Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bakunin, Mikhail, a labor organizer, 1870, The Commune, the Church, and the State, (Bakunin’s
Writings, 1947)
I am a passionate seeker for truth and just as strong an opponent of the corrupting lies, through
which the party of order – this privileged, official, and interested representative of all religions,
philosophical political, legal economical, and social outrage in the past and present – has tried to
keep the world in ignorance. I love freedom with all my heart. It is the only condition under
which the intelligence, the manliness, and happiness of the people, can develop and expand. By
freedom, however, I naturally understand not its mere form, forced down as from above,
measured and controlled by the state, this eternal lie which in reality, is nothing but the
privilege of the few founded upon the slavery of all. Nor do I mean that "individualistic,"
selfish, petty, and mock freedom, which is propagated by J.J. Rousseau and all other schools of
bourgeois liberalism. The mock freedom which is limited by the supposed right of all, and
defended by the state, and leads inevitably to the destruction of the rights of the individual. No:
I mean the only true freedom, that worthy of the name; the liberty which consists therein for
everyone to develop all the material, intellectual, and moral faculties which lie dormant in him;
the liberty which knows and recognizes no limitations beyond those which nature decrees. In this
sense, there are no limitations, for the laws of our own nature are not forced upon us by a law-
giver who, beside or above us, sits on a throne.
B) Links
1) The affirmative plan works through the federal government, a structure of social control.
C) Implications:
Kropotkin, Peter, editor of Le Revolt, 1880, The Spirit of Revolt (within Le Revolt)
Those who long for the triumph of justice, those who would put new ideas into practice, are
soon forced to recognize that the realization of their generous, humanitarian, and regenerating
ideas cannot take place in a society thus constituted; they perceive the necessity of a
revolutionary whirlwind which will sweep away all this rottenness, revive sluggish hearts
with its breath, and bring to mankind that spirit of devotion, self-denial, and heroism, without
which society sinks through degradation and vileness into complete disintegration. In periods
of frenzied haste toward wealth, of feverish speculation and of crisis, of the sudden downfall of
great industries and the ephemeral expansion of other branches of production, of scandalous
fortunes amassed in a few years and dissipated as quickly, it becomes evident that the economic
institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity
which they are supposed to guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. Instead of
order they bring forth chaos; instead of prosperity, poverty and insecurity; instead of reconciled
interests, war; a perpetual war of the exploiter against the worker, of exploiters and of workers
among themselves.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.33
The system under which we live checks in its turn the growth of the social sentiment. We all
know that without uprightness, without self-respect, without sympathy, and mutual aid, human
kind must perish, as perish the few races of animals living by rapine, or the slave-keeping ants.
But such ideas are not to the taste of the ruling classes, and they have elaborated a whole system
of pseudo-science to teach the contrary.
Fine sermons have been preached on the text that those who have should share with those who
have not, but he who would carry out this principle would be speedily informed that these
beautiful sentiments are all very well in poetry, but not in practice. “To lie is to degrade and
besmirch oneself,” we say, and yet all civilized life becomes one huge lie. We accustom
ourselves and our children to hypocrisy, to the practice of a double-faced morality. And since the
brain is ill at ease among lies, we cheat ourselves with sophistry. Hypocrisy and sophistry
become the second nature of the civilized man.
But a society cannot live thus; it must return to truth, or cease to exist.
Hierarchy Mechanizes
— CAPITALISM FORCES WORKERS INTO A REPULSIVE AND MECHANIZED
EXISTENCE..
Marx and Engels, Karl and Friedrich , 1848, The Communist Manifesto
Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labor, the work of the proletarians has
lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an
appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily
acquired knack that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted,
almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the
propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its
cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage
decreases.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.26
In our civilized societies we are rich. Why then are the many poor? Why this painful drudgery
for the masses? Why, even to the best paid workman, this uncertainty for the morrow, in the
midst of all the wealth inherited from the past, and in spite of the powerful means of production,
which could ensure comfort to all, in return for a few hours of daily toil?
