Solneman
(Kurt H. Zube)

An Anarchist Manifesto
The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom
The Alternative to the Communist Manifesto

(1977)

 



9. THE ROAD TO ANARCHY

TO A SOCIETY WITHOUT CLASSES AND WITHOUT DOMINATION

 

Preparation for the Liquidation of the State

Emancipation from the State

 


 

The concept of terrorism is, right from the start, opposed to the fundamental anarchist principle. Whoever on his own - and not merely compulsorily - renounces any intention to dominate others or to over-extend his own freedom at the expense of others is already on principle no terrorist - even if he defends himself with physical means against others who want to expand their freedom sphere forcefully and at his expense.

But such a defence must always strike only the actual aggressor. It must neither strike nor endanger any outsider. In dictatorships, which make any efforts at enlightenment by the spoken or written word, as well as any evolutionary development, practically impossible, even assassination attempts against leading representatives would fall under the concept of defence, provided only that any harm to innocent persons were avoided. (Nevertheless, even in dictatorship the expediency of such defence has to be thoroughly considered.) This action would merely correspond to the "democratic right to resist," but it respects the inviolability of the individual's freedom far more than the latter.

To be sure, in the Western democracies also, the State as such, as a compulsory association with a claim to a monopoly use of force, is clearly aggressive - since it denies the equal freedom of all in relations between itself and individuals, as well as between individuals and groups. Real (i.e. consistent) anarchists nevertheless reject defence with physical means (although this would, of course, be justified in itself) in the democratic State as well as in relations between individuals, and they also reject any general revolutionary movement. Their reasons for this are very complex.

1. Individual action is senseless, seeing that the minor success (at best) which can be achieved will not outweigh the risk to the life or freedom of an anarchist. Besides, there is the difficulty of determining the real aggressor and of hitting only him. Is it the minor official who "within the law" does "his duty" with the best conscience - because the actual aggressive act is hidden behind the democratic veil of the alleged equality of all before the law and so does not appear to him to be aggressive at all? Or is it the responsible minister who refers to his parliamentary authorization and feels responsible only towards it? Or are the parliamentary representatives the aggressors, those who maintain that they act only on behalf of the voters, of the majority among these? Such a majority does, undoubtedly, grant carte blanche without realizing what it does and without consciousness of injustice or of aggression. Of course, the absence of this consciousness cannot free any of those named from liability for actual aggressive acts - but against whom shall an individual defender direct himself? Shall he destroy that tiny wheel in a gigantic machine with which he accidentally has to deal? Or shall he throw a bomb into any assembly of human beings, trusting that it will hurt only those majority voters? Remember that minority voters, once their representatives come to rule, will not treat him any less aggressively, perhaps even more so, while the bomb might hurt precisely those who did not vote at all - because they shared his opinion.

In any case, he will have the - quite understandable - indignation of an overwhelming majority against himself and will hopelessly discredit his aims instead of furthering them.

Precisely all that counts most, the abolition of the land oligopoly and of the monopoly of the means of exchange, as well as the transformation of enterprises that dominate the market into Open Productive Associations and the transformation of the State into autonomous protective and social communities - all this cannot be promoted by individual actions which attempt to counter aggression by physical means.

It cannot be achieved either through the confiscation of landed property (an act directed only against individuals or some groups) or through bank robbery. Here activists, especially those employing the latter method, should keep in mind the works of Bertold Brecht, who basically shared their opinion:

"What is the plunder of a bank compared with the opening of a bank?"

Of course, they should interpret these words quite differently than Brecht did.

Individual acts of physical force against the institutionalized aggression of democratic States are thus rejected by consistent anarchists as inappropriate and as a liability to the anarchist movement. However, this does not mean a renunciation of resistance by more suitable means.

2. An armed mass rising in order to change the States into non-aggressive autonomous protective and social communities must fail from the outset because the pre-requisite is missing: a mass of convinced and consistent anarchists. Even if one objects that relatively small, but determined minorities have organized successful revolutions in special situations before this, it must be borne in mind that is always the question of giving a new command centre to an elaborate machinery for domination, the old apparatus continuing to operate on principle. What counts, however, is precisely the replacement, without exception, of this principle of compulsion, of privileges and monopolies, by non-aggressive organizations established on the principle of voluntarism. This presupposes more champions of these organizations, more people who are well informed on the principle of equal freedom of all and its application.

Armed revolutionary organizations would probably be smashed even in their early beginnings by the far superior police and military power of the State. In the modern States, an armed revolution is, at least as a rule, possible only from the top down and not the other way around, as has been shown by experience. And even this is possible for the most part only in the so-called developing countries, where an insufficient education level among most of the population offers rather unfavourable conditions for social order without domination. In democratic, industrial States, the generals are mostly not trained in thinking and acting on their own responsibility and, least of all, in a non-aggressive way.

