《无政府主义：初学者指南》Anarchism: A beginner's guide 翻译3
作者：Ruth Kinna
译者：A书翻译平台
索引: Kinna, R. (2005). Anarchism: a beginner's guide. One word Publications. Chapter 1, 10-15
无政府主义者的思想：重要人物
学习无政府主义的一个常见的方法就是通过分析那些重要思想家的经典著述来勾勒无政府主义的思想史。德国法官和学者保罗·埃尔兹巴赫（Paul Eltzbacher）是最早一批用这种方法研究无政府主义的人。他在1900年用德语写的《无政府主义》（Der Anarchismus）列出了七位无政府主义的“智者”（sages）。除了蒲鲁东之外，还有威廉·戈德温（William Godwin，1756-1836），麦克斯·施蒂纳（Max Stirner，1806-1856），米哈伊尔·巴枯宁（Michael Bakunin, 1814-1870），彼得·克鲁泡特金（Peter Kropotkin, 1842-1921），本杰明·塔克（Benjamin Tucker, 1854-1939），和列夫·托尔斯泰（Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910）。虽然乔治·伍德科克（George Woodcock）在1962年出版的标准的参考类著作《无政府主义》（Anarchism）中很大程度上沿用了埃尔兹巴赫的列表，只是没有将塔克列入重要思想家之列，但埃尔兹巴赫的列表并非绝对的权威。尽管如此，他的研究仍然广受欢迎。其讨论部分不仅介绍了本书将要研究的一些重要思想家的著作，更重要的是，也引发了一场能否用统一的思想界定无政府主义的持续争论。
对于谁能被列入无政府主义先贤的争论往往会变成评估谁在实际运动中产生了更大影响，这就反映出了评价者的特定文化，历史和政治背景。例如，在英美研究中，巴枯宁和克鲁泡特金通常被列为最伟大的无政府主义理论家；在中欧，特别是在法国，蒲鲁东和巴枯宁则常常被视作无政府主义运动的领导人物。最近几年，研究者们逐步充实了无政府主义先锋思想家的列表。《要求不可能》（Demanding the impossible）一书的作者彼得·马歇尔（Peter Marshall）不仅重新将本杰明·塔克列入无政府主义理论家行列，还进一步扩展到了埃里希·邵可侣（Elisée Reclus, 1830-1905），埃里克·马拉泰斯塔（Errico Malatesta, 1853-1932）和艾玛·古德曼（Emma Goldman, 1869-1940）。而在无政府主义著作选集里也有同样的趋势。丹尼尔·盖林（Daniel Guérin）的选集《没有神仙也没有主人》（No Gods, No masters）没有任何关于威廉·戈德温，本杰明·塔克和托尔斯泰的内容，但却收录了凯撒·德·帕佩（Casar de Paepe, 1842-1890），詹姆斯·纪尧姆（James Guillaume, 1844-1916），马拉泰斯塔，费尔南德·佩洛蒂埃（1867-1901），埃米尔·普吉特（Emile Pouget，1860-1931），沃林（Voline, 弗谢沃洛德·米哈伊洛维奇·艾肯鲍姆[Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eichenbaum, 1882-1945]的笔名）和涅斯托尔·马赫诺（1889-1935）。乔治·伍德科克的《无政府主义读本》（Anarchist Reader）有更大的多样性，但是它比盖林的选集更偏向于北美的无政府主义传统，包括了鲁道夫·洛克尔（Rodalf Rocker，1873-1958），默里·布克钦（Murry Bookchin, 1921-），赫伯特·雷德（Hebert Read, 1893-1968），艾历克斯·康福特（Alex, Comfort, 1920-2000），尼古拉·沃尔特（Nicolas Walter, 1934-2000），柯林·瓦德（Colin Ward, 1924-）以及保罗·古德曼（Paul Goodman, 1911-1972）。