The Socialists have said it and repeated it unwearingly. Daily they reiterate it, demonstrating it by
arguments taken from all the sciences. It is because all that is necessary for production – the land,
the mines, the highways, machinery, food, shelter, education, knowledge – all have been seized
by the few in the course of that long story of robbery, enforced migration and wars, of ignorance
and oppression, which has been the life of the human race before it learned to subdue the forces
of Nature. It is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few
appropriate today two thirds of the products of human labor, and then squander them in the most
shameful way.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.148
We understand that all men have but one dream – that of emerging from, or enabling their
children to emerge from, this inferior state; to create for themselves an “independent” position,
which means what? To also live by other men’s work!
As long as there will be a class of manual workers and a class of “brain” workers, black hands
and white hands, it will be thus.
Capitalism Is As Bad As Feudalism /Monarchy
— CAPITALISM IS AS BARBARIC AS FEUDALISM.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.31
We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he
surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We called those barbarous times. But if the forms
have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of
free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better
conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger.
The result of this state of things is that all our production tends in a wrong direction. Enterprise
takes no thought for the needs of the community. Its only aim is to increase the gains of the
speculator. Hence the constant fluctuations of trade, the periodical industrial crises, each of which
throws scores of thousands of workers on the streets.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.84
We must offer to the peasant in exchange for his toil not worthless paper-money, but the
manufactured articles of which he stands in immediate need. He lacks the proper implements to
till the land, clothes to protect him properly from the inclemencies of the weather, lamps and oil
to replace his miserable rushlight or tallow dip, spades, rakes, ploughs. All these things, under
present conditions, the peasant is forced to do without, not because he does not feel the need for
them, but because, in his life of struggle and privation, a thousand useful things are beyond his
reach; because he has no money to buy them.
Governments Exploit
— GOVERNMENT IS THE “NEGATION OF HUMANITY” – THE OPPOSITE OF
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE AND THE CAUSE OF WAR.
Governments Exploit/Coerce
— GOVERNMENTS CANNOT AVOID POVERTY AND EXPLOITATION.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.172
Poverty, we have said elsewhere, was the primary cause of wealth. It was poverty that created the
first capitalist; because, before accumulating “surplus value”, of which we hear so much, men had
to be sufficiently destitute to consent to sell their labour, so as not to die of hunger. It was
poverty that made capitalists. And if the number of then poor increased so rapidly during the
Middle Ages, it was due to the invasions and wars that followed the founding of States, and to
the increase of riches resulting from the exploitation of the East. These two causes tore asunder
the bonds that kept men together in the agrarian and urban communities, and taught them to
proclaim the principle of wages, so dear to the exploiters, instead of the solidarity they formerly
practised in their tribal life.
Carter, April, a professor of political science, 1971, The Political Theory of Anarchism, p.25
But for anarchists and many socialists, society becomes the opposite of the State. Society is the
repository of all the good aspects of social life and organization – co-operation, sympathy,
affection, initiative, and spontaneity, while the State incorporates all the bad aspects of social
interaction – coercion, force, and domination; and politics tends to be seen as the arena of force,
fraud, and trickery. The state is an incubus upon society – a distorting factor.
— WE MUST NOT BE COERCED BY GOVERNMENTS – THEY DON’T WORK FOR THE
GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial, and
savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat
more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason
and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good.
But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the
application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a
devil in history, it is this power principle.
Chomsky, Noam, a linguist and policy analyst, 1995, interview with Kevin Doyle,
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
What is called 'capitalism' is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with huge and
largely unaccountable private tyrannies exercising vast control over the economy, political
systems, and social and cultural life, operating in close co-operation with powerful states that
intervene massively in the domestic economy and international society. That is dramatically true
of the United States, contrary to much illusion. The rich and privileged are no more willing to
face market discipline than they have been in the past, though they consider it just fine for the
general population.
Governments Kill Humanity
— GOVERNMENTS MECHANIZE HUMANS, CAUSING EVIL.
