other. This is true of almost all animals hat hav e a nervoussys-

tem, but in man so especially hat a healthy individual feels o

someextent the pleasures nd woesof even the animalsof otherspecies vith which he associates. ut from a protective naturalprocess, his susceptibility s closed where vital interests are in

conflict. We share no grief in the death-agonyof a tiger or a

human enemy whose life would threaten our own or make it

insupportable. hen, since aw in the natureof things akes way

the exercise f fellow-feelingby which that feeling s developed,

substitut ing, nstead, comparison with codes, and since by

building on falsegeneralisat iont creates ntagonist icnterests,

which cannotbe adhered o without consequently losing p the

bodily avenues f love for one's neighbouras for oneself, t is

law that is a hideous reatorof wickedness.t would moreover

be as ational o al lege ha t an honestman shouldno t object o

beingchained p to preventhim from stealing, s hat he should

not object to being a bond-slaven his conduct o preventhi m

from doingwrong,and a bond-slavee s whenhe has o conform

his act ions o an imposed ode o the exclusion f his own udg-

ment of what accordswith reasonan d human sentiment.Th e

whole of larv s exactlyon a pa rwith the contentionof the rabid

teetotal lers ho affirm that because ne man may do rvrong n

drinking a1cohol, veryone should be forbidden to drink it .

Because certainact committed by a personwhosemoralnature

is deficient. r who is not suff iciently houghtful n hi sconduct,

may probabiy e. under hosecircumstances.n unjustact, moral

ahd considerate en ar e o be forbidden o do that act underan y

circumstances!t is the same.An d a man does.or abstainsro m

doing.something,or one of two reasons: i therbecause e con-

cludes hat this conduct s the most appropriate, r becauseuch

is the rule or law. The conductmay answer o both reasons, ut

th e motive can be only on e of them; if a man does a thing

because e thinks it f i t t ing, he doesso whether t is in accord

wi th law or not . and f he does t becauseuch s he arv.he oesit whether t is l i t t ing or not. This is regarding aw as a moral

standardof conduct. Rules are ai l very well in their placeas

foundations br thoroughly oprional specialdoings,and contlned

to th e limitedsphere f a circumscribedurpose, uc hasdefining

the structure f a game, he fun of which consistsn seeing hat10

\

,l

illl

,J

J.A. Andrews

11



can be done underspecified imitations,and where he rule existsin

th,e capacity of an assumed aturai quality in an imaginaryworld which we ca n enteror leave t wil l ;but asaffect insoinesin the real world, which are founded on facts trt"t

"uinoiu'.

abrogated n that connection, hey are wholly out of place.Ouieveryday affairs might just as well be regulatedby the rulesofcrjcket or draughts sby property or otheilaw; it is only a matterof dependingon the complications o which the peculiar imita_tions of the gamegive rise, or our material prosperity or adver-sity. As to the dreadof penalty, everyonehas to bewarehow heawakensresentment,but

the questionhere is, will it wake onnatural and reasonable, r on artificial and arbitary grounds? fthe latter' its moralvalue or arousinghe morally auulo the factthat other people's ee t achewhen trodden on , is destroyed;especiallywhen the aggrieved directly or through sympathy _are forbidden to exercise heir resentment,and instead of tfreaggrieverbeing taught a lessonas between man and man, he ispunished by strangersn the name of an impersonal power forbreachof discipl ine; ot fo r wrongingotheri, fo r the^lawgivesto all rvhoca nuse he aw to that purpose,he privi lege f wiong-in g others:bu i fo r doinga *rong, or for'that matter a right, na forbiddenway. This bringsus to th e point: to judge th e rlghtsan d wrongsof an y case orrectlyan d dealwith it i l t rt t ig.nit f ,it must be treatedon it s own circumstances,nd

no t by cinuen-t ionalit ies nd codes; hen, s this to be doneby th e p*t i. , .on-sciously affected, or by officials endowedwith the monopolis-tic privilege of doing so? To be governed ignifies hat someoneelseha s he choiceof your conductan d att i iude owardsothers,conduct,an dyo u have ot .

