The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.

“The capitalistic organization will pass into the hands of workers, and then there will be no more oppression of these workers, and no unequal distribution of earnings.” [Marxist]

“But who will establish the works; who will administer them?” [Anarchist]

“It will go on of its own accord; the workmen themselves will arrange everything.” [Marxist]

“But the capitalistic organization was established just because, for every practical affair, there is need for administrators furnished with power. If there be work, there will be leadership, administrators with power. And when there is power, there will be abuse of it — the very thing against which you are now striving.” [Anarchist]

To the question, how to be without a State, without courts, armies, and so on, an answer cannot be given, because the question is badly formulated. The problem is not how to arrange a State after the pattern of today, or after a new pattern.

Neither I, nor any of us, is appointed to settle that question.

But, though voluntarily, yet inevitably must we answer the question, how shall I act faced with the problem which ever arises before me? Am I to submit my conscience to the acts taking place around me, am I to proclaim myself in agreement with the Government, which hangs erring men, sends soldiers to murder, demoralizes nations with opium and spirits, and so on, or am I to submit my actions to conscience, i.e., not participate in Government, the actions of which are contrary to reason?

What will be the outcome of this, what kind of a Government there will be — of all this I know nothing; not that I don’t wish to know; but that I cannot. I only know that nothing evil can result from my following the higher guidance of wisdom and love, or wise love, which is implanted in me, just as nothing evil comes of the bee following the instinct implanted in her, and flying out of the hive with the swarm, we should say, to ruin. But, I repeat, I do not wish to and cannot judge about this.

In this precisely consists the power of Christ’s teaching and that not because Christ is God or a great man, but because His teaching is irrefutable. The merit of His teaching consists in the fact that it transferred the matter from the domain of eternal doubt and conjecture on to the ground of certainty. You are a man, a being rational and kind, and you know that today or tomorrow you will die, disappear. If there be a God then you will go to Him and He will ask of you an account of your actions, whether you have acted in accordance with His law, or, at least, with the higher qualities implanted in you. If there be no God, you regard reason and love as the highest qualities, and must submit to them your other inclinations, and not let them submit to your animal nature — to the cares about the commodities of life, to the fear of annoyance and material calamities.

The question is not, I repeat, which community will be the more secure, the better — the one which is defended by arms, cannons, gallows or the one that is not so safeguarded. But there is only one question for a man, and on it is impossible to evade: “Will you, a rational and good being, having for a moment appeared in this world, and at any moment liable to disappear — will you take part in the murder of erring men or men of a different race, will you participate in the extermination of whole nations of so-called savages, will you participate in the artificial deterioration of generations of men by means of opium and spirits for the sake of profit, will you participate in all these actions, or even be in agreement with those who permit them, or will you not?”

And there can be but one answer to this question for those to whom it has presented itself. As to what the outcome will be of it, I don’t know, because it is not given to me to know. But what should be done, I do unmistakably know. And if you ask: “What will happen?”, then I reply that good will certainly happen; because, acting in the way indicated by reason and love, I am acting in accordance with the highest law known to me. The situation of the majority of men, enlightened by true brotherly enlightenment, at present crushed by the deceit and cunning of usurpers, who are forcing them to ruin their own lives — this situation is terrible and appears hopeless.

Only two issues present themselves, and both are closed. One is to destroy violence by violence, by terrorism, dynamite bombs and daggers as our Nihilists and Anarchists have attempted to do, to destroy this conspiracy of Governments against nations, from without; the other is to come to an agreement with the Government, making concessions to it, participating in it, in order gradually to disentangle the net which is binding the people, and to set them free. Both these issues are closed. Dynamite and the dagger, as experience has already shown, only cause reaction, and destroy the most valuable power, the only one at our command, that of public opinion.

The other issue is closed, because Governments have already learnt how far they may allow the participation of men wishing to reform them. They admit only that which does not infringe, which is non-essential; and they are very sensitive concerning things harmful to them — sensitive because the matter concerns their own existence. They admit men who do not share their views, and who desire reform, not only in order to satisfy the demands of these men, but also in their own interest, in that of the Government. These men are dangerous to the Governments if they remain outside them and revolt against them — opposing to the Governments the only effective instrument the Governments possess — public opinion; they must therefore render these men harmless, attracting them by means of concessions, in order to render them innocuous (like cultivated microbes), and then make them serve the aims of the Governments, i.e., oppress and exploit the masses.

Both these issues being firmly closed and impregnable, what remains to be done?

To use violence is impossible; it would only cause reaction. To join the ranks of the Government is also impossible — one would only become its instrument. One course therefore remains — to fight the Government by means of thought, speech, actions, life, neither yielding to Government nor joining its ranks and thereby increasing its power.

This alone is needed, will certainly be successful.

