Misunderstanding of anarchism about government

there is a misunderstanding of anarchism about government. anarchism is described as against government. But this is misleading. Anarchism is against a centralized government over thousands or millions; it is not against small scale government by consensus. elaborate historically

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right to point out that anarchism is often misunderstood, especially in how it relates to the concept of “government.” The mainstream depiction of anarchism as simply “anti-government” flattens a rich, nuanced political tradition. Historically, anarchists are not against all forms of governance or social organization—they are opposed to hierarchical, coercive, and centralized forms of power, particularly those that operate over vast populations without direct participation or consent.

Let’s unpack this historically and philosophically:


Core Distinction: Government vs. Governance

Anarchism is not against governance—the coordination and management of collective affairs—but against the state as a centralized, hierarchical apparatus that claims a monopoly on violence and authority over people.

Key idea: Anarchism distinguishes between horizontal and vertical power.

  • Horizontal power: Shared power among equals, often seen in small communities or assemblies.
  • Vertical power: Top-down authority, as seen in nation-states, empires, and bureaucracies.

Historical Foundations of Anarchism

1. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865)

  • Often considered the first self-proclaimed anarchist.
  • Famous for saying, “Property is theft,” but he also said, “Anarchy is order.”
  • Advocated for a society organized through mutualism: small-scale cooperative associations without centralized authority.
  • Supported federations of autonomous communities—local governance by the people, not by the state.

2. Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)

  • A fierce critic of both the state and authoritarian socialism.
  • Opposed Marx’s idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, fearing it would just replicate state tyranny.
  • Advocated federalist, decentralized socialism: local workers’ councils and voluntary associations.

3. Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921)

  • A geographer and biologist as well as a political thinker.
  • His work “Mutual Aid” emphasized cooperation in nature and human society.
  • Believed in communal self-governance, often pointing to medieval communes and indigenous societies as models.

Small-Scale Governance in Anarchism

Anarchists often embrace forms of small-scale government that are:

  • Directly democratic (e.g., participatory decision-making)
  • Voluntary (people choose to be part of the community)
  • Consensus-based or majoritarian with safeguards
  • Federated (autonomous groups can link together for larger projects)

Historical Examples:

  • Spanish Revolution (1936–1939): Anarchists in Catalonia and Aragon created worker-managed factories and peasant communes, coordinated through federations.
  • Zapatista Communities (1994–present) in Chiapas, Mexico: Autonomous, indigenous governance based on assemblies and councils, influenced by anarchist and libertarian socialist thought.
  • Free Territory of Ukraine (1918–1921): Under Nestor Makhno, anarchist militias defended peasant communes and local soviets organized without state oversight.

Misrepresentation of Anarchism

Mainstream media and political rhetoric often reduce anarchism to chaos, disorder, or nihilism. This misunderstanding arises from:

  • The state’s interest in delegitimizing anti-authoritarian movements.
  • The linguistic confusion between “anarchy” (lack of ruler) and “chaos.”
  • The failure to distinguish between destruction of oppressive structures and construction of egalitarian alternatives.

In Summary:

  • Anarchism is not against all forms of government.
    It opposes coercive, centralized, hierarchical government—especially on large, impersonal scales.
  • Anarchism supports small-scale, decentralized governance rooted in direct democracy, voluntary association, and mutual aid.
  • Throughout history, anarchists have built organized, stable, and even complex social systems—without the state.

If you’d like, I can also provide a comparison chart between anarchism, socialism, liberal democracy, and authoritarianism based on how they treat governance and participation.

You said:

go ahead

ChatGPT said:

Great—here’s a comparison chart that shows how anarchism, socialism (statist/centralized), liberal democracy, and authoritarianism differ in their approach to governance, authority, and participation.


Comparative Governance Models

CategoryAnarchismStatist Socialism (e.g. USSR)Liberal Democracy (e.g. USA, EU)Authoritarianism (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia)
Core Idea of GovernanceSelf-governance by free individuals and communitiesCentralized planning by state in name of working classRepresentative democracy via elected officialsCentralized control by party, monarch, or military
Scale of GovernmentSmall-scale, local; federated bottom-upLarge-scale, centralized; top-downLarge-scale, centralized; top-down with electionsHighly centralized and hierarchical
Power StructureHorizontal (non-hierarchical)Vertical (hierarchical party/state)Vertical (but with limited checks/balances)Strongly vertical and authoritarian
Decision-MakingDirect democracy, consensus, assembliesParty leadership, central planning committeesRepresentative democracy, lobbying, limited public inputDecisions by elite, little to no public input
View of the StateOpposed to the state as inherently coerciveSees state as necessary transition to communismSees state as neutral tool of governanceSees state as source of order and legitimacy
Use of Coercion / Police / MilitaryOpposed to coercive institutions; favors community self-defenseStrong state control through police/militaryMaintains police and military as state apparatusExtensive use of force to maintain order
Economic ModelCooperative, mutual aid, voluntary exchangeNationalized industry; central economic planningRegulated capitalism with private propertyState capitalism or command economy
Freedom & RightsEmphasizes collective freedom and individual autonomyOften restricts individual rights in name of collective goodEmphasizes individual rights, but limited by market/state powerSuppression of dissent and tight control over speech/press
Example Movements / InstancesSpanish CNT-FAI, Zapatistas, Free Territory (Ukraine)USSR, Maoist China, CubaUSA, France, CanadaNorth Korea, Saudi Arabia, China
View of DemocracyDirect democracy; participatory, consensus-basedDemocratic centralism (top-down)Electoral/representative democracyOften no democracy or only symbolic elections

Key Takeaways

  • Anarchism does not reject all forms of government—only centralized, coercive, and unaccountable ones.
  • It favors local, democratic, and voluntary systems of governance—especially ones that scale through federation, not domination.
  • In contrast:
    • Statist socialism replaces capitalist elites with party elites.
    • Liberal democracy allows formal participation but keeps real power in bureaucracies, corporations, and centralized institutions.
    • Authoritarianism concentrates power without accountability.

Let me know if you’d like this as a visual chart or infographic, or if you want to dig into specific anarchist models like municipalism or dual power theory.Attach

Search

Voice

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check import

Free Land in Burkina Faso

explain the policy of free land in Burkina Faso

ChatGPT said:

The policy of free land in Burkina Faso refers to a development initiative promoted by the transitional military government under Captain Ibrahim Traoré, who took power in a 2022 coup. This policy is part of a broader ideological and practical push to restore what Traoré and others frame as African sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and precolonial traditions.

Key Features of the Free Land Policy:

  1. Land Redistribution to Farmers and Youth:
    • The government is offering land at no cost to young people, especially those willing to engage in agriculture or rural resettlement.
    • The goal is to promote food sovereignty and reduce reliance on foreign imports.
    • This ties in with national campaigns like “Operation 100,000 Ploughs” that seek to mechanize and expand agricultural production.
  2. Nationalistic and Pan-Africanist Framing:
    • Traoré has invoked historical African civilizations and thinkers like Cheikh Anta Diop, arguing for a return to traditional African models of communal land use.
    • The land policy is framed as anti-colonial—rejecting the legacy of French and Western land ownership systems.
    • Burkina Faso’s leadership emphasizes that land should belong to the people, not to foreign companies or corrupt elites.
  3. Reclaiming State and Rural Control:
    • The state is asserting more control over rural areas, some of which are dominated by jihadist groups.
    • Distributing land is a way to stabilize and repopulate regions that have been affected by conflict and displacement.
    • There is a security angle: getting citizens invested in land use may help resist insurgent recruitment and strengthen community defense.
  4. Rejection of Neoliberal Land Policies:
    • The current government explicitly rejects the privatization of land and the market-based land reforms often recommended by the World Bank or IMF.
    • It aligns with a broader rejection of Western economic models and what Traoré calls “imperialist interference.”