3. What is missing is a revolutionary situation which would make it possible for a small minority to sweep along a dissatisfied mass towards revolutionary and, at the same time, sensible actions. In the peoples' democracies the first small circles of critics are already being prosecuted by an omnipresent secret police, not to speak of attempts to organize which could not obtain arms either. There, only a military insurrection is possible - but questionable in its chance for success, since it encounters insufficient resonance among a population unaccustomed to thinking and acting with self-responsibility and drilled, moreover, in the dominant ideology. It would immediately be slandered as reactionary, as being directed against the "accomplishments" of the system - especially if it were short of champions for the new organization.

In the capitalist States of the West, "wealth" is only relative and the income increases of those depending on wages prove upon closer examination to be mostly illusion if prices are taken into account. Nevertheless, the trade unions have successfully fought for a few things.

Political counter-pressure from the oppressed has compelled the State no longer to stand one-sidedly and openly on the side of the proprietors. And finally, even the great capitalists have partly realized that the efforts of early capitalism to limit those depending on wages to the minimum pay permitting them to continue to exist only, hindered sales and the expansion of production, since there was a shortage of purchasers.

But if the purchasing power of the broad masses were increased and one succeeded at the same time in avoiding or limiting unemployment - as is done today by admittedly dangerous means - then not only would the profits of entrepreneurs boom correspondingly, but also returns from interest and land rent would increase enormously, so the people depending on wages would be chained up all the more securely, especially since so far they have been unaware of the fateful role of interest and land rent.

The "proletariat" in the Western countries today is in a position similar to that of the bourgeoisie after the French Revolution and during early capitalism. These citizens were largely satisfied after their victory over feudalism and were, on the whole, no longer revolutionary. And the partly-satiated "proletariat" of today is no longer a real proletariat either, but has largely 'bourgeois' thoughts and feelings. But this does not prevent its most active groups from continuing to fight for the full product of labour (as the bourgeoisie did against the remnants of feudalism). Unfortunately, they do this with inappropriate means and methods.

But the form of this kind of fighting has changed, a fact which the ideologists and doctrinaires among the young intelligentsia have not understood. Thus they are greatly surprised not to find a sympathetic response to their revolution - any phrases among the masses of those depending on wages, and they meet only rejection and ridicule, or are even beaten up. And this reaction is all the more common among the true bourgeois, who want to have their "law and order." For the most of them freedom is merely a secondary or even a tertiary value; they prefer security, since they have no idea of the consequences of a lack of freedom.

Thus, for an armed revolution there is no revolutionary situation in the Western countries, especially since the governments have learned in the meantime how to cope with economic crises, largely effectively, through measured inflation and other State interventions.

Moreover, the example of the communist countries acts as a deterrent, since the result is a standard of living far below that which has been achieved in the capitalistic countries, in spite of the continued exploitation by interest, land rent and other monopolies. And this backwardness has come about in spite of enormous sacrifices in blood and endless suffering, which often hit even the most enraged followers of the ideology. To this must be added the fettered conditions caused by the hopeless exposure to an authoritarian regime. Even though the "freedom" of the West is in many respects only questionable and superficial, it is nevertheless decidedly more extensive and more fruitful in its material effects than most of the "achievements" in the communist system. Thus it is understandable that a much larger number than those prepared to revolt would be inclined to defend today's capitalism, even with arms, against a communist insurrection, especially since they would have the police and army on their side. An anarchist armed insurrection would meet with the same opposition too, at least as long as a strong minority has not yet corrected today's distorted image of "anarchism" and as long as at least such a minority has not yet accepted real anarchism as corresponding to its interests and ideal concepts.

4. Above all, any overthrow by force or even sudden destruction of the State apparatus would not solve those problems which face anarchism after the aggressive force of the State is eliminated. Even the acceptance of a forceful overthrow into its platform and the propaganda for this, would unnecessarily arouse millions of opponents who would fight desperately for their existence.

What would happen, for instance, with the army - millions strong - of public servants who rely on their pension claims, seeing that anarchism demands that contracts are kept? What would happen especially with the millions of descendents of officials, women and children? What with war victims? And what about the much larger number of pensioners from the compulsory social insurances who had to pay high contributions while the system depends upon continuously levied and increased compulsory contributions and compulsory taxes in order to fulfill its current liabilities?