Kothari, Rajni, of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, April 1997, Alternatives,
p.233
It is a model of global integration built on all-round splintering and polarizing, producing
destruction and annihilation not through wars and military machines but through starvation,
pestilence, crime, social erosion, and loneliness, growing trade in juvenile and gender-based
populations, drugs, violence, and free-trade in guns and bombs, urban collapse and unexpected
deaths caused by ever more hazardous industries and energy use. Much of the price of all this is
paid by the already unprotected, the insecure and vulnerable, the poor, the minorities, the
refugees, and the least secure of all, women and children. If it is a global order that is being
envisaged, it is a global order built on the social erosion of diverse civil societies and shunting to
the margins of existence ideas of individual freedom and primary bonds, of the pride and dignity
that comes from belonging to a clan or a community, a caste or a tribal ancestry. This is what
capitalist development and the forced urbanization and migration and displacement that are
entailed in it will produce, indeed is producing.
Leight, Samuel, a professor at the University of Arizona, 1984, The Futility of Reformism, p.31
Second, the cause of war is inherent in capitalism – this is a chronic condition that is both
irremovable and incurable as long as the system survives. Given a society organized as a gigantic
market place, wars will continue to be fought over private property and related issues when
diplomacy and negotiations fail. The big question is: will the “small” wars continue on daily
basis, as they have for decades, or will they be interrupted by a worldwide nuclear disaster?
Bookchin, Murray, president of Goddard College, 1994, Reflecting On Nature (ed. Gruen and
Jamieson), p.123
Our present society has a definite hierarchical character. It is a propertied society that
concentrates economic power in corporate elites. It is a bureaucratic and militaristic society that
concentrates political and military power in centralized state institutions. It is a patriarchal society
that allocates authority to men in varying degrees. And it is a racist society that places a minority
of whites in a self-deceptive sovereignty over a vast worldwide majority of peoples of color.
While it is theoretically possible that a hierarchical society can biologically sustain itself, at least
for a time, through draconian environmentalist controls, it is absolutely inconceivable that
present-day hierarchical and particularly capitalist society could establish a non-domineering and
ethnically symbiotic relationship between itself and the natural world. As long as hierarchy
persists, as long as domination organizes humanity around a system of elites, the project of
dominating nature will remain a predominant ideology and inevitably lead our planet to the brink,
if not into the abyss, of ecological extinction.
— HIERARCHY IS INHERENTLY DESTRUCTIVE TO ALL LIFE.
Bookchin, Murray, president of Goddard College, 1994, Reflecting On Nature (ed. Gruen and
Jamieson), p.124
Capitalist society, whether in Western corporate or Eastern bureaucratic forms, is fundamentally
destructive. The power of this society to destroy has reached a scale unprecedented in the history
of humanity – and this power is being used, almost systematically, to wreak havoc upon the
entire world of life and its material bases. In nearly every region, air is being befouled,
waterways polluted, soil washed away, the land desiccated, and wildlife destroyed. Coastal areas
and even the depths of the sea are not immune to widespread pollution. More significantly in the
long run, basic biological cycles such as the carbon cycle and nitrogen cycle, upon which all
living things depend for the maintenance and renewal of life, are being distorted to the point of
irreversible damage.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.182
We know the consequences of the division of labour full well. It is evident that, first of all, we are
divided into two classes: on the one hand, producers, who consume very little and are exempt
from thinking because they only do physical work, and who work badly because their brains
remain inactive; and on the other hand, the consumers, who, producing little or hardly anything,
have the privilege of thinking for the others, and who think badly because the whole world of
those who toil with their hands is unknown to them.
3) We must not allow a minority of the people to benefit from the suffering of the majority.
4) Today’s upper-class could continue to live excellent lives – they would just have to work for it,
rather than exploiting the labor of others.
Dixon, Keith, of Simon Fraser University, 1986, Freedom and Equality, p.72
What most of us take to be “natural”, “ain’t necessarily so!” We may feel that incentives and
rewards are necessary to sustain an efficient level of work; that men will necessarily strive for
power and status and that human wants are limitless. But these assumptions may be socially
derived. Were we to live in a culture where cooperation and not competition were the norm our
conception of human nature might be fundamentally different.