"Oh! but." we ar e old, ..if yo u di d away with Governmentthere would be a horrible state of things; th e world wouldbecome one vast field of chaotic rapine ind slaughter!,,Whatelse s t now? f.however, herear eso many people-who reonlyrestrained by law and authority from waging war on thllvretched, elpless thers, t is rathersurprisin[ or them o haveB_one-nallowing he weakhelpless ood o gouern hem and keepthem from doingwhat they would like. If suchexist it is becauseth e existence f la w is protecting he m from th e risksof theirdisposition; and Nature demandsa slaughter or the purificationof the world from the rivingabortionsand nhuman monstrositiesthat have been preserved hrough law from the doom whichhumanity, n it s own defence, houldhavemetedou t to them.t"et it be slaughter.hen, f such ndeed t would, bu t le t me befree to try and slaughterwhom I like to slaughter,and everyother whom he likes to slaughter,and not be butcher-slavesmassacring s somebody else pleases, nd when that slauehterstops because here is nobodyrleft alive that anybody elsJ eft

alive would like to kill, the survivorswili be only suchasare cap-

able and desirous f l iving together n peace nd harmony. kt

us have t, by all means, s soon as he people earn o abandon

law - let those who can and wish to live n helpful brotherhood,

or at least n peace nd concord,exterminateheir enemies, nd

have,even f it is oniy for a few generations, life worth livingl

They can do it, for if wickednesswere naturally pleasing o the

bulk of mankind, hey would not wish or law "to suppressvil."

But in the absence f law, al l the social eelings ould,of a psy-

chologicnecessity, e enormouslyawakened, nd I believe ha t

when people earn o throw away he superst it ion f law, with itsconsequence f their st i f fened and distorted att i tude towardseach other, many an d indeed he most of thosewho areunder

edstingcondit ions ocialenemies, i l l risenaturally o the glory

of peacean d goodwil l . Men's mutual mistrustha s urnished, nthe various ormsof la w - rules, tatutes, roperty,authority -the means or it s own justif icat ion;so also heir mutual confl-dencewili no t fai l , n Liberty, o ustify itself .

In the absence f law the oneconsiderationakenby people

as to thei rown or eachothers'wel fare,mustbe n the broadestsensehe bearing f their respectiveeeds,eelings nd purposes.

For thosewho refuse his considerationo others, hereca nonly

be war, and t is war now, only that the war s againsthosewliorefuse o give he false onsideration emanded y rules, nsteadof the true consideration alled or by real circumstances.utthis war is not wagedby the classes ho profit by th e vestedn-

terests n the subject ionof their fel lowswhich law in it s very

natureha screated or the crafty and yrannical. t is hepeople's

own foree which through heir delusion s turnedagainst uchof

them as dare o infringe he rulesof theirbondage. nd what hepeople's wn force can do biindly and rrat ionally, t th ebiddingan d fo r th e purposes f their oppressors,t can do consciously

and ntel l igently, f free wil l , and for th e people's wn purposes.Who are al l the poiice,soldiers,udges,goalers nd so on, bu tpeople ike anyoneelse,an d picked very much at random?Sofar as their posit iondoes not corrupt them. they are conscien-t iousiy endeavouringo admhister and defend aws which no -

body canunderstand,nd hey areprivi legednterferers,since he

handsof the peopieat largeare ied) and empted o curry avorwith their "superiors" and the classesn whose nterest heymainly exist. Surely hen people n general ere, herean devery-rvhere. an ar betteradminister nd def 'end he principies f hu -

manity. rvhicheveryordinaryperson an understand. nd with aful l sense f mutual responsibi l i ty ndestroyed y privi iege ndunbiassedy servi le ependencel

Anarchy s no biind dogmaof non-interference,s t is some-t imes misrepresentedo be; I would even ake a man by force

13



and compel him to work for me, if occasion equired - for in-stance, f my life or yours depended n the prompt repairingofan engine and his labor was necessaryo its accomplishment,and he refused o help voluntarily; and I think everyreasonableman would justify me in standingover that fellow with a whipin one hand and a pistol n the other till that enginewas n work-ing order - just as I think that nobody would ustify me n inter-fering with him evenby procuring his voluntary assistance,henI should obviously entail lesshardshipon myself and others byleavinghim alone han on him by so interfering. Neither as t asothersmisrepresent t,

a condition in which the first to do ashelikes is privileged,and other peoplemust not do as they like inopposinghim. It is simply and purely he substitution of the realfor the conventionalas he guide of conduct. Substitute he freechoice of conduct by ail humanity according o their respectiveneeds for action, in place of having some ordinary personsendowedwith monopolies f this and that port ion of the choiceof conduct and result ingdestinies f the rest; substitute heenlightenednstinctsof self-preservationnd fellow-feelingo-getheras he standard f morality, n placeof obedience; nd fno t al l people recompetentor sucha ife, thoseof not less ha naveragentelligenceand good will certainly are,and they are hecommunity;theothersare ts enemies.

ReadBakounine's OD & THE STATE.