Here a reasonable solution can be achieved only by a carefully planned liquidation of the State which would extend over a long period - up to 30 years - with a gradual expiration of the responsibilities taken up by it, without replacing the old aggressions by new ones. Depending upon how much property the State concerned possesses (in the German Federal Republic this is especially extensive), this transition period, i.e. the liquidation period, could be shortened. It must begin with the abolition of the land oligopoly and money monopoly.

However, what is right for officials and pensioners, must also be fair for proprietors. They could be indemnified by means of value-preserved annuities stretching over approximately 30-50 years, securities which could be guaranteed by the trust administration of public property, which, at the beginning of 1973, amounted to approximately 1,360 thousand million DM, while the total value of private real estate amounted to only 900 thousand million DM (land, houses and apartments included). In States without as much public property, the purchase installments would, to some extent, be taken from the lease rent for land before it is evenly distributed to all individuals.

The socialization of all monopoly enterprises, oligopolies and firms dominating the market, by means of Open Productive Associations, must follow immediately (i.e. also at the beginning of the liquidation period for the State) and can be carried out within its framework too. The indemnification of previous owners by members of these Open Productive Associations is simple: Since the new associates received no free gift but have either to make use of their own savings or to take up loans (to purchase these enterprises), the general redemption of their debt certificates used in their take-over of the capital of enterprises (which are, it should be noted, flourishing monopoly and market dominating enterprises) will be no burden for them. They will gain the corresponding real values continuously and automatically in the form of share certificates. Earlier redemption will be possible when and to the extent that banks offer cheaper credit - after the abolition of the money monopoly.

Those working in enterprises without a monopoly will then have the option either to become independent land users, alone or in association with others, or to join and Open Productive Association. Should they chose neither, they will find reference points for their wage claims either in the average earnings of independent land users or in those of members of Open Productive Associations. However, no-risk incomes in form of wages must move below the average incomes of those others, because the others have also accepted the enterprise risk.

But even in non-monopolistic enterprises wages will rise so high that quite a few employers will offer to transform their firms into Open Productive Associations in order to work within them as managers with only a limited risk. Whenever an employer is opposed to such a transformation, while his employees desire it, there is still the possibility to open up a competing new enterprise with the aid of cheaper bank credit, and the employees could then move as a body into their own new enterprise. Its establishment could serve as security for the bank credit, together with the labour power guarantee of those concerned and perhaps with the solidarity support of colleagues.

"Dependence upon wages," as well as unemployment, will then finally come to an end. It will then only be a question of initiative and readiness to accept risks whether someone obtains a high income as a member of an O.P.A. or works for a fixed payment, leaving the initiative, risk and higher income to others. Thus, compulsion to work for a wage will come to an end, as well as dependence upon the owners of means of production.

Means of production, with the exception of land, can indeed be produced according to demand (within the limits set by existing raw materials and existing but still to be opened up energy sources) when, after the abolition of the money monopoly, exchange becomes unhindered and the cheapest credit becomes possible.

Thus, anarchism envisions expropriation without reparation, neither for land nor for any other productive capital, least of all for the funds of consumers and for savings. Excessive accumulations of wealth will dissolve automatically, once they are no longer able to increase by themselves without work. The above sketched solution even remains within the framework of the so-called "social obligation" of property in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and is there expressly stated as a possibility.

Within the framework of the equal freedom of all, and in the absence of all privileges and monopolies, property acquired by work and contract (also by gift and inheritance) is one of the most important assurances of individual freedom. Neither the State nor the local government, neither self-appointed representatives of society nor those elected according to the majority principle, neither syndicates nor "councils" have a "right" to interfere with such property - as long as by its use the equal freedom of all is not infringed, as happens, for instance, with the pollution of the environment.

To the extent that today's productive capital has been acquired through monopolistic exploitation (which is definitely not the general case, and where this did happen, the capital cannot, in most cases, be separated from that property whose acquisition is justified even according to anarchistic principles), it will not escape quite scot-free in the projected solution. First of all, the land owners and proprietors of monopoly and market-dominating enterprises will only be able to dispose of the value of their enterprises in long-term installments.

Thus they will not lose this value, but only their privilege or monopoly. The interest rate will rapidly fall with the general interest rate and will probably not be higher than 3% even at the beginning. But then with their incomes and their wealth, they are still subject to the State's tax claims during the period of liquidation. Their income, at 3% interest and 2-3% amortization, would amount to 5-6% a year. Here a progressive taxation would merely be some compensation for those monopoly advantages which the State so far provided for them. But within the autonomous protective and social communities there will be no reason for taxing incomes, all of which will then be only working incomes, in any way other than at an equal flat rate. Due to their voluntary membership, everyone can select the autonomous protective and social community which works most rationally and thus most cheaply. A commission of representatives from the various autonomous protective and social communities will act as trustees to supervise the liquidation of the State.