埃尔兹巴赫研究之所以广受欢迎，也有一部分要归功于他研究对象之一的克鲁泡特金。1910年时，克鲁泡特金就称赞埃尔兹巴赫的研究是“对无政府主义最好的研究”。他的这种研究方法的一大成功之处在于，他首先区分了我们现在所理解的“经典”无政府主义理论家和其他无政府主义者。这种区分是基于学术领域的成果。尽管学术界对谁才是经典理论家的问题各有看法，但他们在论述十九世纪的无政府主义者时，只包含了那些将无政府主义提升到“严肃政治理论层次的表述”的人物，而将其他人视作煽动家和宣传家。即使不太热心于无政府主义的乔治·克劳德（George Crowder）也认为那些“伟大的无政府主义者”确实比其他人更杰出，因为他们的作品观点更加新颖丰富，影响也要更大。而不少持无政府主义观点，或者亲近无政府主义的作家也支持区分出经典传统。丹尼尔·盖林的无政府主义导论，《没有神仙也没有主人》只收录了他认为无政府主义第一等的思想，而那些“二流的名言警句”则被排除在外。在无政府主义大众出版物上同样有这种对经典的区分。无政府主义组织所办的小册子和报纸也常常关注马赫诺、克鲁泡特金、巴枯宁和马拉泰斯塔的作品。在无政府主义的书展和网站上，很容易找到这些知识分子精英们的著作。一些活动家也乐于将学术界著名社会评论家（尤其是诺姆·乔姆斯基）的作品作为无政府主义文学出版，为知识界的等级制度又添加了一个新阶层。
但是埃尔兹巴赫的研究方法也不是尽善尽美的。他的成功引起了广泛的讨论，而他的研究方法也受到了多方面的批评。正如盖林所说，埃尔兹巴赫研究方法的缺陷在于，它更倾向于给无政府主义大师们立传，而偏离了对他们种种思想观点的分析。而当大师们的生活细节比他们的作品更受关注的时候，大师们言行不一的情况就有可能混淆无政府主义本身的涵义。另一个问题则是埃尔兹巴赫在选录文集时的随意性。对于这个问题有两种截然相反的批评角度。有些人认为埃尔兹巴赫的收录太过宽泛，包括了许多从未自称无政府主义者的路人，以及许多虽然自称无政府主义者却从未真正投身于无政府主义运动之中的人。也有些人认为埃尔兹巴赫的选集太窄，忽略了广大的无名运动家的贡献，而正是这些运动家的存在才让无政府主义运动生机勃勃。许多作者倾向于将无政府主义当作几乎在所有政治思想中都显而易见的趋势，这加剧了关于包容性的问题。从克鲁泡特金到赫伯特·里德（Herbert Read）的许多无政府主义者都宽泛的把无政府主义当成“对没有政府的社会的构想”，因此他们认为中国古代哲学，琐罗亚斯德教和早期基督教思想都是无政府主义的源泉。道家之父老子，十六世纪的散文家艾蒂安·德拉博提（Etienne de la Boetie），法国百科全书派学者狄德罗，美国超验主义者大卫·亨利·梭罗，费多尔·陀思妥耶夫斯基和奥斯卡·王尔德，以及莫汉达斯·甘地这样的政治领袖都曾被收录在无政府主义的文集或历史书中。正如尼古拉斯·沃尔特（Nicolas Walter）所说，这种包容性可能是误入歧途：
在古代中国和印度、埃及和美索不达米亚、希腊和罗马的思想中或许能找到对某种没有政府的逝去黄金时代的描述。同样，在无数宗教及政治作家与群体的思想中，也可能找到对没有政府的未来乌托邦的梦想。但是，将无政府施以现在时的思想是最近才出现的，只有在19世纪的无政府主义运动中，我们才能找到对在此时此地实现没有政府的社会的要求。
与之截然相反的批评则反对拘束选录的范围，这种观点认为埃尔兹巴赫的研究将经典范围局限的太窄了。毕竟，谁有资格决定哪些人物才对无政府主义的思想或历史贡献最大呢？安德鲁·卡尔森（Andrew Carlson）就曾批评过像埃尔兹巴赫这样的无政府主义理论家总有两点误解，即德国的运动没有产生有声望的无政府主义作者，德国的社会主义运动受无政府主义影响也很小，这两点都是站不住脚的。从所谓经典出发产生的另一个误解就是女性对无政府主义几乎没有贡献。除了艾玛·古德曼（Emma Goldman），无政府主义中还涌现出了许多女性活动家，比如路易斯·米歇尔（Louise Michel, 1830-1905），露西·帕森斯（Lucy Parsons, 1853–1942），夏洛特·威尔逊（Charlotte Wilson, 1854-1944）以及伏尔泰琳·德·克莱尔（Voltairine de Cleyre, 1866-1912）。这些女性对无政府主义做出了突出的贡献，将她们排除在经典之外是一种无理的忽视。
另一方面，对局限性的批评也涉及批评遴选经典过程中的抽象性。许多无政府主义者都厌恶那种研究无政府主义思想，却又脱离这些思想当初产生的政治背景的研究方式。他们认为，对思想与其最初政治背景的分离，把小部分无政府主义著作抬上了神坛，而促使广大其他无政府主义运动的成就遭到忽视。确实，有一部分无政府主义者试图努力阐述一个连贯的无政府主义世界观：比如克鲁泡特金就有意想成为一位哲学家。但即使是克鲁泡特金也承认，无政府主义是由在工人阶级圈子里流传的无数报纸和小册子定义的，而不是像由他这样的人写出的理论。绝大多数无政府主义者都以散文家和宣传家的方式工作，因此，既没有道理也没有必要用一小部分没有那么广泛代表性的文献来框定无政府主义。正如金斯利·维德梅尔（Kingsley Widmer）所说:
无政府主义思想的狭隘主义，也就是局限于巴枯宁-克鲁泡特金的十九世纪思想脉络，或者可以再加上诸如施蒂纳，梭罗，托尔斯泰，或者随便什么让你心醉神迷的自由解放思想家，是行不通的。不仅是在思想上也在情感上，不仅是在过去的历史上也在未来的可能性上，狭隘主义都是不对的。无政府主义要么是多种多样千变万化的，要么就只能是失败者的哀叹和一种边缘的政治理论。
除了遴选随意性的问题以外，其他一些批评者同样批评了埃尔兹巴赫的研究所得出的结论：在埃尔兹巴赫那本书的末尾，他试图从多种多样风格迥异的文献中提炼出一个核心理念来更好的定义无政府主义者。就像前文法兰西学术院字典所说的那样，他的核心观点是拒绝国家（rejection of the state）。埃尔兹巴赫指出，无政府主义者“为了我们的未来而消灭国家”。而在除此以外的其他问题上，诸如法律，财产，政治变革和无国家的状态，无政府主义者的观点存在分歧。这一总结导致了两种争议。对于一些批评者来说，埃尔兹巴赫认为无政府主义是拒绝国家的观点是正确的，但是在给无政府主义分类时，他错误地采用了源自法学理论的明显的科学方法，试图将其适用于无政府主义关于财产和国家之类的概念上。正如一位批评者指出，埃尔兹巴赫的“分析和陈述有一种法院审判的终局性”。另外一些批评者则更着眼于埃尔兹巴赫的那个最终结论。从这个角度来看，他的错误在于给无政府主义确定一个共同点。玛丽·弗莱明（Mary Fleming）在这个问题上见解颇深。在对埃里希·邵可侣——一位并未被列入埃尔兹巴赫经典名单里的作者——的研究中，她指出对大师们的研究强加了一种推定的但却毫无意义的统一传统，它试图统一一系列截然不同还常常互不相容的观点。正如她指出，埃尔兹巴赫自己都承认他的定义总结——拒绝国家——包括了“许多完全不同的意义”。他坚持将无政府主义者们聚集在一个思想流派中，因而错误的将哲学置于历史之上。他鼓励“无政府主义体现了一种独特的看待世界的方式”的观点，却忽视了它“是一个在特定历史环境下回应特定社会和经济不满情绪而发展出来的运动”。
弗莱明对埃尔兹巴赫方法的批评很重要，但它并没有削弱经典无政府主义的吸引力，不应被视为对埃尔兹巴赫的主要结论的反驳，即无政府主义意味着拒绝国家。个人无政府主义者当然会继续将他们的无政府主义聚焦于其他一些概念上——比起拒绝国家，他们对其他概念更感兴趣。然而，拒绝国家是一个很有用的意识形态标志，在流行文化中有很好的反响。此外，还有另外两种分析方法可以纠正埃尔兹巴赫的律法主义视角所造成的疑虑。第一种是试图通过区分不同的思想流派来理解无政府主义。第二个是基于对无政府主义运动的历史分析。比起埃尔兹巴赫的研究方法，这些方法能够对无政府主义反对国家的本质做出更微妙的说明。对学派的分析有助于理解反对国家这一概念的广泛性，而历史分析更能说明其与反资本主义的联系。
Anarchist thought: key personalities
One popular approach to the study of anarchism is to trace a history of anarchist ideas through the analysis of key texts or the writings of important thinkers. Paul Eltzbacher, a German judge and scholar, was amongst the first to adopt this approach. His 1900 German language Der Anarchismus identifified seven ‘sages’ of anarchism: joining Proudhon were William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Michael Bakunin (1814–1870), Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939) and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). Eltzbacher’s list has rarely been treated as definitive, though George Woodcock’s Anarchism (1962), which remains a standard reference work, largely followed Eltzbacher’s selection, dropping only Tucker from special consideration