Challenges and Criticisms:

  • Lack of Institutional Support: Critics argue that without proper infrastructure (roads, irrigation, tools), giving land is symbolic rather than transformative.
  • Security Concerns: Much of the land is in conflict zones, making farming dangerous or impossible.
  • Potential for Mismanagement or Elitism: As in many land redistribution programs, there’s a risk that land will go to political allies rather than to those in need.

In summary, Burkina Faso’s free land policy is a revolutionary agrarian and ideological strategy that seeks to empower citizens, fight food insecurity, reclaim sovereignty, and resist both colonial legacies and modern imperialism. It is deeply tied to Ibrahim Traoré’s broader Pan-African and anti-Western vision.

______________________________________________

how does Burkina Faso free land policy compare with anarchism

ChatGPT said:

Burkina Faso’s free land policy—particularly as promoted under revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara (1983–1987)—shares some similarities with anarchist principles, but it is not fully anarchist. Here’s a comparison:


Burkina Faso’s Free Land Policy (Sankara Era)

Key Features:

  • Land nationalization: Land was declared the property of the state or the people as a whole.
  • Redistribution: Land was distributed to peasants for productive use, especially those who worked it.
  • Anti-feudalism: The policy broke the power of traditional chiefs who controlled land and collected tribute.
  • Collective farming: Sankara promoted cooperatives and state-supported village work projects.
  • Anti-capitalist: Land could not be bought or sold for profit.

Philosophy:

  • Rooted in Marxist–Leninist and anti-imperialist ideology.
  • Emphasis on state-directed equality and development.

Anarchist Views on Land

Key Principles:

  • No private property, but support for possessive use (use-rights over ownership).
  • Voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, without state enforcement.
  • Decentralized decision-making, usually through federated communes or councils.
  • Opposition to state power—including both capitalist and Marxist-Leninist forms.

On land:

  • Land is not to be owned, but held and used by those who live and work on it.
  • Rejects both landlordism and state control of land.
  • Prefers horizontal, communal, or individual stewardship without coercive authority.

Comparison:

AspectBurkina Faso PolicyAnarchism
OwnershipState/public ownershipNo ownership; use-rights only
ControlDirected by central revolutionary stateLocal, decentralized, voluntary control
Land salesProhibitedProhibited (anti-capitalist)
CoercionBacked by state authorityOpposed to all forms of state coercion
Traditional hierarchyAbolishedAbolished
Decision-makingCentralizedDecentralized

Conclusion:

The Burkina Faso land policy under Sankara was anti-capitalist and egalitarian, and it aligned partially with anarchist principles—especially in its abolition of feudal landlordism and its support for land use by the people. However, its reliance on state authority and a centralized revolutionary government contrasts sharply with anarchist views, which reject all forms of state control.

In short:

Burkina Faso’s land policy was revolutionary and collectivist, but not anarchist—it was state-socialist. Anarchism would have similar goals of freeing land from exploitation but would reject the state as the means to achieve it.

Arable land and population

Divide the amount of arable land in acres by the amount of people on the earth

ChatGPT said:

To calculate the arable land per person, we’ll use approximate global figures:

Step 1: Total arable land

  • According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and World Bank, the world has about 1.5 billion hectares of arable land.
  • 1 hectare = 2.471 acres
  • So: 1.5 billion hectares×2.471=3.7065 billion acres1.5 \text{ billion hectares} \times 2.471 = 3.7065 \text{ billion acres}1.5 billion hectares×2.471=3.7065 billion acres

Step 2: Total population

  • As of 2025, the world population is approximately 8.1 billion people.

Step 3: Divide arable land by population

3.7065 billion acres8.1 billion people≈0.457 acres per person\frac{3.7065 \text{ billion acres}}{8.1 \text{ billion people}} \approx 0.457 \text{ acres per person}8.1 billion people3.7065 billion acres​≈0.457 acres per person


Final Answer:

Approximately 0.46 acres of arable land per person.

4o

You said:

if every is to get a piece of subsistence land, do we have an overpopulation problem

ChatGPT said:

The answer depends on what we mean by a “piece of subsistence land.” Let’s walk through the reasoning using your question and the number we calculated:


We Have:

  • Arable land: ~3.7 billion acres
  • Population: ~8.1 billion people
  • Per person: ~0.46 acres of arable land

Is 0.46 Acres Enough for Subsistence?

It depends on:

  1. Climate and soil fertility
  2. Type of diet
  3. Agricultural technology (manual vs. mechanized)
  4. Crop variety and yield

Let’s take some concrete benchmarks:

Minimal Manual Subsistence:

  • According to historical and agrarian data:
    • 0.25 to 0.5 acres is often enough to support one person, assuming:
      • A vegetarian or mostly plant-based diet
      • Mixed cropping (grains + legumes + vegetables)
      • Adequate water and compost/fertilizer
  • Example: In traditional agriculture (e.g. India, parts of Africa), 1 hectare (2.47 acres) might support 4–6 people.

More Comfortable Subsistence:

  • A diversified, non-mechanized subsistence farm might require 1–2 acres per person if including:
    • Some animal protein
    • Crop rotation
    • Firewood or other land use

Interpretation:

If we accept 0.25–0.5 acres per person as viable, then:

  • We do not have an overpopulation problem, at least in terms of arable land for subsistence. It’s tight but feasible—especially with improved practices.

If 1+ acres per person is needed, then:

  • Yes, there’s a shortfall, and the current population exceeds the carrying capacity for a land-based subsistence model.

? Other Considerations:

  • Urbanization: Most people don’t live directly on farmland.
  • Land degradation: Some arable land is badly managed or overused.
  • Land ownership and access: Even if there’s enough land in theory, distribution is highly unequal.
  • Water: Subsistence farming needs water, and water scarcity is more critical than land in many areas.
  • Diet expectations: Meat-heavy diets require far more land per person.

Conclusion:

If you’re imagining a return-to-the-land model where everyone has their own subsistence plot, we’re just barely within range—but only if expectations are minimal, diets are simple, and land use is efficient. It’s not a clear overpopulation problem, but resource management and equity are major barriers.

Anarco-capitalism seems like a contradiction, while anarcho-socialism seems right

ChatGPT said:

The perception that anarcho-capitalism seems like a contradiction, while anarcho-socialism seems coherent or “right”, stems from deeper tensions between the concept of anarchy and the foundational principles of capitalism vs. socialism. Here’s a breakdown of why:


1. What “Anarchy” Implies

“Anarchy” (from the Greek an-arkhos, meaning “without rulers”) refers to the absence of hierarchical authority, especially state power. It traditionally emphasizes:

  • Voluntary cooperation
  • Mutual aid
  • Non-coercive social relations
  • Opposition to domination and exploitation

2. Capitalism’s Core Features

Capitalism—especially in the “anarcho-capitalist” sense—prioritizes:

  • Private property (especially in the means of production)
  • Markets as the central mode of organizing economic life
  • Wage labor
  • Profit motive

While anarcho-capitalists argue that markets and private property can exist without a state, critics argue that:

Capitalism depends on hierarchies and coercion

  • Employer-employee relations involve hierarchical control (the boss decides).
  • Private property rights require enforcement—usually by police, courts, or private security forces (which resemble a state or proto-state).
  • Unequal wealth leads to power asymmetries, where the rich can dominate the poor through control of resources (housing, food, etc.).

Thus, anarcho-capitalism may not abolish rulers, but replaces public rule (state) with private rule (capital)—what critics call corporate feudalism.


3. Why Anarcho-Socialism Seems More Coherent

Anarcho-socialism (or libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism) tries to abolish both:

  • The state, and
  • Capitalist exploitation

It emphasizes:

  • Common ownership or usufruct property (use-based, not profit-based)
  • Worker self-management (no bosses)
  • Horizontal decision-making (direct democracy or consensus)
  • Voluntary cooperation and mutual aid

So, in anarcho-socialism:

  • No state
  • No class hierarchy
  • No wage slavery or top-down firms
  • Production/distribution based on needs and solidarity, not profit

This vision fits more neatly with the anti-authoritarian and egalitarian ideals of anarchy.


