CHAPTER 5 Anarchism and Pacifism

Andrew Fiala

Introduction

While anarchism is often portrayed in popular media as a form of bomb- throwing or window-breaking militancy, violence is not an essential feature of anarchism. Indeed, the connections between anarchism and pacifism run deep, even though there is no necessary connection between the anarchist’s political agenda and the pacifist’s ethical commitments. Anarchism is under- stood primarily as a political position, articulated as a possible goal within po- litical philosophy and discourses of political justification. Pacifism is usually understood as a moral position that rejects the use of violence. Although it is possible to imagine personal anarchism or literary/artistic anarchism, in most cases anarchists are committed to a political end. One way of articulating this is to locate anarchism on the continuum imagined by Plato and Aristotle in their logic of the types of states.1 In monarchy, one person rules; in oligarchy and aristocracy, some rule; in democracy, all rule; and in anarchy, no one rules. Some may suggest that genuine democracy and anarchy are closely related: the rule of all may be closely related to the rule of none. Thus democratic unanimity and the anarchist’s ideal of voluntary association are closely related. At any rate, we should notice immediately that anarchism is focused on the structure of political reality and the justification of states. Pacifism may have political implications, but ultimately it is a moral stand- point with regard to the means to be employed in action (whether political action or individual action). Pacifists hold, to one degree or another, that non- violent action is right and violent action is wrong. Much needs to be said about the nature of violence and nonviolence. There are deep questions, for example, about whether embargoes and strikes are really nonviolent. Pacifists also need to consider whether nonlethal violence is acceptable or whether some forms

1 See F. Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism as Political Philosophy,” in New Perspectives on Anarchism, eds. N. Jun and S. Wahl (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2010), 9–24; and A. Fiala, Against Religion, States, and Wars (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2013).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004356894_007 Anarchism and Pacifism 153 of killing or letting die are appropriate in extreme emergencies. Such questions are focused on the morality of action (or non-action in the case of “letting die”) and these moral questions should be distinguished from the discussion of po- litical structures and ends that is the focus of anarchism. In short, anarchism is focused on the question of political ends and justifica- tion, while pacifism is focused on questions about the morality of means. The fact that anarchism and pacifism focus on different spheres of concern makes it clear that there is no necessary connection between them. One could pursue the political end of anarchism employing either violent or nonviolent means. And one could assert the moral primacy of nonviolent means, while remain- ing agnostic about political structures and theories. However, in some cases pacifism and anarchism do overlap and coincide. For example, those who hold that the central complaint to be made against states is that they are essentially violent and that state-violence (in war, in police brutality, in prisons, etc.) is wrong will reach anarcho-pacifist conclusions. Such conclusions are merely one possibility in a broad continuum that can include at its extremes both state-centric pacifism and militant anarchism. We will examine the relation between anarchism and pacifism in a more systematic fashion in what fol- lows. First, we will discuss historical points of connection between anarchism and pacifism. Then we will examine the varieties of pacifism and anarchism. Finally, we will consider a familiar objection to pacifist-anarchism and reply to that objection.

Historical Background

Quite a few thinkers have suggested that pacifism and anarchism coincide: that the moral obligation to avoid violence overlaps with the political goal of abolishing the state. The historical linkage of these ideas can be traced through the work of Leo Tolstoy and the New England transcendentalists (Adin Ballou, Bronson Alcott, and William Lloyd Garrison) who inspired him. Since Tolstoy’s reputation as both anarchist and pacifist is well-known, let’s begin with him. Tolstoy explained, to cite one example:

The abolition of the organization of Government formed to do violence, does not at all involve the abolition of what is reasonable and good, and therefore not based on violence, in laws or law courts, or in property, or in police regulations, or in financial arrangements, or in popular educa- tion. On the contrary, the absence of the brutal power of Government,