 

PREPARATION FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF THE STATE (^)

But what can be done before one may proceed with the liquidation of the State?

First, enlightenment must be spread on what freedom means in a social context, what it can and what it cannot be, what aggressive force is and what defence against such force means, what the difference is between the compulsory organization of the State and the voluntary organizations of a free society. Last but not least (but rather primarily) what can and must serve as a starting point (sound premise) for an agreement, what is incontestable since it is provable.

These are basically quite simple explanations of concepts and statements which even an average mind can well comprehend. It is not so very difficult to prove as illusory (woven from unprovable assertions) the gorgeous drapes in which aggressive force parades before us, and thus to expose brutal force in all its nakedness. Movements towards "democratization," especially for emancipation and pluralism, also aim in the same direction as anarchism, which is only the last consequence of genuine and not merely formal democracy and Protestantism, but without the dogmatism of the latter.

It must be made clear what economic exploitation is, and what it rests on. There is still lamentable ignorance on this, which leads to coarse misconceptions and wrong evaluations of the situation and of the measures to be taken. The effect of all privileges and monopolies (from those established or at least promoted and maintained by the State, up to that super-monopoly of the coercive regulation of all social relationships which denies the equal freedom of all and is claimed by the State for itself) can be explained even to a child.

Some essential points of view on this are discussed in K. H. Z. Solneman's Diskussionsergebnisse (Results of Discussions) in Lernziel Anarchie (Aim of Education: Anarchy), No. 2, Freiburg /Br., 1976.

Such enlightenment of opponents or of so-far disinterested persons is much more effective than arming oneself against them. While the latter act leads to a fear-inspired reaction, enlightenment changes opponents into friends and helpers. Thus, anarchism must be based on completely new strategy and tactics. All other political and social movements are altogether incapable of practicing these - since they begin with articles of faith, dogmas and ideologies whose obligatory character cannot be proven. One either believes or does not believe in them. Anarchism, on the other hand, is based on quite simple, verifiable and incontestable statements and conclusions which in the long run must win, irresistibly, even against all deep-rooted prejudices, in the same way as truth finally triumphs over lies, even though it can be suppressed temporarily.

All efforts at enlightenment, even with the most convincing arguments, are, however, wasted as long as the distorted image of anarchism, which is spread at enormous expense, provokes emotional reactions and confirms prejudices, whose defeat must be the first main task.

For this purpose a decisive affirmation of non-violence is necessary. It is not sufficient to point out the contrast between aggressive force and defence against aggressive force. Moreover, defence against aggressive force must not be confused with "violence" (force), even when it uses physical means or arms in a defensive act. Instead, consistently as well as decisively, one must renounce any defence (no matter how justified it is by itself) that uses weapons, and not only weapons, but even any physical means of power at all.

This applies in the first place only to Western democracies but not to dictatorships, although even in the latter it could and should be a wise strategy, no matter how hard, to persist in non-violence even in defence - out of the realization that non-violence is in the long run more effective than any defence with physical means, no matter how justified the latter defence is, even if it asks for no less serious sacrifices than forceful defence. It is the most effective defence especially against an opponent who is far superior in power.

Whoever finds it difficult to understand this, must at least admit that even justified physical defence against aggressive force makes sense only where at least a strong minority approves of it. However, would it still be necessary then?

The decisive affirmation of non-violence can and should at the same time be accompanied with the proclamation that the defence against aggressive force is quite justified but that - for well considered reasons - physical defence is renounced, at least for the time being.

There already exists a comprehensive literature on the still largely unknown effects and possibilities of nonviolence, one with which anarchism can identify, although not without some critical objections.

The - at least temporary -renunciation of physical force and arms even for defence (the renunciation of aggressive force applies without qualification) does not mean, of course, a renunciation of resistance against aggression altogether. Step-by-step passive resistance means not passivity but resistance and has to go hand in hand with a emancipation from the State. Such emancipation also means the gradual establishment of autonomous protective and social communities apart from the State.

Whoever is of the opinion that the indemnification proposed here for the proprietors of land and market-dominating enterprises is too generous or altogether out of place, should first thoroughly ponder the consequences of expropriation without reparation, something that its adherents generally do not do. Someone, for example, who has bought a piece of land with savings from honest work, has already had to pay the capitalized land rent in the purchase price of the previous proprietor. The latter would thus not be affected at all by the expropriation, while it would be highly unfair towards the present proprietor if not only the oligopoly but also the value of his possession were taken from him.