4. Summary: Why One Seems Like a Contradiction

FeatureAnarcho-CapitalismAnarcho-Socialism
Role of hierarchyPreserves capitalist hierarchies (bosses, landlords)Abolishes all coercive hierarchies
Role of propertyPrivate ownership of productive assetsCollective or use-based ownership
CoercionUses market-based coercion (via wealth disparities)Aims to minimize coercion and domination
Coherence with “anarchy”Often viewed as contradictorySeen as ideologically coherent

Philosophical Critique:

As Noam Chomsky once put it:

“If you have capitalist institutions, you will have authoritarian institutions.”

So from an anarchist point of view rooted in a critique of domination, capitalism inherently reproduces inequality and power imbalances—hence anarcho-capitalism is often viewed as self-undermining.


Would you like this framed in terms of historical movements or real-world attempts as well?

4o

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Great — let’s now look at historical movements and real-world examples to explain why anarcho-socialism has historical grounding, while anarcho-capitalism lacks it and appears more theoretical or contradictory.


HISTORICAL ROOTS AND REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES

Anarcho-Socialism: Deep Roots in Practice

Anarcho-socialism has a long, well-documented tradition, with real historical movements that attempted to organize society along non-hierarchical, cooperative, and egalitarian lines.

1. The Paris Commune (1871)

  • Brief experiment in decentralized, worker-controlled governance.
  • No centralized state; power was exercised by local councils.
  • Inspired both Marxists and anarchists (like Bakunin and Kropotkin).

2. Revolutionary Catalonia (1936–1939)

  • During the Spanish Civil War, anarchists (especially CNT and FAI) established a functioning society without the state.
  • Land and factories collectivized, run by worker committees and peasant cooperatives.
  • No money in some areas; goods were distributed based on need.
  • Strong emphasis on equality, self-governance, and anti-capitalism.
  • Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia documents this firsthand.

3. Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico (1994–present)

  • Indigenous-led, anti-capitalist movement that rejects both state power and corporate capitalism.
  • Operates autonomous communities with collective land use, democratic councils, and no traditional political parties.

4. Rojava (Northern Syria, 2010s–present)

  • Kurdish-led social experiment during Syrian civil war.
  • Inspired by anarchist theorist Murray Bookchin.
  • Features democratic confederalism, feminism, ecology, and cooperative economics.

These examples show anarcho-socialism as a lived political project, rooted in:

  • Opposition to both state and capitalist domination
  • A vision of horizontal, decentralized, and cooperative society

Anarco-Capitalism: Lacks Historical Examples

Anarcho-capitalism, in contrast, is mostly a theoretical ideology developed in the 20th century, primarily by:

  • Murray Rothbard
  • David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman)

They imagine a stateless society where:

  • All services (including police, courts, defense) are privatized.
  • Markets regulate everything, including justice.

Problems in practice:

  • No society has ever successfully operated as a fully anarcho-capitalist system.
  • Attempts to move in this direction often rely on authoritarian private enforcement, not genuine anarchy.

Examples sometimes cited by libertarians:

  1. Medieval Iceland or Ireland
    • Lacked centralized state structures for a time.
    • But these were not capitalist societies in the modern sense.
    • Enforcement of contracts still relied on clan violence and feuds—not peaceful market mechanisms.
  2. Private cities / Special Economic Zones (e.g., Honduras’ ZEDEs)
    • Attempts to create libertarian enclaves.
    • Often imposed by elite interests and met with popular resistance.
    • End up relying on private security and corporate control—again contradicting anarchist ideals.
  3. Silicon Valley libertarian ventures (e.g. Seasteading)
    • Largely speculative or failed.
    • Often funded by billionaires, raising obvious contradictions with anti-authoritarian ideals.

In summary:

Anarcho-capitalism has never emerged from a grassroots anti-authoritarian movement, and has no example of a functioning society that aligns with its ideals.


WHY THIS MATTERS

  • Anarcho-socialism arises from bottom-up struggles: workers, peasants, and communities resisting oppression.
  • Anarcho-capitalism is mostly a top-down thought experiment, imagined by theorists who want to replace public government with private government (markets, firms, security contractors).

That’s why many on the left consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms: it wants to keep capitalist property relations, which generate coercive hierarchies, while claiming to be against coercion.

As anarchist writer Uri Gordon put it:

“Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is about abolishing all forms of domination, not just the state.”


Let me know if you’d like a visual comparison, or quotes from thinkers like Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Rothbard.

4o

You said:

go ahead

ChatGPT said:

Great! Here’s a visual comparison table and then some key quotes from both anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist thinkers to illustrate the conceptual conflict.


Visual Comparison: Anarcho-Socialism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism

Feature / PrincipleAnarcho-SocialismAnarcho-Capitalism
View of the StateAbolish it—seen as a tool of ruling classesAbolish it—seen as inefficient & coercive
View of CapitalismOpposes it—seen as inherently exploitativeDefends it—sees free markets as freedom
PropertyCollective or use-based (usufruct)Absolute private property, even of land/factories
LaborWorkers control productionWage labor accepted and privatized
Economic OrganizationCooperatives, mutual aid, commonsCompetitive markets, for-profit businesses
Law and SecurityCommunity-run justice, restorative modelsPrivatized courts, police, and insurance firms
Main thinkersBakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, BookchinRothbard, David Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Historical ExamplesCatalonia, Zapatistas, Rojava, Paris CommuneNone (only theoretical or speculative projects)
Dominance of WealthySeeks to prevent class dominationAllows wealth concentration and influence
Coercion RiskTries to minimize all forms (state & economic)Removes state coercion but allows market coercion

Quotes: Key Thinkers in Conflict

Anarcho-Socialist Thinkers

Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)

“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”

Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921)

“The origin of the state lies in the desire to secure for the ruling minority the economic exploitation of the majority.”

Emma Goldman (1869–1940)

“The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black man’s right to his body, or woman’s right to her soul, or the worker’s right to his product.”

Murray Bookchin (1921–2006)

“Capitalism is a social hierarchy that demands obedience and domination no less than any state bureaucracy.”


Anarcho-Capitalist Thinkers

Murray Rothbard (1926–1995)

“Capitalism is the fullest expression of individual liberty and the voluntary nature of human action in the marketplace.”

David Friedman

“An anarcho-capitalist society is one in which everything—including law—is produced by the free market.”

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“The idea of private law societies is that law and order can be produced more efficiently by competing insurers than by a monopolistic state.”

? These thinkers believe free markets + private enforcement = peace and freedom.
? But critics argue: replacing the state with private security forces and profit-driven courts simply creates new ruling classes.


Final Thought

Anarcho-socialists argue:

  • True liberty requires equality and freedom from economic domination.
  • You can’t abolish the state but keep capitalist hierarchy—because capitalism re-creates coercive power.

Anarcho-capitalists argue:

  • The free market is voluntary, and state coercion is the real problem.
  • But in practice, power accumulates in wealth, and private property is enforced through power—which contradicts the spirit of anarchy.

That’s why for many, “anarcho-capitalism” feels like a contradiction in terms, while anarcho-socialism is seen as internally consistent with the anti-authoritarian ideal of anarchism.