Property s law in restraintof us ean d possession,nd con-ferringon the person n whose avour the restriction s declared,authority over his fellow-beings o arbitrarily forbid or imposehi s own terms or, their us eof part icularhings.The morea manowns, the more he owns you. Uke other law in the beginning,it was nstitutedwith good ntentions,he deabeing o secureoeach person undisturbed possession f the things which habi-tually he resorted o or had reasonable xpectation of using orth e satisfact ion f his needs. n freedom,of course, here wil lbe no ownership, ut secure ll the goodaimedat by th e latter,without its evil. The moral sense f peopleat largewill, to the ut-most of what reasonable nd humane men can do, erlsureanddefend to each the undisturbed opportunity to gratify his

purposeswith the things he has provided or placed himself inaccess o for that end; otherwise give him friendly help; andjustify him equally with anyone else n such latitude with themeans provided for other people'spurposesas emergencymayrenderdesirable.o ong ashe displays smuch egard or others'convenience s he relat ive mportance nd urgencyof his needswil l enable.

In the absence f Property,capital ism,wagesan d prices,money, barter, etc., will necessarily e extinguished, ince heydepend n property or their veryexistence.

14

Just here et us considerbuying an d sell ing,and the com-

mercial principlegenerally, ogetherwith th e divisionof labor

that we now have n connectionwith them. What s the differ-ence betweena woman selling o a man the use of her sexual

organs, nd on e person ell ing o anotherperson he useof some

other part of the body, such as he arm or the brain?Or what sthe dif ferencebetween a woman exacting rom a man a price

for the use of certain"resources" or hi s gratif icat ion, nd onepersonexacting rom anotherpersona price or the useof cer-tain other resources hich the former ca n provide - suchas apair of boots or a load of f irewood? ca n se eno moral dif fer-

ence betweenon e transaction nd the other. Our innate senti-ment for the welfareof the race teachesus that if a womanadmitsa man or the meresatisfact ionf her own animalpassion,

it is naturaland not in itself mmoral;and if sh edoesso n pur-

suance f a special f fect ion t is usuallyposit ivelymorai, nas-much as such affect ionordinari lyguides o the couplingmostadvantageousor th e beneficialbreedingof he r species. ut topair without desire s repugnant o our feelings, nd rightly so,as t impairs he quality of propagation.Doesnot aiso he us eof

th e other organswithout, or in excess f , desi re, mpair thequal i ty of thei r operat ion?The art ist , the author, the poet .

know that when they have o resort o "pot-boil ing" drudgery,it renders t more dif f icult for them to produce good work.

Where here s a real naturalprompting,whether he craving fa faculty fbr exercise. r the suegestivenessf appropriate ondi-t ions, he grat i f icat ion f that prompt ing s a pleasure:nd he

being wh o would demand compensationor being pleased.srepugnant o al1 our inst inctsof self-preservation.he wholes-vstem f th e habitua.l emaieprostiture s in a stateof chronicderangement. ha t elseca n be said of the man who spends llhis t ime in overworkingone faculty to the level of a meremechanical utomaton.an d shutt ing hi s energies ff frorn th erest?Our body is too dei icate mechanismo be ampered ir hin th isway.Th ewhoiema nwouldbe heal th ier nd morevigorous

an d competent or a greater ar iety f exercise nd due propor-t ioning oi act ion o the measuren which th e different acult iesexist in his st ructure. nd again. persondoesnot in generall ike to do somethingor the sake f mereexercise; n iess e is.as he saying s. burst ing o ge t t of i h im. he wants i rst somereason. om epurpose n view.The amateurwh o is br imtul ofenergy eekingn our lct n the di rect ion, a,v, f photoer lphy rthe cul t ivat ion f fbwers,doesno t rvant o compi le n album rfi l l a gardenwhich no eyes ut his shalleverbehold.The scientist.th e philosopher,he poet, the author, hesewouid soonweary,though rewardedwith every outward uxury, were hey cu t of ff 'om otherswhose ivesand interestso weave nto their work,an d tbr whosepleasure nd advancemento make heir concep-

15



tions and investigations.Even the hard-up swagmangoeshiswa y gloomilywhilehe is alone,an d asks or tuckerseldom. utwhen two suchcome together, eitheron e shirks hi s most dis-tasteful work, becauset is for his mate as well ashimself. Andthe swagmanwho exercises is bushmanshipn discoveringwater

9r_a qood campingplace,construct ing shelter, mproving hebil l of fare,makinga knife or a bi l ly from ol d waste,etc., eels,because his doings have a direct purpose, an immediateconnectionwith the needsand welfareof him and his mates,zest and relish of living such as he neverexperienceswhen, in

employment, e spends is time doingsomethingha t so far ashe is concernedmight us t as well be anythingelse,and eceivingmoney with which he buys enjoyments that have no logicalconnectionwith hi sefforts.