A solution that is "just" from every angle cannot be obtained at all, since there is no unequivocal standard for "justice."

Even when it is almost certain that the person concerned had drawn considerable advantage from privileges, monopolies and oligopolies, his property is nevertheless due not only to such advantages but also contains, at least as a rule, the result of his own performance, which is entitled to its reward. To separate these exactly might be as good as impossible. Thus, whoever cares more about restitution for the wrongs of the past than about attaining sensible conditions and true rights for the future as soon as possible, should pursue this aim separately and not connect it with the fundamental task of the abolition of all privileges, monopolies and oligopolies. This abolition demands a uniform and rapidly realizable solution and not prolonged examination of every particular case.

The proposed regulation strives then, not for "justice" but for practicability, and can also be justified as a matter of pure calculation. If one assumes a 5% profitability of the means of production concerned (i.e. the unearned income from it), then this means that within twenty years (i.e. within the proposed settlement by a generous compromise) the full value of these means of production would accrue and the new beneficiaries would thereby also be liberated from other forms of exploitation.

Would it, therefore, be reasonable to provoke unnecessary resistance to the new settlement when resistance could be avoided with relative ease through reparations? After all, every year in which the present condition continues means a corresponding loss for the persons concerned, who would then also, quite probably, be still in the same situation as today in 20 years' time.

And is a fight worthwhile, with all its destruction, sacrifice and risk, when there are other, more promising and cheaper ways to reach one's goal?

In order to prevent the beneficiaries of present conditions from malevolently delaying the new settlement, one should give them a time limit, starting at a still- to-be-determined moment. For each year of delay, the reparation for the people concerned would then be reduced by 5%, and after the time limit has expired, any appropriate means of defence could be used against them.

From fines accumulating from obstinate people, fines justified by the continuing harm done to all people, indemnifications could then be paid to those who had to make sacrifices in the struggle for the new settlement or who were disadvantaged.

The proposed solution to the land question is especially effective for propaganda purposes (once it is correspondingly formulated), seeing that it secures access to land for everybody while offering an equal distribution of the proceeds from lease rents. All previous attempts to solve this problem (ranging from confiscation via taxes on land value increase, to the provision of cheap building land for a favoured few) suffer from obvious defects.

Likewise, the proposal for Open Productive Associations possesses so far unused appeal, especially since, in combination with the settlement of the land question, it would abolish unemployment forever.

Both could really be proclaimed in such a way that they would fit into the party platform of nearly any of the existing parties.

For the primary purpose is to realize these proposals without falsification. It does not matter by whom they are realized or for what reasons.

They can also be realized within the existing State constitutions.

The same applies to the abolition of the money monopoly. Certainly, its effects are so manifold and far-reaching that they cannot always be explained sufficiently to the average man. But the normal consequences of any monopoly are evident, and thus all monopolies have to be eliminated or rendered ineffective. It is not sufficient merely to "proceed" against their "abuse" (which is hard to prove in most cases).

Limited benefit could also be derived from an anarchist "party" and its participation in election campaigns, which are not to be rejected on principle, for such participation offers propagandists possibilities (otherwise unused) for the publication of the anarchist program as an alternative.

Moreover, since due to permanent and comprehensive aggression by the State the opportunities to resist it are quite limited, one should also use the possibility at least to limit aggression by the State by gaining votes, if not to abolish it altogether in this way. This could well be accompanied by a continuous protest against the majority principle within a compulsory community and against the State principle altogether.

Anarchist deputies, while strictly bound to the instructions given them by their voters, should collaborate only with measures to reduce privileges and monopolies and the monopolistic character of the State itself and should abstain from all activities which would amount to "co-rule."

These deputies, who could at the same time also represent the autonomous protective and social communities formed apart from the State, could, finally, supervise, or even administer themselves, the procedure for the liquidation of the State.

Of course, the above-mentioned option is only one of the possibilities for emancipation from the State, an anarchist "party" would by no means have to confined itself to gathering votes and to working towards a liquidation of the State by parliament. Instead, its main task would be to do what all parties have so far failed to do, and what should result in the rapid growth of that new party: offer immediate concrete advantages and not only promises, of what will happen after political power is gained. In this respect much more can already be done today than is generally considered possible.

 

EMANCIPATION FROM THE STATE (^)

It is of fundamental importance but at the same time especially difficult under present circumstances, to protect youth from the stupefying influence of the State-directed schools which drill them into obedient State subjects.

