Pacifist Anarchism

Pacifist anarchism has taken two forms. That of tolstoy attempted to give rational and concrete form to christian ethics. Tolstoy rejected all violence; he advocated a moral revolution, its great tactic the refusal to obey. There was much however in tolstoys criticisms of contemporary society and his suggestions for the future that paralleled other forms of anarchism. He denounced the state law and property he foresaw cooperative production and distribution according to need.

Later a pacifist trend appeared in the anarchist movement in western europe its chief exponent was the dutch exsocialist domela nieuwenhuis. It differed from strict tolstoyism by accepting syndicalist forms of struggle that stopped short of violence particularly the millenarian general strike for the abolition of war.

Despite their differences all these forms of anarchism were united not merely in their rejection of the state of politics and of accumulated property but also in certain more elusive attitudes. In its avoidanc of partisan organization and political practices, anarchism retained more of the moral element than did other movements of protest. This aspect was shown with particular sharpness in the desire of its exponents for the simplification of life not merely in the sense of removing the complications of authority but also in eschewing the perils of wealth and establishing a frugal sufficiency as the basis for life. Progress in the sense of bringing to all men a steadily rising supply of material goods has never appealed to the anarchists indeed it is doubtful if their philosophy is at all progressive in the ordinary sense. They reject the present but they reject it in the name of a future of austere liberty that will resurrect the lost virtues of a more natural past a future in which struggle will not be ended but merely transformed within the dynamic equilibrium of a society that rejects utopia and knows neither absolutes nor perfections.
marxists lies in the fact that while the socialists maintain that the state must be taken over as the first step toward its dissolution the anarchists argue that since power corrupts any seizure of the existing structure of authority can only lead to its perpetuation. Anarchosyndicalists however regard their unions as the skeleton of a new society growing up within the old. The problem of reconciling social harmony with complete individual freedom is a recurrent one in anarchist thought. It has been argued that an authoritarian society produces antisocial reactions which would vanish in freedom. It has also been suggested by godwin and kropotkin particularly that public opinion will suffice to deter those who abuse their liberty. George Orwell however has pointed out that the reliance on public opinion as a force replacing overt coercion might lead to a moral tyranny which having no codified bounds could in the end prove more oppressive than any system of laws.