LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

Leo Tolstoy on the state: A detailed picture of Tolstoy's denunciation of state violence and deception ALEXANDRE J. M. E. CHRISTOYANNOPOULOS [email protected]

ABSTRACT Leo Tolstoy's peculiar religious and political thought has been discussed in numerous studies, yet few of these address a core anarchist concern: his criticisms of the state. Tolstoy denounces not just war but also law and the economy as violent and enslaving, all under the ruthless mechanical supervision of the state machine. Moreover, for him, state authorities are deliberately and hypocritically deceiving the masses, promoting a system that destroys any sense of responsibility, and keeping people hypnotised by regularly whipping up patriotic sentiments - the army being the best example of the strength of all this deceit. Not only is Tolstoy's denunciation of the state as violent and deceptive eloquently written, but much of it has not lost relevance since he first wrote it more than a century ago. Leo Tolstoy believed that the state is a violent and deceitful institution and that in a truly Christian society, the state would be obsolete. In a previous issue of Anarchist Studies, Terry Hopton summarised Tolstoy's political thought and justified its location within the anarchist tradition.1 The purpose of this article is to complement Hopton's broad overview by scrutinizing Tolstoy's critique of the state. Whereas Hopton's article offers a general discussion of the continuity of Tolstoy's thought with his earlier fictional work and then briefly reviews Tolstoy's stances on religion, the state, the economy and revolutionary change, this article examines Tolstoy's condemnation of the state, but does so in considerably more detail. Thus the aim is to enrich Hopton's excellent introduction to Tolstoy's political thought by elaborating on a fundamental anarchist theme and by making more room for Tolstoy's poignant literary style, through use of verbatim quotes. The many arguments against the state that Tolstoy articulates in numerous books and pamphlets are here reorganised thematically, often by substantially expanding on themes already briefly touched upon by Hopton. These themes constitute the headings of the two main sections of the article. The first of these two sections {section 2) focuses on Tolstoy's condemnation of state violence, by exploring his views on war, law, economic exploitation and the effect of the structure of the state on its 20

members. The second (section 3) then explores the state's mechanisms of deception: the hypocrisy of its leaders, the ingrained evasion of responsibilities, the hypnotic power of patriotism and the ultimate paradox of universal conscription. These two central sections are introduced (in section 1) with a review of the secondary literature on Tolstoy and followed (in section 4) by a short conclusion which hints at the contemporary relevance of Tolstoy's writings on the state. Tolstoy often contrasts the modern state with an ideal Christian society to illustrate the incompatibility of Jesus' principles, which he admired, with the state, which he loathed. His understanding of Christianity was deeply rationalistic: for him, Jesus was simply 'the highest representative of [humanity's] wisdom' 2 - what he taught was actually confirmed by reason, and superstitions like the Resurrection were all fantastic stories later added by elites whose interest was to distort the essential teachings of Christianity.3 A critical discussion of this understanding of Christianity, however interesting, is too big a subject for this article. The contention to note here is that for Tolstoy, the essence of Jesus' rational teaching is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus supersedes Old Testament law with his new commandments not to be angry, not to judge, not to swear oaths, to love one's enemy, and in particular not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek.4 Even when nominally 'Christian', Tolstoy argues that the state breaks all these guidelines. The comparison with Jesus1 standards is often made in the same breath as the more 'empirical' description of the state. Together, they combine to form a moving condemnation of the modern state. Some of the power of Tolstoy's writing rests precisely in the contrast between the reality of officially Christian statehood and the Christian ideal. So although the specific aim of this article is to present Tolstoy's critique of the state without considering his alternative, references to Jesus and Christianity have been kept to preserve all its intensity. 1. SECONDARY LITERATURE ON TOLSTOY Before examining his critique of the state, a short review of the secondary literature on Tolstoy's social and political views (leaving aside the enormous amount of studies focusing solely on his fiction) may be helpful in order to contextualise this article within that literature and show why so few of these secondary sources are of direct substantial value to anarchist studies. /./. Biographies Many biographies of Tolstoy have been published over the years.5 These vary in the space devoted to any critical engagement with Tolstoy's political views. For instance, Greenwood and Bayley focus mostly on Tolstoy's 21