Government and Land Rights

You said:

evaluate: Government and Land Rights


Axes of Analysis

  • Centralized vs. Decentralized Government
  • Free Land vs. No Free Land (i.e., enclosure/ownership)
  • Resulting Economic System/Ideology

System / IdeologyGov’t StructureLand RightsImplications / Notes
Centralized Government
SocialismCentralizedNo Private Land (State-owned)Resources are collectively owned; subsistence is not dependent on land ownership.
NeoconservatismCentralized (authoritarian lean)No Free LandEmphasizes traditional hierarchies, private property, often upholds capitalist markets.
NeoliberalismCentralized (bureaucratic)No Free LandPromotes deregulation and privatization within globalized capitalism.
CapitalismCentralized or MixedNo Free Land (Private Property)Requires a class of wage laborers without land access; central condition for its function.
Decentralized Government
LibertarianismDecentralized (minimal state)No Free Land (strong property rights)Individual freedom maximized, but land enclosure is protected; inequality may increase.
AnarchismDecentralizedFree Land (common use)Land and resources shared or held communally; opposes coercive institutions.
Anarcho-CapitalismDecentralizedNo Free Land (extreme privatization)No state, but property rights absolutized; free market anarchism.
Free Land (general concept)VariesFree LandThe foundation of autonomy and true economic freedom (e.g., indigenous systems).
No Free Land (concept)VariesNo Free LandPeople must sell labor to survive; foundational to capitalist wage system.

Key Reflections

  • Political Economy vs. Economics: Your point is well-taken. “Economics” today often obscures its political assumptions—especially the legal and institutional setup that defines who owns land and who does not. The term “political economy” makes explicit that economics is embedded in social and political structures.
  • Weber’s “Free Labor”: As you highlight, Weber reveals the contradiction of “freedom” in capitalism. Free laborers are legally uncoerced but structurally compelled—by hunger, by lack of access to subsistence land. This makes “freedom” a deeply ironic term, aligning with Marx’s critique.
  • Land Access as Foundational: The fundamental divide is not just state vs. market, but property vs. access. Systems that deny free land create a dependent laboring class; systems with free land enable autonomy and subsistence.
  • Anarchism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism: These often get conflated but are opposites on the land question. Traditional anarchism abolishes property monopolies and seeks common access. Anarcho-capitalism extends private ownership to its maximum extent—even without a state.

Possible Summary Matrix

A 2×2 simplification based on Gov’t Centralization and Land Access:

Free LandNo Free Land
Centralized Gov’tUtopian Socialism / Commons StateSocialism / Capitalism
Decentralized Gov’tAnarchism / Indigenous SystemsLibertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism

Would you like me to expand this into a visual chart o

chatGPT on Anarchism

I want to characterize ananarchism so that it fits all. It seems that all want to recect a central government whixh does not rely on a bottom-up structure—though a bottom-up federal structure is acceptable. Nevertheless the unit of organization must be small, let us say 150 members. Anarchist say they reject government. But this is ambiguous. A government may be imposed from outside the community, or from within. Government by consensus is ok. The matter of economics is variable, and depends on thw wishes of the community. Is this an adequte charaterization of ananarchism? What am I missing?

ChatGPT said:

Your characterization of anarchism captures several core principles, but there are nuances worth exploring to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

1. Rejection of Hierarchical Authority

Anarchism fundamentally opposes coercive authority and hierarchical structures, particularly those imposed by the state. Anarchists advocate for stateless societies organized through voluntary, non-hierarchical associations. ​Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3

2. Emphasis on Voluntary Association and Consensus

Anarchists support decision-making processes that are inclusive and non-coercive. Consensus decision-making is often favored, aiming for solutions that all members can accept, rather than majority rule. ​The Anarchist Library

3. Preference for Small-Scale, Localized Organization

While there’s no strict rule, anarchist models often emphasize small, manageable communities to facilitate direct participation. The number 150 aligns with Dunbar’s number, suggesting a cognitive limit to stable social relationships, which some anarchists consider when organizing communities.​

4. Diverse Economic Practices

Anarchist economic models are diverse and adaptable to community preferences. Some favor decentralized planning, where communities determine their needs and organize production accordingly. Others may adopt gift economies, mutual aid, or market-based approaches, provided they align with anarchist principles of voluntary association and opposition to exploitation.​Reddit

5. Flexibility and Diversity

Anarchism is not a monolithic ideology; it encompasses various schools of thought, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, and anarcho-capitalism. Each interprets anarchist principles differently, especially concerning economic organization and property relations. ​

6. Critique of Capitalism

Many anarchists critique capitalism for perpetuating inequality and coercive hierarchies. They argue that capitalism, like the state, imposes authority through economic means, and thus, a truly anarchist society would need to address both political and economic forms of domination. ​

7. Importance of Education and Culture

Anarchists often emphasize the role of education and cultural practices in fostering autonomy, critical thinking, and mutual respect. They advocate for educational systems that are non-hierarchical and promote self-directed learning.​

8. Environmental Considerations

Some anarchist perspectives incorporate ecological concerns, advocating for sustainable living and harmony with the natural world. This eco-anarchism emphasizes decentralized, community-based approaches to environmental stewardship.​

In summary, your characterization aligns with several anarchist principles, particularly the emphasis on voluntary association, consensus decision-making, and localized organization. However, acknowledging the diversity within anarchist thought and its critiques of both political and economic hierarchies can provide a more nuanced understanding.

Favicon
Favicon
Favicon

Sources

4o

Search

Reason

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Is anarchism the most just way to organize society?

ChatGPT said:

That depends on what you mean by “just” and how you define “anarchism.”

If justice means the maximization of autonomy and voluntary cooperation while minimizing coercion, then anarchism—particularly in its classical or left-libertarian forms—could be considered the most just system. It rejects hierarchical authority and seeks to organize society through mutual aid, voluntary associations, and decentralized decision-making. Thinkers like Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that hierarchical power structures inherently lead to injustice and that true freedom can only be achieved through self-governance.

However, if justice is defined in terms of stability, enforceable rights, or the ability to mediate conflicts effectively, then anarchism faces serious challenges. Critics argue that without some centralized authority, large-scale coordination becomes difficult, and power vacuums may lead to new forms of domination. Even within anarchist traditions, there are debates about whether informal hierarchies can still emerge, leading to inequalities of power.

Given your view that morality is based on voluntary agreements and that irreconcilable conflicts result in “war,” anarchism might be appealing in that it emphasizes voluntary participation. However, it also raises the question of whether large-scale cooperation and enforcement mechanisms can exist without some form of imposed authority. Do you think a decentralized system could handle disputes and conflicts without reverting to force?

4o

You said:

consider a hierachical federation of small communities as an answer

ChatGPT said:

A hierarchical federation of small communities could address some of the weaknesses of pure anarchism while preserving a commitment to voluntary agreements and decentralized governance. This kind of structure appears in various anarchist and libertarian socialist traditions, particularly in Proudhon’s federalism and some interpretations of syndicalism.

Strengths:

  1. Local Autonomy – Small communities retain self-governance, allowing individuals to participate directly in decision-making.
  2. Scalability – The hierarchical federation enables coordination across larger territories without a centralized state.
  3. Conflict Resolution – Disputes can be handled at the smallest possible level, with higher federative levels acting as arbiters when necessary.
  4. Flexibility – Different communities can experiment with various social, economic, and legal systems while still cooperating on mutual concerns.
  5. Reduction of Coercion – Since participation is voluntary, people can move between communities that align with their values, reducing the need for coercive enforcement.

Weaknesses:

  1. Potential for Hierarchical Drift – The federative structure, even if initially voluntary, might accumulate power at higher levels over time, reintroducing coercion.
  2. Enforcement Issues – Without a centralized authority, enforcing agreements between communities could be difficult, potentially leading to conflicts that escalate into force.
  3. Unequal Development – Wealthier or more resource-rich communities might gain disproportionate influence, leading to de facto hierarchies.
  4. Exit Problems – If moving between communities is costly or impractical, voluntary association may become constrained in practice.

This model is somewhat similar to historical examples like the Hanseatic League, certain indigenous confederations, or even medieval city-state networks. It also resonates with modern decentralized political theories like confederal municipalism (Murray Bookchin) or panarchism.