Productionan d distributionwould be effected n a condi-tion of Anarchyon the same re e an d pleasurableinesas thevarious hingsnecessary monga party of friendson a holidayexcursion. upposeha t yo u an dsome f your comrades en tona holiday camping-out xpedit ion n some remote part. Eachwould bringas ar as possible ha t he or sh ewoult l require, ndwhat wouldbe handy o others vh omightno t have t ,everythingwould be at disposal or the most equalan d harmonious atis-fact ion of al l th e wantsof everyone. he sameprinciplewould

prevail n your doings; hu s on e group.might go fishing,somebecausehe y iked both angling nd eating ish;otherswh o ikedangling ut did no t care or eating ish; otherswh o did not carepart icularly or angling,but wanted to make sure of the fisheither fo r themselves r for friendswith a taste or it . Othergroups would go shooting,exploring, etc., in l ike manner.Another group would probably stay at the main camp,somebecausehe work of camp fit t ing was most attract ive o them,some becausehey felt fo r the time beingmore nterest n thatthan n anythingelse, r knew hat others elt so .Thenwhen heothergroups eturned, nd he partysa tdown to supper,t wouldbe simply, who would like f ish? who would like game? tc . solong as there'wasenoughof th e part icularart icle or eachwh ocared or it to havea shareworth eating;if herewa snot enoughfor this, he n somewould standou t of their own accord,an d fth e deficiencywa sconsiderableou would leave he fish, f thatwas what was short, to those among the fisherswho caught tand next to them thoseamong he unsuccessfulishers,who hadfished n the hope of eating ish. or the non-f ishersor whommost personally nd part icularly ny of the anglers ad gone othe task of f ishing.Then, oo, one of yo u might do somethingto provide for his own convenience; wo more might do differ-ent things for each other; a fourth might attend to somethingfor a fifth, while the fifth did something or a sixth, and.thesixth

16

help anotherwho had, and therewould be no thought oI taKlng

formal recognisancesor the return of the compliment, or

keepingaccounts f the thingsdone for eachother, nor would

th e personwho wantedsomething on ego to anotherwh o could

no t do it , and offer to permit him to eat threemealson condi-

tion of having he thing.done, and that on e go to anotheran d

offer him leave o eat a quarterof a meal to do it , another a

quarter o record he transaction, nothera sl ice or introducing

th e party who wanted he thing done,an d other sl ices o divers

individualso stand eadywith guns o enforce he arrangement!

The day after, ai l these goups an d combinationsmight be

changed; om evanished, om e omposed art ly or wholly of new

persoris, therssprungup new. Nor would there be any personsprivi leged o rule in thesecombinations;f indeed anyonewa s

accepted sguideor director n anything ou would only takehi s

instruct ionsas advice,and if yo u di d no t approveof them, if

it wa syour affair yo u wouldgo on in your way, f hi saffair eave

him to his way.

Now suppose ews came to hand of a f lood or war, that

would cu t yo u of f from the outer world for some ime, yo u

would keep on in exactly the sameway, only yo u would build

more substantial heltersand take more elaboratemeans or

supplying ou r wants rom the resources roundyou, and therewould be wants hat yo u would experience n a long stay, ha t

could have beenpassed ver for a short one, andthe thingson

which your energieswould be directed,but not th e nature of

your relat ions owards each other, would be modif ied. You

would st i l l be the party of friends,and he waysof propertyan d

law would have no placeamongyou.And now supposingha t

your stay wa s prolonged ndefinitely , do yo u think that yo u

would want to change l l this, an d map thingsout, saying, this

is for me exclusively," nd "that is for hi m exclusively,"o go

each br himself against he rest,and ay out a commercial ys -

tem, jealouslymeasuringeverythingby which one benefited

another,an d demanding iquidated security for a rewardas a

condit ion of doing it? No! Whatever i f ference here might bein the things o be undertaken or supplyingyour respective

needs, ou would conductyourselvesn th e same re ean dhappy

way as when yo u first set out. And the fruits of your toil an d

skil l , and of your way of l i fe, would soonbe comtbrt for al i such

as he few have y the woe of the manynow.

ReadW. Nlorris's EWS rom NOWHERE.

If quarrels r dif f icult ies rose, ou would adjust hern reely

l ike al l other matters.Whyshouldyou pick out a few and bind

yourselvesha t what they call right shailbe right,and what hey

call wrong shall be wrong?Peoplewhoseconduct s chosen or

17



them are "selfish," becausehe only thing left them to think onis the immediate convenience r inconvenienceof the result.People who choose heir conduct for themselves xercise heirsocial feelings n doing so, and are satisfied with any sacrificesthey make o please heir sympathies.