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

fiction while also discussing his intellectual influences and some of his theories about life and society in general,6 whereas Maude's detailed biography allows itself to drift into brief reflections about and criticisms of these views but also shies away from more in depth engagement with Tolstoy's radical political writings.7 In any case, by definition, biographies of Tolstoy focus more on his life than on his thought. On a different tone, one also finds essays on Tolstoy's life which seek to ponder certain traits of Tolstoy's idiosyncratic character: Orwell on Tolstoy's lack of tolerance or humility, Sampson on his courageous quest for truth, or Berlin on whether Tolstoy was more of a 'hedgehog' who knows one big thing or a 'fox' who knows many.8 But few biographical works give more than passing consideration to Tolstoy's political views. Slightly more interesting perhaps for students of anarchism is the debate on whether Tolstoy's thought and writings can be divided into two distinct parts: a world-renown author of Russian literature on the one hand and a naive political thinker on the other.13 Some believe this division to be obvious,10 but most perceive strong lines of continuity between Tolstoy's pre- and post-conversion writings." Indeed for Greenwood, Tolstoy himself exaggerates the contested split in an attempt to emphasise the novelty of his discovery.12 Yet existential crises, the search for truth, and his expression of these in artistic works accompanied his entire life. 13 Moreover, Tolstoy seemed to have envisioned the 'founding' of a 'new religion' and seen the state as a conspiracy much before his conversion to Christianity. 14 Either way, whether or not Tolstoy's life and thought can be divided into two parts, as Stepun notes, kisfame is certainly twofold: as an artist and as a 'social prophet'.15

Tolstoy's political ideas in War and Peace, and Sampson's book focuses in particular on Tolstoy's views of power and war in the same novel.21 Crosby offers a short summary and approval of elements of Tolstoy's moral and social code.-2 Redfearn dismisses cheap criticisms of Tolstoy and spends the second half of his book on Henry George's single tax and Tolstoy's position on it.23 Wenzer's book and article offer an even more detailed analysis of Tolstoy's advocacy of Georgism as a transition towards anarchy.24 Finally, Stanoyevitch's articles purport to take a closer look at Tolstoy's views on law, money and property, but in the end disappoint in the relative shallowness of their dismissal.25 What these studies have in common, however, is that they focus on only one aspect of Tolstoy's description of and prescription for society; a more extensive and exhaustive analysis that covers most of his social thought remains to be written.

1.2. On Tolstoy's Views on Religion and Politics Much has been written about Tolstoy's view of religion and how it affects his ethics. Usually, the aim of such publications is mainly limited to summarising Tolstoy's answer regarding the meaning of life and some of its immediate consequences, often with a few added reflections or quick criticisms of it. 16 One can also find some debate on whether Tolstoy's is really a Christian type of ethics.17 But most relentless and detailed among these publications is Spence's exposition and critique of Tolstoy's 'dualism' and all the problems Spence thinks this creates for Tolstoy's ethics.18 Moving closer to politics, one can find various discussions of specific sub-themes extracted from Tolstoy's political thought. Maude, for instance, often returns throughout the second volume of his biography to non-resistance and arguments against it, and devotes a chapter to his divergence from Tolstoy's views on government and patriotism.11' Kennan's article reports a conversation with Tolstoy on non-violence, and his disagreements with it.:n Hopton (in one part of his article) summarises

22

1.3. On Tolstoy in the Anarchist Literature When turning to publications focusing more directly and explicitly on anarchism - be they popular journals, academic studies and textbooks or publications by well-known anarchists - one finds mostly very brief declarations simply affirming his anarchism, despite his dislike of the word and the violence widely associated with it. 26 Likewise, Tolstoy is often named as the best exemplar of Christian anarchism. 27 There is still very little thorough discussion on Tolstoy in anarchist circles. The two best examples continue to be Hopton's and Marshall's excellent broad introductions to Tolstoy's religious belief, his critiques of government and the economy and his strategy for change (Marshall also considers the fate of Tolstoyism after Tolstoy's death).28 Woodcock's treatment also deserves a mention even though it is more descriptive of Tolstoy's fondness for anarchist themes than critically engaged with his specific version of anarchism.29 Similarly, Stephens' introduction offers a good indication of Proudhon's and Kropotkin's early influence on Tolstoy, and a good overview of Tolstoy's thoughts on 'true religion,' non-violence and personal revolution.10 Morris's very short piece focuses more on Tolstoy's conversion and summarises his 'WhatThen Must We Do?', and an old article in Peace News makes the case for Tolstoy's contemporary relevance," Aside from these, one can also find many short introductions to Tolstoy on the internet, but they tend to remain rather short and superficial. 1.4. On Tolstoy's Influence What all this suggests, therefore, is that the substance of Tolstoy's anarchism has largely been left aside (albeit usually respectfully acknowledged) by academic analyses of anarchism, and thus also largely forgotten by society as a whole. There have in fact been several publications on the initial impact and eventual demise of Tolstoyism and i