Given your views on voluntary agreements and the role of “war” in irreconcilable disputes, how would such a federation handle cases where a community violates its agreements but refuses arbitration? Would force be a legitimate means of enforcement at the federative level?

4o

You said:

if a community refuses to follow a federal agreement, why not let it secede

ChatGPT said:

Letting a community secede aligns well with your emphasis on voluntary agreements and autonomy. If participation in the hierarchical federation is truly voluntary, then secession should always be an option—otherwise, the federation risks becoming coercive. This approach would prevent conflicts over enforcement and ensure that communities remain in the federation only as long as they find it beneficial.

Benefits of Allowing Secession:

  1. Maintains Voluntarism – Communities remain members of the federation by choice rather than force, ensuring legitimacy.
  2. Avoids Coercion – No need for federal enforcement mechanisms that could evolve into centralized authority.
  3. Encourages Fair Agreements – If a federation becomes exploitative or inefficient, communities can leave, creating pressure for just governance.
  4. Promotes Diversity – Different communities can experiment with alternative social, economic, and legal systems without external imposition.

Challenges of Secession:

  1. Shared Infrastructure Issues – If a community relies on shared resources (e.g., transportation networks, defense, currency), secession could create disputes over usage rights.
  2. Security Concerns – If a community secedes and later becomes hostile, would the federation have the right to intervene?
  3. Economic Dependencies – Communities that depend on trade or cooperative ventures within the federation might face difficulties post-secession.
  4. Precedent for Fragmentation – If secession becomes frequent, the federation might dissolve entirely, making long-term cooperation difficult.

Handling Secession Conflicts

If a community’s departure harms others (e.g., by defaulting on obligations, disrupting shared projects, or seceding for exploitative reasons), the federation could:

  • Negotiate transitional agreements (e.g., phased withdrawal, compensation for shared investments).
  • Establish arbitration mechanisms to resolve disputes without force.
  • Allow communities to form new federations rather than forcing them into a single system.

This structure mirrors historical models like the Swiss Confederation’s loose federation, or even Proudhon’s concept of a decentralized “contractual federalism.” It also resonates with panarchist ideas, where multiple overlapping federations coexist, and people can “exit” systems freely.

Would you envision any limits to secession, or should communities be able to leave at any time for any reason, regardless of the consequences?

4o

Search

Reason

Mykita Shapoval, “MIKHAILO DRAGOMANOV, AS THE IDEOLOGIST OF NEW UKRAINE,” 1930

MIKHAILO DRAGOMANOV, “Selected Works. Collection of Political Works with Notes” Vol.1, ed. Pavlo Bohatsky, Prague 1937.

MIKHAILO DRAGOMANOV, AS THE IDEOLOGIST OF NEW UKRAINE

(On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of his death and the 50th anniversary of the program of Ukrainian socialism)

Introduction

On June 20 of this year, it will be 35 years since Mykhailo Drahomanov passed away forever, and on September 6 of this year, it will be 50 years since the first program of Ukrainian socialism was created by Drahomanov and Podolynsky and signed by them on September 1, 1880. A great span of time separates us from these historical moments, but are we far from these ideals and thoughts today? Has the situation of the Ukrainian people changed so much that we could say today that both Drahomanov and his program have passed into history and lost their relevance for us? Should we only remember and honor Drahomanov, or should we learn from him and emulate him? Answers to such questions can only be obtained by comparing the current state of Ukraine with the situation 50 years ago when Drahomanov lived and worked, as well as by comparing Drahomanov’s science with modern Ukrainian ideologies and critically evaluating these ideologies. Having completed such work, we could properly establish the historical and societal value of Drahomanov’s work with due respect.