And this is the will of God, the teaching of Christ. There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

Leo Tolstoy
1900

From http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

4 Comments

  1. Thanks much for the link to the anarchist library in general, and to Tolstoy in particular. His words are always on point because they are anchored well to solid truth, to the timeless search for meanings that do not erode when assaulted by lies. More than a few lies have assaulted his bedrock beliefs since 1900 but the words you’ve posted here pass muster and they cut the mustard too. Now, if you would be so kind, please pass the mustard. I need it for the Field Roast vegan sausage over there. Thank you.
    I also like anarchism’s ability to find the common denominator, i.e. eye-contact. When you extend that eye-contact concept to animals as well you are really getting to the heart (and soul) of the matter — a pair of eyes gazes into another pair of eyes. A truce is called.
    As you know — because I quote it all the danged time — Tolstoy cut through much piffle with this observation:
    I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back.
    – Leo Tolstoy, What Then Must We Do?

    and

    If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.
    – Leo Tolstoy, The First Step

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I wonder how Tolstoy compares to Flower Bomb. Here’s a classic FB essay:

    Vegan Means Attack
    Fomenting A Wildfire Against Speciesism and Moral Anthropocentrism

    My veganism exists as a nihilist confrontation against the existing moral fabric of anthropocentrism and speciesism. Here on this landmass called “america”, the moral justifications for consuming the flesh and secretions of non-human animals go hand in hand with the industrialization of their enslavement and reduction to commodity status. This is a reflection of capitalist society reducing chaos to order, animal bodies from wild to domesticated, and the marketing of bodies that are socially recognized as mere products for consumption. My veganism is defined not only by an individualist refusal to internalize, validate and reinforce these authoritarian social values, but also by consecutively attacking them as well.

    My anarchy rejects speciesist civilization, not from a “return to the hunter-gatherer” perspective, but from a point of constant hostility towards arbitrary hierarchies, authority, and governance that take form pre- or post-civilization. These include the restoration of traditions or cultures that attempt to resurrect anthropocentric, hierarchical values and worldviews. My focus is not a re-establishment of a past existence. My focus is the creation of a joyous life, here and now, through destructive confrontation with any governing elements that attempt to maintain hierarchical power. I am hostile to all who view non-human animals and the wild as mere raw materials for anthropocentric exploitation and consumption.

    For real though, it amazes me to see self-proclaimed anarchists fulfill the anthropocentric role of consuming non-human animals – roles assigned to them by capitalism, tradition, and cultures throughout childhood upbringing. Fulfilling the roles of being “Human” and embracing a morality which standardizes the roles of control and domination over the wild. How long does it take for contemporary “anarchists” to notice the battery cages, the open-air prisons of fenced enclosures, the exhibitions of zoos, the concealed brutality of slaughterhouses, the speciesism of consuming some non-human animals but building relationships with others? Or the interconnected ways society views non-human animals as the lowest common denominator to compare those of the oppressed category to? How the fuck does anti-authoritarian praxis stop at the commodification of bodies – human or non-human (but in this case, non-human) – who are objectified to justify their enslavement, murder, and consumption?

    As far as prisoner support and prison abolition, where is the acknowledgment of – and the solidarity with – the millions who remain imprisoned in slaughterhouses with death sentences, justified by the mere demand for their mutilated, neatly-packaged corpses? The acknowledgement of their existential struggle against prison and domination is limited by human supremacy. When anarchy fails to include liberated wildness beyond the limited scope of human supremacy, it is mere human-centered reformism which falls short of destroying the very logic of control and domination. Society is death by design. Death and disregard for non-human animals are built into the design of highways, railroads, agriculture, and every other form of structural anthropocentrism. I advocate its total collapse towards the emancipation of the wild. Domestication is a process of internalized self-automation, conditioned with a sense of superiority to wildness which manifests itself institutionally with human-over-animal thinking. I reject this way of thinking along with its assumption that non-human animal bodies are mere food products for hunting and consumption – an assumption that disregards their own individual interests and bodily autonomy. I reject humanism, its authoritarian roles and traditions and its assigned identity which limits my potential to explore my own animality beyond civilized domestication.

    There is a war to be waged against society, alongside the non-human animals who refuse domesticated subservience, and who are evicted from their homes due to mass deforestation, human development and technology. Veganism burdened by the millstone of liberalism, fails to critically acknowledge capitalist, industrial civilization itself as the massified, embodiment of anthropocentric domination. Anarchism that fails to challenge speciesism on an individual level reproduces the internalized authoritarian values of human domination. Since speciesism is pervasive in society, it is insulated and well preserved by a comforting normalization – a normalization that aids cultural indoctrination and apathy. Confrontation is necessary in unsettling the socially established comforts and moral order of non-human animal domination. My vegan anarchy embodies solidarity not just with dietary intake, but also armed with attack; attack defined by the material actions of an incendiary desire to destroy the social manifestations of human supremacy.

    -Flower Bomb

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Flower Bomb’s essay eloquently affirms what my feeble intellect fails to express, I am in agreement. There is much here to ponder, more than a single reading can extract. I’m be sure to study this again. Thanks for posting, your time was not wasted.

      As for Tolstoy comparing to Flower Bomb, they may be one and the same, evolved.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Bill Ziegler Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s