If a dispute arises mongassociates,t does not fol low thatthe majority should prevail.Perhaps oth majority and minoritycan carry out their views ndependently. The majority may bebarelymore than ndifferent, while the minority are very decided,and in practice t may please he individualsof the majority bestto giveway.

Or thequestion

may be sunk, or new deas onceived,or new personsenlisted. Unlessmaterially impossible,as n thecaseof a ship n midocean whose urther coursehasbeencalledin question,where here s nothing or i t but to stayon board, tshould generally be optional with everyonewhether to remainassociated it h what othersdecideon - thoughextraordinaryemergencies ight usttfy th e majority n coercing he minority,or the minority in coercing he majority, f possible. t is al l amatter for common sense o a<ijustwithout being rammelledby formalit ies nd egalit ies.

An agent,delegate r representat iven any matter wouldonly be that of thosewh o procured im to act. In dbalingwithanotherperson'sepresentat iveveryones aware hat he may bea misrepresentat ive,nd would in Anarchyknow therefore ha the sharedwith the party "represented,"he risk of the repre-sentat ive eing alse. he "represented" ouldbe perfect lyusti-fied in repudiation if the representative ad designedlyor in-advertently committed them to somethingunreasonable rforeign o their purpose n sending im;or in so far as on e fairman would just ify another n revoking a promisemade evenpersonally, f the circumstancesad material ly varied n themeantime.A promiseor agreements simply an expression fdefinite ntention, or th e guidance f othersconcerned, nd hewhole moral question po n t is one of mutualsparing f incon-venience.

The relations of the sexeswill be on the same ooting offreedom.Here here are always wo personswhosechoice n the

matter would require o be mutual.Al l persons renot al ikesex-ually. Someare monogamous, therspolygamous;om emating,others roving,but all thesecan find partnerswho can take hemas they are, and the mating person orced againstnature to gofrom one to another, he rover kept to one, the monogamistforced o consorthabituallywith several uring he sameperiodand the polygamist reventedro m doing so, each oses espectfor the other sex,and treatsa sex-partner s a meremachine orgratifyinghi s or her sensuality. ence, reedom ends o purity.Though ordinarily, the habitual sex partnership s accompanied

18

by a domesticone, i t is no t essential r uniformly desirable.Seducing person o quit or ignorean exist ing exual artnership

is, other things being equal, an act that would call forth thecontemptof the awless, n accountof its nconsiderateharactertowards he otherpartner,

Childrenwould no t be th e chattelslaves f the parentsasthey are now. They would be to al l on th e same ootingas an yother feeble and inexperienced trangerwh o might arrivean dbecome he guest f the community. t would at oncebe recog-

nisedas monstrous o order such a stranger bout,saying, Do

this because ou ar e told." A child may be rightful ly coerced,to avoid more serious arm to itself or others,bu t without au-thority, as yo u would forcea friend wh o wa sdrinking oo much

and behaving oolishly - no r fo r the mere whim of th e parents

or anyoneelse, ut with full responsibi l i tyo everyone'sense ffairness nd right.

As older peoplewould have eisure o let the societyan dwants of childhoodenter more into their l ives han at present

. . . and encouragehe natural endencyof chiidren o take he

affairsof their elder riends nto their l ives . . childrenwouldpick up writ ing, reading,an d a.l l material knowledge s they

acquirespeech r the knowledgeof games.Special lasseson -ductedby thosewhom it would pleaseo so exerciseheir acul-

t ies, and cooperative lasses f students, uc h as our scientif icsociet ies eally are, ar e natural and obvious means or closerstudy.

The natureof Anarchy being now understood, ow is thisstate, o desirable,o be real ised?t cannotbe mposed:t mustcomeby enlightenment nd ndividual eform.Eachmustpurifyhis own l i fe from all taint of the evil,and havecourage o ignorewhat is imposed, s th e Catholicsdi d beforepagan nd Protes-tant persecutors, rotestants efore Catholic persecutors. ndAtheists n faceof both; asscience asconqueredel ig ious cr -

secution vhiie he sectsar e sti l l contending, o Anarch1.,heapplied cience f society,will make ts way with a rapidityan dpower mpossibleo barrencreeds.n the spiri t of the iving aith

that works its truth to sight, dweils,and therealone, he hopewith the gloryof Victory.

Andrews, A Handbook of Anarchy

Documents

Transcript of Andrews, A Handbook of Anarchy