IV.Sociological Views of Drahomanov

  1. Drahomanov’s Social Program Based on the “Foreword to Hromada” and other writings of Drahomanov, S. Podolinsky formulated the program of the first socialist Ukrainian circle, which adopted it in the following edition (I will only provide the points): “These are our thoughts and desires: In political matters, we desire: Equal rights for every person, both men and young men, and women and girls of every race. Unquestionable freedom of speech, press, and science, assemblies, and societies. Unobstructed self-government (autonomy) for each community in its affairs. Full independence for the free association (federation) of communities throughout Ukraine” (Program 1880, p. 148.) This section of the program includes an explanation: what should be considered Ukraine (the entire ethnographic territory from the Tisza to the Kuban, from the Narew River to the Black Sea); about the social structure of Ukraine (foreigners are the ruling classes in Ukraine, and Ukrainians — the oppressed classes of peasants and workers); from this, it follows that the national liberation of Ukrainians is a social matter; further about the rights of foreign laboring masses, finally explained: “The independence (autonomy) of the political community, in our opinion, is the will of each community to recognize itself as part of a nation and join the union to which it itself wishes, as well as the firm determination to arrange all matters among themselves and all their relations with other communities in their own way” (ibid., p. 149). Drahomanovites believed that “working foreigners will be for Ukrainians links that will tie them to all neighboring nationalities, with whom Ukrainians must join into a great international free union (international federation)” (emphasis added — M. Sh.) (ibid., p. 149). Thus, in the program, we have the postulate of Ukraine’s independence and unity as a necessary precondition for equal rights among nations, which must enter into a free international union. For modern Drahomanovites, these postulates are mandatory if they want to be Drahomanovite socialists. The socialist method of resolving the national issue guarantees the freedom and welfare of individuals, communities, and nations, while the bourgeois method of “resolving” the national issue is the ignition of national antagonisms, a path to war. Examples of national states built on the bourgeois-chauvinistic method are contemporary Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. Would Ukrainian workers and peasants want to create a state like Poland and others? This is the central question of Ukrainian emancipatory national politics. Let us proceed further in examining the program: [42] In economic matters, we desire: That all natural forces and instruments necessary for obtaining useful things for people, such as land, water with everything in it, machines, factories, etc., be simply in the hands of farming and worker communities and that people would not have to sell their labor to masters and wealthy people but work simply for themselves. We believe that collective or communal ownership and collective, communal labor are much more beneficial to people than individual ownership; furthermore, we think, that the manner in which to change individual ownership (personal property, homeland) into communal, and further, how to organize joint labor and how to divide the proceeds from it, must depend on the goodwill of each society and each community. Certainly, experimentation and practice (practice) with economic needs will teach individual communities not only cooperation in labor (cooperation) and rational distribution of proceeds among themselves, but also among communities of entire regions and across the whole world” (ibid., pp. 149-150). This briefly, but clearly outlined socialist economic program constitutes the basis of socialism. Its main feature: socialist economy is based on one’s own labor, without hired labor! Workers are simultaneously managers of enterprises, cooperated within themselves and cooperated among themselves. Whoever does not understand this law of socialism, established by Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, Engels, and Drahomanov, does not understand what socialism is, or pretends not to understand, as, for example, Moscow Bolsheviks. Let’s reflect: socialism demands collective, common ownership of those who themselves work in enterprises or on the land, but in the USSR, it’s not so: the land, factories, railways, etc., belong not to working communities but to the state. From this arises an important consequence: workers are forced to sell their labor to state enterprises. Hence, labor in the USSR is hired labor, just as in the entire capitalist world. And the economic system of the USSR is called state capitalism even by the Bolsheviks themselves. Capitalism – whether private or state – is still capitalism – that is, a system of exploiting hired labor. It’s not workers’ and farmers’ associations and communities that manage labor in enterprises and on the land, but the state, i.e., an organization of officials connected by authority from top to bottom, while socialism is an organization built from bottom to top. The Drahomanovite program is maximalist, the farthest left; it is a program of complete, as you see, social revolution, but it opposes what the Bolsheviks did. The Bolshevik regime is not socialist because it is based on the exploitation of hired labor. This is why Ukrainian socialists fight against Bolshevism. But this is not yet the entire reason for the struggle. Because state [43] capitalism is a system built from top to bottom through appointments of officials, not elections of officials who command armies, police, espionage, and economically keep the laboring masses dependent, therefore on Ukraine, peasants and workers did not come to power; authority was appointed from Moscow Hill from those loyal to Moscow, to the government – the Ukrainian people ended up in captivity, unable to govern themselves. Ukraine became a colony of Moscow. The struggle, thus, is inevitable. “In educational (cultural) matters, we desire: The growth of empirical (positive) science about natural and societal things, as well as skills, tied to that science. We believe: That such science and skills (verbal arts, theater, painting, carving, music) will completely replace current beliefs, through which people have fought and continue to fight among themselves. Until this happens through free science and preaching, we believe that every person and society must be allowed the freedom to adhere to whatever faith they wish, with the provision that adherents of each faith (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) and each brotherhood (Stundists, Shaloputs, etc.) maintain their churches and priests at their own expense, and no public taxes or public labor should be spent on this, and everyone would give to this voluntarily when they wish” (ibid., p. 150). This cultural program is very brief; it discusses only three matters – science, art, and religion. There is no mention of schooling and education, and even the language in which to develop science in Ukraine is not mentioned, but from other works of Drahomanov, we know about this in detail. The program then presents the main tactical principle of Ukrainian socialism: “In engaging in writing, we thereby show that we do not shy away from peaceful labor and public progress forward (progress). In the meantime, we do not harbor vain hopes. Nowhere and never have fundamental changes in public life occurred solely through peaceful progress. In Ukraine, perhaps even less than elsewhere, can one hope that authorities and the gentry will willingly relinquish their dominance, and thus the common people in Ukraine cannot do without armed struggle and uprising (revolution). Only this uprising will transfer into the hands of farming and workers’ communities and societies the natural forces and tools necessary for acquisition. But so that the old gentry estates and authorities cannot afterward seize back into their hands any of the public goods and restore their dominance, it is necessary, at the first opportunity, to abolish the state army and establish community Cossacks (militia), in which every citizen would have weapons and know how to handle them” (ibid., p. 150). [44] Thus: the program of Ukrainian socialism indicates that the path to liberation is a social revolution. Drahomanov envisions the consolidation of the socialist order in Ukraine as follows: “Such (socialist – M. Sh.) orders can exist fully only in one country when they prevail worldwide because only then will there be a complete cessation of the need for warriors and merchants, from whom everywhere originates dominion and wealth, and consequently, governance. For such orders to prevail, there must also be no priesthood and faith from which priesthood arises, because priesthood is also dominion and governance, and faith breeds discord among people” (“Foreword,” p. 116). Thus, for Drahomanov, it is clear that the success of a socialist revolution in one country is contingent upon its success globally, hence Drahomanov advances the postulate of a global social revolution. From this, it is evident that Drahomanov’s international policy is based on internationalism (he calls it both cosmopolitanism and internationalism). Hence, the postulate of an international federation, to which Drahomanov envisions the path through Eastern European and then Slavic federations, in which Ukraine would be an independent, free union of communities. Drahomanov refers to his ideology alternately as Ukrainian populism, Ukrainian socialism, federal socialism, or international socialism. These terms require analysis to correctly interpret Drahomanov’s science. Central ideas of Drahomanov: the freedom and welfare of the individual, equality, socialism, federalism. What is a federation according to Drahomanov? It is an equal and free association of persons – a community; an association of mono-national communities – a “state”; a free association of national “states” – the International. Thus, a federation is a relationship of brotherhood based on freedom. A society founded on the principle of free association, common ownership, and common labor – socialism. Federation is a method of uniting people from bottom to top. All of Drahomanov’s federalism is sociological, ensuring Ukraine’s autonomy within a reconciled community of nations. Such federalism has nothing in common with that discussed by the bourgeoisie, Bolsheviks, and agitators for Russian or Polish federation. To his work “Nations of Eastern Europe and International Socialism,” Drahomanov took a motto from Proudhon: Qui dit liberte; federation, on ne dit rien. Qui dit socialisme, dit; on ne dit de nouveau rien. (Proudhon: Du principe federatif…) Thus: Whoever says freedom, says federation, or says nothing. Whoever says socialism, says federation, or says nothing new. [45] VII. Revolution and Evolution The transformation of the current social system into a socialist one, according to Drahomanov, is a protracted matter. Although the transfer of ownership of land and means of production from private hands to society (to communities and associations) can only occur through armed uprising (revolution), however, the restructuring of social relations can only happen through diligent cultural-economic labor, both before and after the revolution. Drahomanov bases this on general scientific data about development in nature and society. This development – evolution. The principle of evolution underlies Drahomanov’s worldview. In his autobiography, Drahomanov says: “Being a socialist in my ideals, I am convinced that the realization of this ideal is possible only in a certain gradualness and with the high development of the masses, through which and mostly achievable by spiritual