2) People compete now because they have been taught to do so. The new society would teach
different ideals.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.129
Accustomed as we are by hereditary prejudices and our unsound education and training to
represent ourselves the beneficial hand of Government, legislation and magistracy everywhere,
we have come to believe that man would tear his fellow-man to pieces like a wild beast the day
the police took his eye off him; that absolute chaos would come about if authority were
overthrown during a revolution. And with our eyes shut we pass by thousands and thousands of
human groupings which form themselves freely, without any intervention of the law, and attain
results infinitely superior to those achieved under governmental tutelage.
4) This is an utterly pessimistic view of humanity. If you believe that people can never work
together, there’s no reason for wanting to live.
AT: Humans Are Naturally Competitive /No Cooperation
5) COMMUNALISM WORKED UNTIL IT WAS CRUSHED BY THE INEQUITIES OF
GOVERNMENTS.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1913, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.17
One of the current objections to Communism and Socialism altogether, is that the idea is so old,
and yet it has never been realized. Schemes of ideal States haunted the thinkers of Ancient
Greece; later on, the early Christians joined in communist groups; centuries later, large
communist brotherhoods came into existence during the Reform movement. ...
At first sight, this objection seems very serious. However, the moment we consider human history
more attentively, it loses its strength. We see, first, that hundreds of millions of men have
succeeded in maintaining amongst themselves, in their village communities, for many hundreds
of years, one of the main elements of Socialism – the common ownership of the chief instrument
of production, the land, and the appointment of the same according to the labor capacities of the
different families; and we learn that if the communal possession of the land has been destroyed in
Western Europe, it was not from within, but from without, by the governments which created a
land monopoly in favor of the nobility and the middle classes.
6) The affirmative team insists that cooperation is impossible, yet you can see multiple examples
of it in this debate round. All four debaters have agreed to work alongside their partners and you
have agreed to judge the round.
Leight, Samuel, a professor at the University of Arizona, 1984, The Futility of Reformism, p.6
Reforms never live up to their expectations because the very nature of capitalism invariably
sabotages the performance of the reformers. Even when certain problems get resolved they are
replaced with new ones, generally of an equal or greater magnitude. Apart from the wasted
energy and time that reformism engenders, the danger of such activity lies in the inevitable
apathy and disillusionment that arises in the aftermath. These are the breeding grounds for
dictatorial regimes.
5) Reform-based policy has been tried since the birth of hierarchy and hasn’t worked yet. We
have to try something new.
Leight, Samuel, a professor at the University of Arizona, 1984, The Futility of Reformism, p.3
The deluge of propaganda surrounding the reformist administration of capitalism produces the
distractions, confusions and purposeful misrepresentations that have so drastically hampered the
presentation of the socialist case. We are always being advised that socialism is for the distant
future and that “immediate” needs must receive attention. Quite the contrary – the highest, most
urgent, immediate need of the working class is the establishment of socialism within the shortest
possible time.
AT: Some Are Oppressed For the Good of the Whole
1) ANY GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION IS WRONG – WE MUST ADVANCE TO THE NEXT
STAGE OF FREEDOM.
Leight, Samuel, a professor at the University of Arizona, 1984, The Futility of Reformism, p.2
Life for the working class under capitalism, past and present, cannot be compared favorably with
the social benefits of a classless society in socialism which will convey to all common ownership
rights to the means of production and distribution, and democratic privileges that no reformation
of capitalism can ever attain. Attempting to make the working class “better off” is no match for
the advantages of socialism; and the wages system, irrespective of wage levels, should justifiably
be rejected when compared to free access to all goods and services for all human beings.
2) By destroying hierarchy, we abolish the source of all oppression. In a totally-free society like
ours, it would be impossible for coercion to occur.
3) What the affirmative team sees as oppression, we see as a return of rights to the disadvantaged.
Their view is comparable to saying that abolition of slavery oppressed slave owners are taking
away their property.