Since school costs are covered by compulsorily levied State taxes, only a relatively insignificant number of parents are financially able to afford the additional costs for private schools. Therefore, the "democratic" and self-evident right has to be realized of having all corresponding tax amounts refunded, thus making the financing of genuinely free schools possible. The States also intervene in a quite intolerable way with the curriculum planning of the small number of already existing private schools, thus eliminating the greatest advantage of such schools, of running their teaching programs in a fraction of the time required by State schools. Even a teacher certified by the State who wants to instruct his children by himself in order to prepare them for the so-called "external examinations," even if he is a pedagogic genius, is held in tutelage by bureaucrats regarding the arrangement of his curriculum, i.e. by the same people whose self-admitted failure has become evident in today's "educational catastrophe." This tutelage has to disappear, and only performance should be tested. Then even a small number of pupils who, in a fraction of the usual school period, have acquired a more comprehensive general knowledge within free schools, operating rationally according to the newest findings, would completely revolutionize the present school system. The ingenious Japanese Obara, already mentioned, has supplied striking proofs for this.

Moreover, pupils themselves could contribute to the cost of their education through the time saved by rational teaching methods naturally adapted to their capabilities. Here the solution proposed for the land question could be of great help.

Finally, education costs, already much reduced by time savings, could be contractually pre-financed in such a way that the pupil could repay them in installments after he entered his profession. This would be a way for poverty- stricken gifted pupils to acquire any knowledge they considered necessary for themselves. But here again the State intervenes to the disadvantage of those it cares for, by declaring younger people to be minors and incapable of accepting contractual responsibilities.

Much simpler and immediately productive is the emancipation from the State in quite another field, namely that of law. Far too little use is made of the possibilities for arbitration that already exist today, at a time when civil proceedings before formal courts often last for years and are correspondingly expensive. By comparison, arbitration courts manned by experienced lawyers could decide much more rapidly, cheaply, objectively and correctly, at least in the field of civil and commercial law. For this purpose, and in every particular case, the contracting parties could agree (because of the advantages of this system) to recognize the decision of such a court. Alternatively, as members of an autonomous protective and social community, they could already have obliged themselves to recognize the arbitration avenues provided by it.

The Italian lawyer Internoscia has drafted a code of civil law in three languages - Italian, French and English - which represents, in particularly clear and precise formulations, an extract from the civil legislation of the most important European States.

This work, for example, could be a basic reference work for reconciliation procedures by one or more or even all autonomous protective and social communities - and this for all cases in which the private arrangements of the contracting partners show gaps which must be filled. Otherwise, the contracting partners could, of course, agree to use any appropriate paragraphs of any State laws, with the provision that these must not contradict the principle of the equal freedom of all.

Even particular acts regulated by penal law could be settled by arbitration courts, provided the principle of punishment is replaced by that of restitution. When the State is liquidated, a high percentage of all penal clauses will be repealed because they contradict the principle of the equal freedom of all.

However, a special offence follows from just this principle, though it is an act that so far has been often considered even praiseworthy: aggression committed out of "idealism," in the service of a fixed religious or ideological idea. Here, the strength of the offender's convictions must no longer be considered mitigating, but especially reprehensible. For the induced insanity which is today almost cherished and fostered cannot be eradicated except by seizing the evil by its roots and making examples of any act of ideologically based aggression.

Seeing the unfair competition conducted today by the State against private pension funds and health insurance companies - by its inflationary policies, its compulsory contributions, and by eventually making State pensions more attractive through subsidies from tax funds - the unraveling of compulsory social insurance arrangements will be among the most important measures in the liquidation of the State. In this context, one must insist that every compulsory member is paid upon demand the contributions deducted from his wages and also those nominally paid by the employer on his behalf less any benefits he may have received. This claim, mind you, is to be realized against the State, which fostered the public social insurance bodies and forced them to spend these contributions while fending the compulsory contributors off with the empty promise that it would continue to fulfill their claims by continuing compulsory collections from the pockets of others.

The most urgent task, however, is the abolition of the money monopoly. Even during its existence, some decisive steps can be taken in this direction. A new and quite simple institution, we may call it "the progressive bank," makes it possible for a person to withdraw gradually from the effects of the money monopoly. At the same time, this new institution (which becomes possible with the participation of even a relatively small number) can become the most effective and, in its further, automatic development, almost irresistible lever to lift the whole system of privileges and monopolies out of its hinges.

By a simple measure, this "progressive bank" will make any payment more advantageous (for the payer as well as for the payee) than any previous cash, coequal or bank-transfer transaction, without exception. For this reason alone it will attract a rapidly increasing circle of customers. But it offers in addition, an astonishing new credit system, which again is very simple and, in rapidly increasing volume, can offer credits which are reduced down to 3% and can become still cheaper later on. Even in the field of finance, there are unexpected solutions which can compete with the most surprising achievements in natural science and technology.