propaganda rather than bloody uprisings” (see p. 75). In the “Foreword to Hromada,” we find an explanation of these words: … “we think that giving too much importance to uprisings, and even believing that the great fundamental change in all social and economic orders, which is called ‘social revolution,’ can become the business of one great uprising, even in one large country, shows the habit of thinking more about state affairs than about social and economic ones. This habit rooted itself in literate people during those times when people placed in state governments… thought they could turn life and even the thoughts and customs of thousands and millions of people from above as they pleased. Such state thoughts went hand in hand with the then stable science of nature, the science that long taught that God performs miracles in the world, and then when it got to the point of seeing order in the change of everything in the world, it still thought about rapid changes, about revolutions in the earthly world – Geuvolution (new creation). In the XIX century, there were many uprisings – and not one of them managed to fundamentally change not only social and economic orders but even state orders. More recent times and natural sciences, geology and biology, have shown how slowly all changes go in the world and replaced the word Geuvolution with the word Evolution (unfolding, growth). New natural science must reteach literate people and in their thoughts about changes in social orders, wean them from habits of focusing their thoughts mostly on state affairs and state changes, and quick revolutions and uprisings, and accustom them to remember that all orders in human communities grow, not created all at once (breakdown — M. Sh.) and that state or anti-state measures and uprisings – only part of those incidents by which changes in human life move forward, and far from everything. [46] Moreover, the science of social life increasingly clarifies that state orders once, then, when the main state affair was war, were the root of economic changes, e.g., taking land by warriors, – now state orders are mainly – only the roof of economic orders and the result of human thoughts, and that means laying them down or overthrowing them completely cannot be done immediately. The very idea of ‘anarchy’ rejects any notion of changes from top to bottom, not bottom to top, – from the individual to society and beyond, and compels changing the words revolution sociale to evolution sociale and reducing faith in uprisings themselves. Uprisings can begin to awaken public consciousness, they can conclude old orders already undermined from all sides by other methods…, but creating new orders, especially social and economic, uprisings alone cannot achieve. Even overthrown old orders, especially social and economic, inevitably return on “the day after the uprising,” when there is nothing to replace them with to somehow satisfy human economic needs – and with those needs, people don’t wait long. . . The force of the growth of new communal orders lies not so much in uprisings against old orders, especially not in abolishing state orders, as in the growth of small and large societies among people, in changing habits and thoughts (break here and in subsequent lines — M. Sh.) of people in all communities of a country, if not all countries, at least initially the European ones, in a whole range of completely non-political, communal and economic, family and scientific tasks” (“Foreword,” pp. 131-133). Elsewhere, Drahomanov again returns to clarifying the concept of “social revolution.” . . . “The very concept of social revolution makes no sense when understanding the word revolution in the usual meaning of urban warfare. . . Revolution, as an armed uprising of a certain minority (the majority has nothing to rise for), is a concept of the circle of political, state relations and there it has full meaning, because a certain minority may be enough to overthrow the given upper state order and establish another, though not always enough to consolidate it. But what can any minority do in such a matter as establishing joint use of resources, which requires voluntary consent and high moral development of a large majority of the population?! Here even a not very large majority won’t stand. . . . . . “For people to firmly replace the old order with a new one, especially such a component as nationalization or even internationalization of property, they need to have in their minds a ready plan of such an [47] organization, which develops, or rather say, grows through a series of experiences in constant, multifaceted struggle with the obsolete order and in such same attempts at establishing new orders. This growth creates social evolution, in which military actions, as outbreaks of class hatred, riots, and revolutions, obviously inevitable, but constitute only a part of it and moreover not the most essential” (“Le Revolte” about the illusions of conspirators and revolutionaries. “B. S.” No. 49, 1882). We present these long excerpts from Drahomanov’s writings so that listeners and readers seriously pause on this important issue. How one understands it determines the tactics proposed. To outline the path to some social goal, one can only do so with a clear understanding of the question of social revolution and evolution. First and foremost, according to Drahomanov, in the social process, as in the natural one, there are laws governing change, and ignoring these laws cannot be done by anyone wanting to walk surely and firmly towards the goal. For change, one must have a plan, crafted on the principles of pure (empirical) science. Revolutions are inevitable, as part of social evolution, but revolutions do not create a new order, either awakening thought or concluding a change prepared by conscious labor. Only changes in communal and economic orders, family structures, and scientific concepts lead to a change in the social system in the work of the majority of the population. “Custom and benefit have more power over people than word and reason,” says Drahomanov in the “Foreword” (p. 141). Therefore, seizing power by arms does not achieve what we need: a change in the social order. One can say that Drahomanov polemicizes with Moscow Bolsheviks and Ukrainian troublemakers who talk only about power, power, power. Bolsheviks strive to reeducate people and rebuild the social structure, whereas regarding Ukrainian political speedsters, you see them all around: they talk—talk—talk, but build nothing in the realm of economics, culture, or even political organization. They sneer at others’ cultural-economic-political construction, especially rejoicing when it fails. I could give many examples of such attitudes towards the work of today’s Drahomanovites (s-rs): since they base their work on science (sociology) and organize schools, publishing houses, cooperatives, such work often meets with derisive attitudes from political sparrows that chirp lightly about “action,” but do not organize it and do not understand the actions carried out by others. That ten years have passed since the seizure of Ukraine by foreigners and that the state of Ukrainian affairs has not improved, precisely those who vainly wait for an uprising “in two months” do not understand. This political illusionism is characteristic of those who do not engage in scientific study of social life. Political demagogy is their tool in the midst of the dark mass. Meanwhile, political realism can only be learned from Drahomanov! [48] VIII. Principles of Drahomanov’s Tactics From all that has been said earlier, we can already deduce something about the system of tactical means and constructions of Drahomanov. The first principle of Drahomanov’s tactics: do today what can be done with the available forces. From this arose Drahomanov’s work on developing a minimum program that could be implemented in the historical circumstances of the time. This is the well-known “Free Union,” which came out in 1884 with the subtitle: “An Attempt at a Ukrainian Politico-Social Program.” Its content is: the organization of “Free Union” societies for the struggle to reform Russia on federal principles, for the attainment of civil liberties. In the book, Drahomanov brilliantly revealed the essence of democracy, which could already be introduced within the framework of the capitalist system. In the “Foreword to Hromada,” Drahomanov says: . . . “people who have dedicated themselves to serving Ukrainian communities must, striving towards that ultimate goal (“anarchism” — M. Sh.), take advantage of any and minor changes in the current order, which improve the fate of those communities in some way, even temporarily, and especially those that open ways for people and communities to gather together, collectively reflect on their lives and try to reshape it differently” (p. 118 — 119). The currently favored, let’s say, among Bolsheviks way of expressing oneself “either everything or nothing” and “the worse, the better” is condemned by Drahomanov because neither biology nor sociology confirms that such a stance is accepted among people or even among animals. “No living creature will tolerate not grabbing that part which it can grab, out of what it needs, and on the other hand — any can be starved to the point that it won’t even twitch on its own, and on the third — having fed a little, every creature will desire more, and then everything it needs” (p. 119). Hence arose Drahomanov’s view on the need for honest compromise as a method of social struggle in non-revolutionary times: . . . “In a compromise, a person does not alter or conceal the quality of their thoughts, but striving at a certain moment to make their thoughts the law for the community, sets at that moment such an amount of them that can be assimilated by the community at that time, and accepts help from other people who agree with him on this point, though not on others, where no one conceals their fundamental thoughts from the other side” (“People,” 1891, vol. 3). The lack of understanding by many people of the essence and significance of compromise as a technical means of moving forward leads people to opportunism, that is, constantly shuffling on one incident, to which a person submits without intention and conducts their tactics under the dictate of these incidents, not trying to fight against them, opposing their “incidents.” Opportunism is always a product not of thoughtful compromise but of fear and misunderstanding of the social situation. Opportunism never thinks about the ultimate goal, and this is precisely what makes opportunism disgusting, especially in socialist politics. Drahomanov gives guidance on the tactics of compromises that lead to the goal: — “Of course, none of those who set themselves that ultimate goal, which we mentioned above, that is, complete anarchism and complete communitarianism, — can be satisfied with small changes in the current order, and having achieved them, will strive for more and more. In the smallest changes, in changes of state, he will be indifferent to how the higher state authority is arranged, but will press more on increasing the personal freedom of each individual in word and labor, the freedom of each human breed, association, community, country, — so as much as possible to reduce the power of state authority, be it tsarist, hetman, administration (bureaucracy), or even the elected council (parliament), before the power of the individual, community, and to give them more ways to lay the living beginnings of anarchist orders: pan-free and state-free.” (“Foreword…” p. 120). Hardly can one indicate a more vivid formula of realistic politics of compromise in Ukrainian sociological literature than this form of Drahomanov! From the aforementioned principles, Drahomanov derives the tactics of Ukrainian socialists. “We think that our Ukraine, which has neither its own