in the family of key thinkers. Nevertheless, Eltzbacher’s approach remains popular. Its discussion both provides an introduction to some of the characters whose work will be examined during the course of this book and, perhaps more importantly, raises an on-going debate about the possibility of defifining anarchism by a unifying idea.
Arguments about who should be included in the anarchist canon usually turn on assessments of the influence that writers have exercised on the movement and tend to reflect particular cultural, historical and political biases of the selector. For example, in Anglo-American studies, Bakunin and Kropotkin are normally represented as the most important anarchist theorists; in Continental Europe, especially in France, Proudhon and Bakunin are more likely to be identified as the movement’s leading lights. In recent years selectors have tended to widen the net of those considered to be at the forefront of anarchist thought. In Demanding the Impossible (1992), Peter Marshall not only restored Tucker to the canon, he expanded it to include Elisée Reclus (1830–1905), Errico Malatesta (1853–1932) and Emma Goldman (1869–1940). The same tendency is apparent in anthologies of anarchist writings. Daniel Guérin’s collection, No Gods, No Masters, makes no reference to Godwin, Tucker or Tolstoy but includes work by Casar de Paepe (1842–90), James Guillaume (1844–1916), Malatesta, Ferdinand Pelloutier (1867–1901) and Emile Pouget (1860–1931), Voline (the pseudonym of Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eichenbaum, 1882–1945) and Nestor Makhno (1889–1935). George Woodcock’s Anarchist Reader shows a similar diversity, though it leans far more towards the North American tradition than Guérin’s collection and also includes twentieth-century fifigures like Rudolf Rocker (1873–1958), Murray Bookchin (b. 1921), Herbert Read (1893–1968), Alex Comfort (1920–2000), Nicholas Walter (1934–2000), Colin Ward (b. 1924) and Paul Goodman (1911–1972).
