BOOKS OF THE WEEK
The Anarchist
By MICHAEL OAKESHOTT HERE was something endearing about the bearded bomb-throwers of the past : they were supreme amateurs. Thenjoying an activity (mostly harmless) for its own sake. ese were the anarchists ' whose adventures belonged to an individualist world; and although they were depicted (in flgravings; photography came later) not only tossing their Infernal machines but also in conclave listening to inspired Words, they were touching in their inarticulateness. They Were, indeed, a cosy crew. But they had companions of another sort—' philosophers,' pre-eminently, if a little con- fusedly, articulate; and now that the dust begins to settle, it is these who are seen to have survived. But the practical anarchists had a certain intellectual superiority over their More theoretical successors : at least they knew whom they Were against, although their chosen victims were often innocent enough. All that the philosophers ' can find for an enemy is something they call the State.' This leads to a diminution of bomb-throwing, but in other respects it is not an improve- Went.
Sir Herbert Read, it is safe to say, never contemplated the Manufacture of an infernal machine : partly because he is a pacific character, partly because he is " not concerned with a practical programme " but with " the truth," partly because is chosen enemy is not susceptible of demolition in this Manner.* There are certain people whom he would like to see the back of` landlords,' capitalists," exploiters '—but they are figures made of printer's ink and to be met only in the Sunday papers. His demands are few and simple : he wants a, world without rulers.' He believes that if what he calls individuals' were rescued from their present corrupting circumstances (` the State,' the profit motive, poverty' etc.) which are the source of all crime and disorder, they would .spontaneously associate themselves into groups for mutual " and enjoy peace and freedom. All this is, somewhat unaccountably, confused in his mind with " workers' control " the control of, each industry is wholly in the hands of the Workers in that industry, and these collectives Administer the Whole economic life of the community." But if one suggests that these collectives (which, a little disingenuously, he calls 44 voluntary associations ") must be supposed to enjoy government' of some sort, and may perhaps require to be deflected from tyrannising over the community, his reply is ready. Of course they are governed,' they are self- governed '; and such organisations, moved solely by a desire for the common good, can have no serious propensity to assert themselves tyrannously. In short, he wants only to get rid of the government, because he understands it to perform no useful function' and to be always disposed to over-activity. There are inconsistencies, of course; one of his objections to the modern State ' is that it is indifferent to art—which, one would have thought, might have been counted in its favour. But the main puzzle is how he persuades himself that what he calls a communal type of society," ruled not by rulers ' but by its home. " organic consciousness " of mutual aid, is the proper nome for individuals ' who are not units' but" self-contained, independent personalities." „ For it comes easily to the anarchist to forget that this Individual ' is not a metaphysical entity but an historic achievement, and to forget also how decisive a part govern- Went' has played in this achievement.- He perceives only the hostility that governments display towards this individual '; and sees, correctly. that modern ' democratic' governments are Often the most hostile. Nobody touched by a feeling for mor- tality, or moved to find happiness in seeking his own intellectual or other fortune, will be dazzled by the prospect of a world set on a single course by rulers powerful enough to prevent the enjoyment of any salvation but that which they impose. But what the anarchist misses is that the object of this hostility is a step child of government itself. For him, government has had no hand in making the connection between happiness and the exercise of choice. Indeed, he has a prejudice against all human achievements, and is satisfied only when he fancies himself surrounded by an order and laws which men have had no share in making—" the universal principles of reason." Fie cannot love the earth without hating the world; which is a strange inconsistency in an anarchist sVho is also a poet. And consequently, instead of being able to recognise in government a relief (though often in these days an equivocal relief) from the despotic pressures that so readily assert themselves in any community and a beneficial concentration of duty that leaves some room for delight, he turns his thumbs down upon the whole enterprise of governing. Sir Herbert displays, of course, a generous faith in the future, and in the good will and wisdom of human beings, but it must be said that he makes things easy for himself by offering us only black or white. For the whole plausibility (which is not very great) of his argument in favour of anarchy' rests upon the fact that the only alternative he considers is a government which " compels uniformity." It may be true that this is the direction in which most governments are now turned, but it is a trifle myopic to see only anarchy or collecti- vism, " Your only alternative," he tells us, is to be a nihilist or an authoritarian." The ruler,' for him, must have the character of a Redeemer; he has no ear for the whistle of the Referee.
But perhaps it is here that the real character of ' anarchy' reveals itself. It is a plausible doctrine in a certain context. We can entertain the notion of ' no government' with equani- mity, even with enthusiasm, when government has established habits of orderliness that have some momentum of their own, and when disorder seems to be a remote contingency. This condition is, at- best, fragile, and it is good to be reminded that it is so: Sextus Empiricus tells us that when a king died the Persians used to be left without laws for five hair-raising days in order to impress upon them the need for government. Nevertheless, if this condition seems at any time to be firmly established, the doctrine of anarchy will seem plausible. Further, when government has not only established habits of orderliness, but has itself come to display a propensity for over-activity which can be opposed, even in a somewhat exaggerated manner, because the margin of safety is great, the doctrine of anarchy will be particularly attractive. In these circumstances the philosophical anarchist may be welcomed as a friend whose head may be a little light but whose affections are to be trusted. He is on the right side in this game of tip-and-run we play with our masters, even if he is inclined to end the fun by swiping the ball out of the field.
This book is a collection of Sir Herbert Read's writings on anarchy during the last fifteen years. But it cannot be said that the writings gain force and coherence from being collected. Instead, the exaggerations of the doctrine, the tenuousness of the thought, , the repetitiveness of the exposition and the propensity for clichés, 'All become more obvious. There is a certain perky brightness about he writing, but it is all too like a daylight display of inferior fireworks that goes on too long.
Previous page