clergy, nor nobility, nor commerce, nor state, but has reasonably intelligent from nature peasantry — will gladly accept the teaching about anarchist and cooperative orders, because of which it is worth working for communal activists, especially those who grew up in Ukraine” (ibid., p. 121). Drahomanov further says that the ways of work of these socialists could be presented based on worldwide experience and conclusions of theoretical science, “but we’d rather derive those thoughts from a review of the current state of our Ukraine” (ibid., p. 122). This is so characteristic of Drahomanov — a sociologist, deriving tactics in Ukraine from studying Ukrainian conditions: “We think that every public work in Ukraine must have a Ukrainian dress — Ukrainianism. Of course, that ‘Ukrainianism’ cannot be the aim of work. The aims of human work are the same throughout the world, as is the consistent science (theoretical, — M. Sh.). But applied science is not the same everywhere. So it is with public work: in each country, in each human breed, further, even in each community and around each individual — personal approaches and incentives to [51] the same goal must be; each country and human group can show more clearly than others the need and method of that or another work, that or other method of work needed for all people” (ibid., p. 122). By this view, Drahomanov distinguishes himself from many even contemporary Ukrainian politicians, who didn’t think of studying and researching the population of Ukraine, to derive from this study rules of political behavior and a program of real work. Drahomanov was the first in his works to note the basic methods of the social structure of Ukraine: the contrast between village and city, the social incompleteness of the Ukrainian nation (lack of national clergy, nobility, commerce, bureaucracy, and generally bourgeois groups), and from that drew conclusions for building an emancipation program. Another unusual rule: Ukrainian socialism is not a party, but a community. Understandably, if state changes have little significance, Drahomanov logically rejected the party as an organizational form of socialist work. Instead, he developed the theory of the community as the basic unit of socialist society. The second half of the “Foreword” is devoted to considering the tasks of Ukrainian socialists in the community. Not to leave Ukraine, to work in the community, to become a useful person for it — such is the task of all who understand that without practical adaptation of their strength in working in the popular mass, there is no active socialism! Further: the work and struggle of a socialist must be based on a moral ground, because “a pure cause demands pure means.” Finally: scientific truth — is above all, because “falsehood — is not enlightenment.” Organizational rule for Ukrainian socialists: to work within the nation irrespective of state borders. Socialist organization not by states, but by nations. Hence the requirement: that Ukrainian socialists form one organization wherever there are Ukrainian masses. In agreement with this, the radical party congress resolved in 1906 to call Ukrainian socialists to form one socialist party in Naddniprianshchyna, Galicia, and even in overseas colonies! As we know from the factual state of affairs, even now this postulate of Drahomanov has not yet been realized. What should be the attitude of Ukrainian socialists towards those states where the Ukrainian people live? — “It is quite feasible for Ukrainians to strive for in those states, under which they are now, every civil liberty with the help of other peoples who are also subject to those states.” (“P. S.” p. 112). This rule is particularly significant for our time: it is used by the Ukrainian bourgeois intelligentsia, which interacts with other nations of those states where Ukrainians live. [52] IX. Criticism and Evaluation of Drahomanov’s Ideology Considering the creative work and activities of Shevchenko, Drahomanov stated that Shevchenko was not and could not be a socialist in view of the fact that Ukraine is agrarian, lacks a developed system of hired labor, industry, and cities. It sounds astonishing this statement: but in Shevchenko, we find a view on communal land ownership in “Cold Yar”: According to which truthful, Holy law And land, given to all, And humble people Do you trade? Beware, For misfortune will befall you… For on the day of joy over you The punishment will unfold, And a new fire will blow From Cold Yar! Besides that, we encounter in Shevchenko such a formula: Is there anything better, better in the world, Than living together, Surely good brethren Enjoy, don’t divide. Isn’t this the formula of socialism? In Shevchenko we find even a direct expression of sympathy for “communism,” as the socialist movement in Europe was called during the 1848 revolution. In Russia during Shevchenko’s time, very little was known about socialism. Shevchenko was not a theorist, but only a poet, however, his direction is quite explicit — toward social revolution, toward the liberation of the working people. Recall his pre-death prayers, in which he yearns for the victory of the working people over the nobility. We can agree that in Shevchenko there is no theoretical elaboration of socialism, but all his tendencies are class-based, directed toward the reconstruction of society on the principles of labor democracy. This position corresponds to the interests of socialism. A person can become a socialist even in an agrarian society, with undeveloped cities and weak industry. Proof of this is … Drahomanov himself. Drahomanov was at Shevchenko’s funeral as a representative of the younger generation. Did Ukraine in the 60-70s significantly differ from Ukraine in the 40-50s of the 19th century? No. It was and remains agrarian even now. From Drahomanov’s standpoint, not only Shevchenko, but even Drahomanov himself and we, supposedly, could not become socialists, and yet Drahomanov became the founder of Ukrainian socialism in an agrarian country. And today we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first program of Ukrainian socialism. So what is the matter? It is that Drahomanov was under some influence of Marxism and mistakenly thought that socialism could arise [53] only in industrialized countries. That Drahomanov was under the influence of Marxism is shown by his second assertion, namely, that the state is a roof over economic matters. This “roof” is nothing else but Marx’s statement about politics and the state as superstructure (Uberbau) over the economy. However, Drahomanov was not a Marxist, as he explicitly stated in a letter to Yu. Bachinsky: “You know — he writes, — that I do not agree with the exclusively economic philosophy and politics of history, because I consider it a kind of metaphysics, and human life too complex to be explained by only one element. But I have nothing against even a one-sided doctrine, when it leads to the investigation of new facts. Unfortunately, Marxists, or rather — Engelsists, rarely investigate anything, but simply a priori draw historical and political figures, often completely fantastical” (Correspondence of Drahomanov with Yu. Bachinsky, p. 7-8). Nevertheless, he made use of the “one-sided doctrine,” which, for instance, through Engels said that “if it were not for ancient slavery, there would be no modern scientific socialism.” The idea expressed here of a logical connection between phenomena such as ancient slavery and modern scientific socialism indeed points to the “metaphysics” of Marxists, who sometimes draw fantastical figures. Meanwhile, this metaphysics touched Drahomanov as well, leading him to the conclusion that in an agrarian country with underdeveloped cities, a conscious person cannot become a socialist! Further, we must point out that the famous phrase “Ukrainian socialism is not a party, but a community” should be appropriately clarified from some misunderstandings. Drahomanov, placing the community at the foundation of constructive socialism, fell somewhat into a one-sidedness. He envisioned it as a labor union, meanwhile, such a community must become in modern rural and especially urban settings a complex combination of various social classes. Where there is a class, there will be its active force — a party. Both class and party in modern society are driving forces of socialism. So how can one say that “Ukrainian socialism is not a party”? Communists, for example, say that the creator of socialism is the party. They have even moved away from purely class politics, placing the party above the working class. When we examine socialist theories and movements, we see an interesting phenomenon: theorists adopt different social groupings as the main force and form of the socialist movement: Marxists — class, Leninists — party, syndicalists — trade union, guild socialists — guild, religious people — church, cooperators — cooperative, theorists of state socialism — state, Drahomanov — community. Describing the forms of organization and functions of some social grouping, theorists overemphasize their favorite object and overlook something very important, namely: [54] society is a combination of all the aforementioned groupings, each corresponding to some human need and each playing a certain, sometimes very important, social role, but not exclusive; each is not an absolute, but functionally dependent on other social groupings, therefore building a scientific theory of socialism, i.e., a theory of the reconstruction of the entire society, can only be done through the study of all social phenomena. The reconstruction of society can be conceived as a simultaneous change in all social phenomena in the structure and functions of clusters, aggregates, and society. In other words: scientific socialism can only be integral socialism, derived from the study of entire social reality. And it is futile to say: socialism — is a party, socialism — is a class, socialism — is a state, syndicate, guild, cooperative. It is also futile to say that “socialism is not a party, but a community.” Because if you compare the village and the city, the question immediately arises: what community? Is it the rural or the urban? Drahomanov tied all his hopes to the rural community. Meanwhile, look at Bolshevism where the party, class, state, city stand in the first place, and the rural community is an object of subjugation and exploitation. To the rural community, Drahomanov came through the study of the structure of Ukraine’s population. He correctly noted that the Ukrainian nation — is the peasantry, but this was not entirely accurate even during his time, as there was also Ukrainian craftsmanship (this was well elucidated by Drahomanov’s friend and like-minded colleague Dr. Serhiy Podolinsky in his book “Crafts and Shops in Ukraine” — 1880), and now we already know that the Ukrainian nation — is the peasantry, working class, craftsmanship, and intelligentsia with buds of other classes — petty bourgeoisie and some landed gentry. Now, as then, there are cities in Ukraine. What to do with the cities? We do not find an explicit answer to this question in Drahomanov. Turning the whole society into “communities of free people” — this is good, but when foreigners create many urban communities and such that have the right to join unions with their fellow neighboring peoples at their own will, then… the Ukrainian village will not cope with them. This was well demonstrated by the Great Revolution of 1917. September 20, 1930 Detroit. Mykita Shapoval.

МИХАЙЛО ДРАГОМАНОВ ВИБРАНІ ТВОРИ

УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ СОЦІОЛОГІЧНИЙ ІНСТИТУТ В ПРАЗІ


МИХАЙЛО ДРАГОМАНОВ

ВИБРАНІ ТВОРИ

ЗВІРКА ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТВОРІВ З ПРИМІТКАМИ

під загальною редакцією

ПАВЛА БОГАЦЬКОГО

Том І

ПРАГА — НЮ ЙОРК

НАКЛАДОМ УКРАЇНСЬКИХ ПОСТУПОВИХ ТОВАРИСТВ В АМЕРИЦІ

1937