The popularity of Eltzbacher’s approach owes something to Kropotkin – one of his subjects – who in 1910 endorsed Eltzbacher’s study as ‘the best work on Anarchism’.10 One measure of the method’s success is the distinction that is now commonly drawn between the ‘classical’ theoreticians of anarchism, and the rest. This distinction is particularly marked in academic work. Even whilst nominating different candidates to the rank of classical theorist, by and large academics treat nineteenth-century anarchists as a body of writers who raised anarchism to ‘a level of articulation that distinguished it as a serious political theory’ and disregard the remainder as mere agitators and propagandists. In a less than hearty endorsement of anarchism, George Crowder maintained that the ‘“great names” are indeed relatively great because their work was more original, forceful and influential than that of others’. Some writers from within – or close to – the anarchist movement have also supported the idea of a classical tradition. Daniel Guérin’s guide to anarchism, No Gods, No Masters, includes only writings from those judged to be in the first rank of anarchist thought. The contribution of ‘their second-rate epigones’ is duly dismissed. A similar distinction is maintained in popular anarchist publications. Pamphlets and broadsheets produced by anarchist groups continue to focus on the work of Makhno, Kropotkin, Bakunin and Malatesta; and reprints of original work by this intellectual elite can be readily found at anarchist book-fairs and on websites. Some activists are also happy to publish as anarchist literature the work of leading academic social critics – notably Noam Chomsky – establishing a new tier to the intellectual hierarchy.
Yet Eltzbacher’s method has not been accepted without criticism. Indeed, its success has prompted a good deal of debate and his approach has been attacked on a number of grounds. As Guérin noted, one problem with Eltzbacher’s approach is that it can tend towards biography and away from the analysis of ideas. When the work of the masters is given less priority than the details of their lives, the danger is that the meaning of anarchism can be muddled by the tendency of leading anarchists to act inconsistently or sometimes in contradiction to their stated beliefs.14 Another problem is the apparent arbitrariness of Eltzbacher’s selection. Here, complaints tend in opposite directions. Some have argued that the canon is too inclusive, composed of fellow travellers who never called themselves anarchists and those who adopted the tag without showing any real commitment to the movement. Others suggest that the approach is too exclusive and that it disregards the contribution of the numberless, nameless activists who have kept the anarchist movement alive. The problem of inclusion has been exacerbated by the habit of some writers to treat anarchism as a tendency apparent in virtually all schools of political thought. Armed with a broad conception of anarchism as a belief in the possibility of society without government, anarchists from Kropotkin to Herbert Read have pointed to everything from ancient Chinese philosophy, Zoroastrianism and early Christian thought as sources of anarchism. The father of Taoism, Lao Tzu, the sixteenth-century essayist Etienne de la Boetie, the French encyclopaedist Denis Diderot, the American Transcendentalist David Henry Thoreau, Fydor Dostoyevsky and Oscar Wilde, and political leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, have all been included in anthologies or histories of anarchism. As Nicolas Walter argued, this inclusiveness can be misleading:
The description of a past golden age without government may be found in the thought of ancient China and India, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and Greece and Rome, and in the same way the wish for a future utopia without government may be found in the thought of countless religious and political writers and communities. But the application of anarchy to the present situation is more recent, and it is only in the anarchist movement of the nineteenth century that we find the demand for a society without government here and now.
The reverse complaint, that the canon is too exclusive, is in part a protest about the restrictedness of the choices. Who decides which anarchists have made the most important contribution to anarchist thought or to history? In his account of the German anarchist movement Andrew Carlson criticizes theorists of anarchism like Eltzbacher for wrongly suggesting that the German movement produced no writers of repute and that anarchist ideas exercised only a marginal inflfluence on the German socialist movement. Neither view is supportable. Equally misleading is the view, sustained by the canon, that women have made little contribution to anarchism. The anarchist movement has boasted a number of women activists, apart from Emma Goldman, including Louise Michel (1830–1905), Lucy
Parsons (1853–1942), Charlotte Wilson (1854–1944) and Voltairine de Cleyre (1866–1912). These women have made a significant contribution to anarchism and their exclusion from the canon is a sign of unreasonable neglect.