However, freedom will not be granted but must be fought for. Initiative and every individual's own purposeful activity are required, not merely a wait-and-see attitude in the hope that others will do one's job.

Here too one must also mention the establishment of Open Productive Associations, which should be immediately tackled. For "dependence on wages" cannot be eliminated merely by transforming monopolies, oligopolies and market-dominating enterprises into such associations. Beyond these, a considerable number of other O.P.A.'s has to be established so that everyone who does not freely decide to work only for a fixed wage has the opportunity to enter such an "open" association as a worker without having to make a capital contribution in advance.

Indeed, this aim can be supported during the liquidation of the State by means of guarantees based on the liquidated assets. But even today, before the beginning of this liquidation, i.e. here and now, one can begin to establish O.P.A.'s on a voluntary basis.

Firstly, one can collaborate with those employers who even today are ready to transfer their productive capital wholly or partly to their employees, although mostly in an imperfect way. (By the way, this only replaces one master by a group of people and does not eliminate the monopoly character which some enterprises have. In particular, it cannot ensure really free competition and full utilization of labour and its full proceeds without a tribute to land, rent and capital interest). Such employers could be appropriate initiators of O.P.A.'s and would continue to act as their managers.

On the other hand, the initiative can also be taken by an association of workers and clerks in an enterprise or by outsiders, either for the purpose of taking over that enterprise or by the foundation of a completely new enterprise.

These associations need only look for suitable organizers and leading specialists (if they do not already have enough such people among the own members). Of course, these will have to be paid accordingly, but that regulates itself under free competition. Special knowledge in the type of enterprise concerned is only needed by these leading members.

For the normal workers and employees, who then become co-owners, it will be sufficient to know the average hourly earnings in an enterprise and how these compare with the usual local earnings per hour, whether in the form of a wage or of a profit share.

All this information can be easily derived from statistical surveys, which, as mentioned above when explaining Hertzka's proposals, are an essential component of his open system. The banks which have granted credit will see to it, in their own interest as well as that of the members of an O.P.A., that all accounts and operating procedures are clarified, so that current conditions and future developments can be estimated with a large degree of certainty.

Until the interest rate for credit has been reduced to 1-2% (after the abolition of the money monopoly and with subsequent competition between banks), such O.P.A.'s will depend on the cheap credit made possible by the above-mentioned "progressive bank." They will also depend on it for guarantees to allow them to take over existing enterprises or for equipping with the necessary means of production those enterprises still to be established, to the extent that the members of the new O.P.A.'s have not enough savings of their own for this purpose. Here one may recall how high the average savings of workers and employees are nowadays; without a doubt, personal credit would be at their disposal.

Of course, guarantees by the State must first be considered, and then by those entrusted with its liquidation, since O.P.A.'s offer a much more sensible settlement than e.g. nationalization, and should therefore prove to have a strong attraction.

The trade unions could also provide guarantees, since more could be obtained by furthering such O.P.A.'s than by the usual struggle for wages, which by the way would also benefit from this transformation. For when all who want to do so will have the option to become free from the dependency on wages and to secure for themselves the full return from their labour (and this not under the highly unequal conditions of today, of competition against superior capital power, but under truly equal starting positions for all), then those, too, who prefer a fixed wage to profit-and-risk-sharing in a co-operative will be in a quite different negotiating position vis-à-vis their employers than they are today.

The risk for the banks providing credit and for those who may stand as guarantors will be all the more reduced the larger the number associated in such an O.P.A. For this reason, these O.P.A.'s will be preferred to individual entrepreneurs. Any losses will be kept within narrow limits in such enterprises. Firstly, they are less burdened with high fixed costs for land. Secondly, even if its co-owners should leave the enterprise (taking only their valuable labour power with them, which they may use at any time otherwise, in any of many O.PA.'s ), the means of production acquired by credit, and serving as security until creditors and guarantors are satisfied, naturally remain with the enterprise as its means of production. Thirdly, at the first sign that losses might occur, many members would leave the enterprise (thereby stopping at least further losses), since the self-interest of all members induces them not to let their own liabilities become too high.

Of course, with the exit of some or even all members, their liability for any credit taken up so far and any property taken over is not extinguished.

But this liability - contrary to nowadays - has its solid counterpart in the full labour earnings of those concerned and the work opportunity available at any time elsewhere, as well as in everyone's claim to his share in the total returns from the lease of land.