Hierarchy-Free Society Saves Nature
— HIERARCHY-FREE SOCIETY WOULD HARMONIZE HUMANS AND NATURE AND
FOSTER BEAUTY.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.38
No, plenty for all is not a dream – though it was a dream indeed in those days when man, for all
his pains, could hardly win a few bushels of wheat from an acre of land, and had to fashion by
hand all the implements he used in agriculture and industry. Now it is no longer a dream, because
man has invented a motor which, with a little iron and a few sacks of coal, gives him mastery of a
creature strong and docile as a horse, and capable of setting the most complicated machinery in
motion.
But if plenty for all is to become a reality, this immense capital – cities, houses, pastures, arable
lands, factories, highways, education – must cease to be regarded as private property, for the
monopolist to dispose of at his pleasure.
This rich endowment, painfully won, builded, fashioned, or invented by our ancestors, must
become common property, so that the collective interests of men may gain from it the greatest
good for all.
There must be expropriation. The well-being of all – the end; expropriation – the means.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.108
We see that the worker, compelled to struggle painfully for bare existence, is reduced to ignore
the higher delights, the highest within man’s reach, of science, and especially of scientific
discovery; of art, and especially of artistic creation. It is in order to obtain for all of us joys that
are now reserved to a few; in order to give leisure and the possibility of developing everyone’s
intellectual capacities, that the social revolution must guarantee daily bread for all. After bread
has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim.
No doubt, nowadays, when hundreds and thousands of human beings are in need of bread, coal,
clothing, and shelter, luxury is a crime; to satisfy it, the worker’s child must go without bread!
But in a society in which all have the necessary food and shelter, the needs which we consider
luxuries today will be more keenly felt.
Anarchy Frees
— HIERARCHY-FREE SOCIETIES PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND LIBERTY.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.173
For the day on which old institutions will fall under the proletarian axe, voices will cry out:
“Bread, shelter, ease for all!” And those voices will be listened to; the people will say: “Let us
begin by allaying our thirst for life, for happiness, for liberty, that we have never quenched. And
when we shall have tasted of this joy, we will set to work to demolish the last vestiges of middle-
class rule: its ‘mine and yours’ institutions. ‘In demolishing we shall build’, as Proudhon said;
and we shall build in the name of Communism and Anarchy.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.69
So Utopian are we that we go the length of believing that the Revolution can and ought to assure
shelter, food, and clothes to all – an idea extremely displeasing to middle-class citizens, whatever
their party colour, for they are quite alive to the fact that it is not easy to keep the upper hand of a
people whose hunger is satisfied.
All the same, we maintain our contention: bread must be found for the people of the Revolution,
and the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions. If it is settled in the
interests of the people, the Revolution will be on the right road; for in solving the question of
Bread we must accept the principle of equality, which will force itself upon us to the exclusion of
every other solution.
Carter, April, a professor of political science, 1971, The Political Theory of Anarchism, p.40
Where the level of violent crimes is exceptionally high, or gangsterism particularly well
entrenched, the anarchist case for abolishing the police may be most persuasive. In the United
States, for example, an official Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence has
stressed that poverty is the main cause of the crime rate, and urged the need to completely rebuild
American cities. Nor does the existence of a police force sufficiently reassure the large number of
householders who fear to walk outdoors at night, or have invested in their own guns – a truly
Hobbesian picture.
3) I’m rejecting capitalism right now. All we have to do is convince more people to think like me.
1) Societies of free individuals would have nothing to offer nations – they would have no
marketable goods.
3) Extend- Bookchin in 1971: Once the U.S. acts, freedom will spread, communitizing the
possible enemies.
Sharp, Gene, of the Albert Einstein Institute, 1990, Civilian-Based Defense, p.33
The degree of liberty or tyranny in any political society is, it follows, largely a reflection of the
relative determination of the subjects to be free, of their willingness and ability to organize
themselves to live in freedom and, very importantly, their ability to resist any efforts to dominate
or enslave them. Social power, not technological means of destruction, is the strongest guarantee
of human freedom.
2) Extend- Bakunin in 1870: The new society would not favor individualists.
Chomsky, Noam, a linguist and policy analyst, 1995, interview with Kevin Doyle,
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates “anarchism” with chaos, violence,
bombs, disruption, and so on. So people are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism
and identify myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among the
general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away.
