Tolstoy: On Anarchy

Tolstoy: On Anarchy

Leo Tolstoy, one of the most revered personalities of his era, author of classics like War and Peace and Anna Karenina, inspiration to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., was a dedicated pacifist and anarchist who advocated non-violent resistance to all governments. In his collection of essays entitled "Government is Violence" he wrote an excellent piece called "On Anarchy" which I've posted below in it's entirety:

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.

Marxist: “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.”

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

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

Anarchist: “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.”

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)

On The Non-Aggression Principle

A main point that most libertarians agree on is the principle of Non-Aggression, better yet stated as a belief of not initiating violence or harm against others. It is at its core one of the strongest moral principles that one can have and also one of the most misunderstood principles and the ability to not cross into hypocrisy defending it. Those people who advocate violence as a means to peace are in conflict of natural tendencies to remain at peace, voluntary cohabitation, mutual cooperation and the moral philosophy of most practiced religions.


There are a growing number of people taking up this principle and as more and more people are confronted with the idea that peace does not require force it becomes needed to put into words what that principle is and what it is not. To differentiate the peaceful alternative to violent means is sometimes a hard pill to swallow and is not the easiest path to take. It does require the utmost character and conviction to handle new ways of dealing with other people in non -violent ways. Too many times to count I have been labeled a pacifist and weak for my belief in this principle, of course most of these times it was in debate of government actions and policies. Let it be said now the idea of not initiating force against another being to obtain ends is not pacifism, it is not a weakness but rather a strength and a moral value worth defending.


Many different religions around the world preach and teach this principle in different words. For Christians it is the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have done unto you. So why do so many reject this principle outside of the walls of their religious temples and buildings? Understanding that religion for many stands as a moral basis and a philosophical groundwork one would think the act of aggression would be slight if any in the religious sects of the world. As we have seen this is not the case. From the beginnings of established religions, present and long forgotten, acts which would kill, maim or hurt others have been a central theme. From the Holy wars, Crusades and even into present day Jihads we see this very clearly, the moral basis of religious belief doesn’t connect to the belief in non-aggression.


One prevalent argument against Non-Aggression advocates is that the idea is pacifist, weak and ultimately utopian. Those that say the non-aggression principle is pacifist in nature are the most in need of this clarification. If an attack is made against someone who advocates the Non-Aggression principle, that person will defend themselves and their property. It is not pacifism but rather a respect for the rights and property of others that leads in the non-aggression principle. As self-defense is not the initiation of force but the protection from aggression it is in the interest and in accordance with most philosophies of proponents of this belief. Those that lack this respect and induce aggression should be dealt with according to the individual dictates of the victim.





What would the world be like without violence, without theft or rape or war? It may be dreaming to imagine a world without these things in it, but why should this be seen as a bad thing. It is those that do not believe in a principled stance against all acts of aggression and violence that have made it necessary for us to dream about this instead of living it. The Non-Aggression principle is a philosophy that respects the rights and property of others. It is a stance to do whatever possible to avoid using violence as a means to ends and rejects the act of initiation of force against all others.

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.


Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.


But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. That’s not what this is about. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?



Ask yourself these questions.
Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?


Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so?


How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?


Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?


Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply?


When is Enough Enough?
This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.


Why is this so important a question?


The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.
So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.


Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?
Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?



Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy
Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page