There is still another aspect of the emancipation from the State which will help to make this emancipation more understandable for those who cannot really imagine living without a State. For much as every anarchist wishes that non-domination should be generally realized, i.e. that any kind of open and hidden domination should disappear, it would be unrealistic and even against the principle of anarchy if one wanted to free, absolutely, even those people from something or other who, due to ignorance or apathy, did not want to get rid of it at all. There are, indeed, people who have a tendency to subordinate themselves, who want to be at least advised and led by others, if not "mastered" (as the somewhat careless expression puts it, for when the person concerned agrees to a reduction of his freedom, there is naturally no master over him). However, one must distinguish here cases where there was corresponding training and suggestion from earliest childhood on and through compulsory schooling - another aggressive act which supports the State and exploits the child's lack of critical ability in order to bring it grossly under its influence, as was formerly done by the Church.

Accordingly, anarchists strive first and foremost not to abolish the State by itself but to liberate from State intervention all those who do not want to be dominated.

This means, for instance, supporting the right of everyone to leave (ignore, secede or withdraw from) the State as one may leave a religious community, without being placed under discriminating laws against aliens or being expelled. Self-evidently, their already acquired claims, e.g. social insurance claims, should either continue or be refunded.

This would mean full freedom for the persons concerned (primarily of course through tax exemption) from all claims which the State makes against its citizens (with the exception of those resting on the principle of the equal freedom of all): The State has to treat them as if they lived outside of its sphere of influence, i.e. in a different country, although they would enjoy full freedom of movement within its territory.

It is evident, of course, that the people concerned would then no longer have any claim to the free public services of the State they withdrew from. If they wanted them, they would have to be prepared to pay for them.

The land question could be provisionally regulated in such a way that the State would place land at the disposal of the secessionists corresponding to their number in relation to the total population and territory of the State. These pieces of land need not be adjacent to each other but should be equivalent (regarding quality and site) to the land of the remaining State citizens. This land - as well as that already belonging to the secessionists (the latter taking into account the per-head claim) - will then become extraterritorial, like all institutions of the secessionists, who as a rule will combine into autonomous protective and social communities (one or several of them) in order to protect their interests. An approximate model for this is given by the members of the corps diplomatiques who are, for instance, not subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside. Disputes between State members and secessionists should be decided by an arbitration court composed of representatives from the autonomous protective and social community to which the secessionist now belongs and also from the State concerned - under neutral chairmanship.

Of course, no citizen must be prevented from using extraterritorial installations created by the secessionists, like, for example, banks which issue their own means of exchange and provide cheap credit. (Otherwise this could result in an unjustified boycott).

The solution that has been outlined here can only be a transitional one. For on the one hand, the secessionists claim such liberties not only from the State from which they seceded but from all States in the world. And on the other hand, the secessionists would be further exploited by State taxes, especially by custom duties and sales taxes, which are expressed in the prices of all goods and services in that State - unless the State offered a refund, which would be difficult to calculate.

Thirdly, the continuance of monopoly and market-dominating enterprises would mean continued exploitation for the secessionists.

Secession from the State would be of relatively little use for proletarians who only own their own working power, as long as there is not a corresponding number of Open Productive Associations which would assure them access to means of production at any time, i.e. as long as their disadvantages caused by the status quo (that is, by the State) are not eliminated.

Moreover, the secessionists would still be exposed to the effects of all State adventures, like wars and economic warfare.

Therefore, the right to withdraw from the State, as proclaimed by Fichte, Spencer and De Puydt, is insufficient as long as it does not include so many renunciations of State "sovereignty" (i.e. aggression "justified" by this sovereignty against all those living within its realm of power) that the secessionists then come to possess full sovereignty as individuals.

N.B. This sovereignty must not be understood in the aggressive sense which the State has given to this concept, but must remain subordinate to the principle of the equal freedom of all.

Finally, there are two embarrassing questions for those who have difficulty in leaving accustomed paths of thinking and thus might even misunderstand the consequences following from withdrawal from the State as unacceptable privileges for the secessionists.

We are demanding no privileges, neither over you nor over "your" State (which we do not want to take away from you). We only want to be left alone and undisturbed. If you are of the opinion that the State is necessary and useful, then you must consider our renunciation of any claims upon its services as a renunciation of advantages - and not the other way around. Isn't this the case?

The second question: What is the foundation of your claim and your State's claim (which you have correspondingly authorized by your election behaviour) to limit our freedom sphere by a multitude of privileges, monopolies, and oligopolies to the advantage only of the State and of its favoured individuals and groups? What is the foundation of its claim to have more "rights" than we have?

 


[Home] [Top]