4) Turn/ Today’s society is horribly individualist – People are oppressed for the good of
exploiters.
AT: No Incentive To Work In Anarchy
1) PEOPLE IN A FREE SOCIETY WOULD WORK BETTER AND ATTAIN GREATER
WELL-BEING.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.146
Well-being – that is to say, the satisfaction of physical, artistic, and moral needs, has always been
the most powerful stimulant to work. And where a hireling hardly succeeds to produce the bare
necessities with difficulty, a free worker, who sees ease and luxury increasing for him and for
others in proportion to his efforts, spends infinitely far more energy and intelligence, and obtains
first-class products in a far greater abundance. The one feels riveted to misery, the other hopes
for ease and luxury in the future. In this lies the whole secret. Therefore a society aiming at well-
being of all, and at the possibility of all enjoying life in all its manifestations, will give voluntary
work, which will be infinitely superior and yield far more than work has produced up till now
under the goad of slavery, serfdom, or wagedom.
2) This assumes modern society’s tendency toward exploitation which will disappear once
hierarchy is removed.
3) PEOPLE ARE ONLY LAZY AND BAD WORKERS BECAUSE HIERARCHY FORCES
THEM INTO MISERY.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.156
Somebody has said that dust is matter in the wrong place. The same definition applies to nine
tenths of those called lazy. They are people gone astray in a direction that does not answer to their
temperament nor to their capacities. In reading the biography of great men, we are struck with the
number of ‘idlers’ among them. They were lazy so long as they had not found the right path;
afterwards they became laborious to excess. Darwin, Stephenson, and many others belonged to
this category of idlers.
Very often the idler is but a man to whom it is repugnant to spend all his life making the
eighteenth part of a pin, or the hundredth part of a watch, while he feels he has exuberant energy
which he would like to expend elsewhere. Often, too, he is a rebel who cannot submit to being
fixed all his life to a work-bench in order to procure a thousand pleasures for his employer, while
knowing himself to be far the less stupid of the two, and knowing his only fault to be that of
having been born in a hovel instead of coming into the world in a castle.
4) Those who refuse to work could be excluded from the community. The majority would not
suffer.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.158
Give the workman who cannot condemn himself to make all his life a minute particle of some
object, who is stifled at his little tapping machine, which he ends by loathing, give him the chance
of tilling the soil, of felling trees in the forest, sailing the seas in the teeth of a storm, dashing
through space on an engine, but do not make an idler of him by forcing him all his life to attend
to a small machine, to plough the head of a screw, or to drill the eye of a needle.
Suppress the cause of idleness, and you may take it for granted that few individuals will really
hate work, especially voluntary work, and that there will be no need to manufacture a code of
laws on their account.
6) LIBERATION OF THE SLAVES AND SERFS PROVES THAT PEOPLE WORK HARDER
WITHOUT COERCION.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.144
They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.
But during our own lifetime, have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? Once, by the
anti-abolitionists in America before the emancipation of the Negroes, and, for a second time, by
the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? “Without the whip the Negro will not
work,” said the anti-abolitionist. “Free from their master’s supervision the serfs will Leave the
fields uncultivated,” said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain -of the French noblemen in
1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time
there is a question of sweeping away injustice. And each time the actual facts give it the lie. The
liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with an eager energy, unknown to his ancestors; the
emancipated Negro works more than his fathers; and the Russian peasant, after having honoured
the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work
with an eagerness proportionate to the completeness of his liberation. There, where the soil is his,
he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to
slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.
Anarchy Is Better Than Authoritarianism
— WE PROTECT FREEDOM BETTER THAN BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISTS.
Falk, Richard, a professor of International Law, 1978, Nomos XIX: Anarchism, p.65
Bureaucratic socialists, those who seek to seize state power rather than to decompose it,
contemptuously dismiss anarchists or libertarian socialists as utopians, or worse, as reactionaries.
But the anarchist response is more credible than the challenge here presented. The anarchist quite
properly contends that merely to seize power is to default upon the humanist content of socialism
and to create a new form of despotism.