In the other part, the complaints about exclusivity touch on the abstraction involved in the process of selection. Many anarchists resent the way in which the study of anarchist thought has been divorced from the political context in which the theory was first advanced. Such a distinction, they argue, legitimizes the intense scrutiny of a tiny volume of anarchist writings and encourages the achievements of the wider movement to be overlooked or ignored. Some anarchists, it’s true, have worked hard to elaborate a coherent anarchist world view: Kropotkin made a self-conscious effort to present himself as a philosopher. But even Kropotkin recognized that anarchism was defined by the countless newspapers and pamphlets that circulated in working-class circles, not by the theories spawned by people like himself. The vast majority of anarchists have worked as essayists and propagandists and it seems unreasonable and unnecessarily restrictive to assess anarchism through the examination of a tiny, unrepresentative sample of literature. The point is made by Kingsley Widmer:
The parochialism of thinking of anarchism generally just in the Baukunin-Kropotkin [sic] nineteenth-century matrix, even when adding, say, Stirner, Thoreau, Tolstoy or ... what turned-you-on-in a-libertarian-way, just won’t do – not only in ideas but in sensibility, not only in history but in possibility … Either anarchism should be responded to as various and protean, or it is the mere pathos of defeats and the marginalia of political theory.
Leaving the problem of arbitrariness aside, other critics have directed their fire at the conclusions Eltzbacher drew from his study. At the end of his book, Eltzbacher attempted to distil from the wide and disparate body of work he surveyed a unifying idea or core belief that would serve to define anarchism. The idea he settled upon was – as the French academy suggested – the rejection of the state. Anarchists, Eltzbacher famously argued, ‘negate the State for our future’.18 In all the other areas Eltzbacher pinpointed – law, property, political change and statelessness – anarchists were divided. The controversy generated by this conclusion has centred on two points. For some critics Eltzbacher was right to identify anarchism with the rejection of the state, but mistaken in his attempt to classify anarchist families of thought by an apparently scientific method which imposed on anarchism concepts – of property, the state and so forth – that were drawn from legal theory. As one critic put the point, Eltzbacher’s ‘analysis and presentation possessed the finality of a court judgement’. Other critics have been more concerned with Eltzbacher’s general conclusion than with the means by which he purported to distinguish schools of anarchist thought. From this point of view, his mistake was the attempt to identify a common thread in anarchism. Marie Fleming has forcefully advanced the case. In her study of Elisée Reclus – a writer conspicuous by his absence from Eltzbacher’s study – Fleming argues that the study of sages imposes a putative, yet meaningless, unity of tradition on a set of ideas that are not only diverse but also often incompatible. As she points out, Eltzbacher himself admitted that his defining principle – the rejection of the state – was filled with ‘totally different meanings’. In his insistence that anarchists be drawn together in one school of thought, he wrongly prioritized philosophy over history. He encouraged the idea that ‘anarchism embodied a peculiar way of looking at the world’ and overlooked the extent to which it was 'a movement that ... developed in response to specific social-economic grievances in given historical circumstances'.
Fleming’s criticism of Eltzbacher’s method is important but it has not undermined the appeal of classical anarchism and should not be taken as a rebuttal of Eltzbacher’s leading conclusion that anarchism implies a rejection of the state. Individual anarchists will of course continue to centre their anarchism on a range of different concepts – usually more positive than the state’s rejection. Nevertheless the rejection of the state is a useful ideological marker and one that resonates in popular culture. Moreover, it’s possible to find a corrective for the general unease created by Eltzbacher’s legalism in two alternative methods of analysis. The first seeks to understand anarchism by distinguishing between different schools of thought. The second is based on a historical analysis of the anarchist movement. These approaches shed a more subtle light than Eltzbacher was able to do on the nature of anarchist anti-statism. Specifically, the analysis of schools has helped to illustrate the broadness of this concept, and the historical approach its relationship to anti-capitalism.