AT: Permute
1) Extend- Friedman in 1989: Any remaining government returns society to statism.
3) You can’t simply have the affirmative policy standing alone as the sole governance structure.
It’s solvency requires enforcement, funding, and political passage – all responsibilities of other
government agencies.
4) Extend- Bakunin in 1870: Any act of government control is oppressive.
5) In order for a hierarchy-free society to succeed, a clear message must be sent to the people that
government is wrong. The permutation would muddle this message and pervert the counterplan’s
ideals.
2) Our counterplan doesn’t say that we reject technology! For this argument to carry any weight,
the affirmative team has to prove that our authors are against technology.
4) Kropotkin and Bookchin, primary authors, specifically rely upon advanced technology to
reduce drudgery and toil.
Laws Bad
— LAWS ARE CORRUPT AND FAIL.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.64
Some Socialists still seek, however, to establish a distinction. “Of course,” they say, “the soil, the
mines, the mills, and manufactures must be expropriated, these are the instruments of production,
and it is right we should consider them public property. But articles of consumption – food,
clothes, and dwellings – should remain private property.”
Popular common sense has got the better of this subtle distinction. We are not savages who can
live in the woods, without other shelter than branches. The civilized man needs a roof, a room, a
hearth, and a bed. It is true that the bed, the room, and the house is a home of idleness for the
non-producer. But for the worker, a room, properly heated and lighted, is as much an instrument
of production as the tool or the machine. It is the place where the nerves and sinews gather
strength for the work of the morrow.
2) In a hierarchy-free society, everyone could choose their own job. People who decide to take up
skilled labor would do so because they enjoy it.
3) Unskilled labor is no worse than mind work. It’s only in modern society where people are able
to get away with exploiting others that physical jobs are seen as degrading.
4) In a free society, everyone would have everything they needed. It would be impossible to give
extra bonuses to certain workers.
5) The only advantage to getting paid more than others is that you are brought into a position of
greater power. This power can only be used to enslave.
Kropotkin, Peter, 1906, The Conquest of Bread (Elephant Edition, 1990), p.46
The wage system arises out of the individual ownership of the land and the instruments of labor.
It was the necessary condition for the development of capitalist production, and will perish with
it, in spite of the attempt to disguise it as “profit-sharing”. The common possession of the
instruments of labor must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the fruits of
common labor.
AT: Anarchy Is Utopian
1) Extend- Kropotkin in 1906: All we have to do to destroy hierarchy is to strike at it once.
Kropotkin, Peter, an anarchist theorist, 1880, The Spirit of Revolt (within Le Revolt)
When a revolutionary situation arises in a country, before the spirit of revolt is sufficiently
awakened in the masses to express itself in violent demonstrations in the streets or by rebellions
and uprisings, it is through action that minorities succeed in awakening that feeling of
independence and that spirit of audacity without which no revolution can come to a head. Men of
courage, not satisfied with words, but ever searching for the means to transform them into action,
– men of integrity for whom the act is one with the idea, for whom prison, exile, and death are
preferable to a life contrary to their principles,--intrepid souls who know that it is necessary to
dare in order to succeed, – these are the lonely sentinels who enter the battle long before the
masses are sufficiently roused to raise openly the banner of insurrection and to march, arms in
hand, to the conquest of their rights. In the midst of discontent, talk, theoretical discussions, an
individual or collective act of revolt supervenes, symbolizing the dominant aspirations.
3) Hierarchy-free societies existed before in ancient Crete and the Middle-ages. It can happen
again.
2) Issues of slavery and dehumanization don’t change over time. Oppression is always wrong.
3) We do read recent evidence from Bookchin and Friedman, proving that thoughts of a
hierarchy-free society still exist.
4) The age of our evidence further proves the fact that hierarchy is always damaging.
5) The affirmative’s evidence is from journalists, authors, and professors. We quote some of the
founders of the freedom movement – people who actually experienced oppression in Russia and
Germany.
Laws Bad
— LAWS ARE UNJUST HINDRANCES TO HUMANITY WHICH CAN BE
TRANSCENDED.