23

ANARCHIST STUDIES Tolstoyan communities in the West,32 and on the repression of Tolstoyism in Soviet Russia.33 Some further argue that the only lasting legacy of Tolstoy's writings on society has turned out to be his influence on the pacifist movement, especially through Gandhi.34 It is probably fair to say, then, that Tolstoy has never really been given the proper critical engagement and respect that such a thoughtprovoking, methodical intellectual and eloquent writer deserves. It may be that most anarchist thinkers have suffered that same fate, but this is no reason not to look at him anew, not least since none of the problems he identified with society have really gone away. Tolstoy may not have helped his own cause: he was a prolific writer who repeated views with slight modification, depending on the immediate polemic he was contributing to, in the course of writing a huge number of essays and books. It can therefore take long hours of (nevertheless artistically rewarding) reading to familiarise oneself with the main elements of his political theory. Hence the aim of this article: to bring his often scattered ideas together and consider them thematically. The hope is to stimulate students of anarchism into engaging further with Tolstoy's unique Christian anarchist writings. 2. STATE VIOLENCE The main lesson that Tolstoy learnt from his rediscovery of Christianity was that violence is never justifiable, because it always causes more violence further down the line.35 It is therefore not surprising that his criticisms of the state focus on various aspects of state violence. 2.1. War

Although Tolstoy came to denounce war as one of the most brutal instances of state violence, one must concede that his earlier novels, including of course his classic War and Peace, betray a much less condemnatory fascination with the physiognomy of war.36 E. B. Greenwood thus remarks that in several of his early novels, Tolstoy not only accepted war as a necessary part of life but was even comfortable enough with the phenomenon to describe it in epic, poetic terms.37 After his conversion to Christianity, however, Tolstoy's fascination turned to outright aversion both of the process of war and of the hypocrisy by which 'Christian' states justified an activity which was blatantly opposed to Jesus' instructions. However eloquent Tolstoy might have been in his description of war in his novels, he now applied his literary talent to portray it as an intolerable picture of mindless brutality. In 'Christianity and Patriotism,' this is how he looks forward to the next war that Russia is inevitably going one day to engage in: 24

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE And hundreds of thousands of simple kindly folk, torn from their wives, mothers, and children, and with murderous weapons in their hands, will trudge wherever they may be driven, stifling the despair in their souls by songs, debauchery, and vodka. They will march, freeze, suffer from hunger, and fall ill. Some will die of disease, and some will at last come to the place where men will kill them by the thousand. And they, too, without themselves knowing why, will murder thousands of others whom they had never before seen, and who had neither done nor could do them any wrong.38 Whatever his earlier acceptance or even aesthetic admiration of war, after his conversion to Christianity, Tolstoy abhorred it (suggesting at least some degree of rupture in Tolstoy's intellectual development). Tolstoy's view is that 'war is the inevitable outcome of the existence of armed men' - that is, of armies.39 Each government justifies the existence of an army to defend itself from neighbouring states, but 'that is what all governments say of one another,' so in the end, '[t]he power of the State, far from saving us from attacks by our neighbours, is on the contrary itself the cause of the danger of such attacks.'40 Only because (other) armies exist can we be convinced that we also need an army, but then the very existence of our army is also what convinces others that they, too, need an army of their own. The argument is circular and self-defeating. But the real purpose of armies, Tolstoy suspects, is the defence of privileges stolen by the elites - stolen, that is, from 'neighbouring brigands' as well as from their own 'enslaved subjects.'41 In an epigraph to one of his chapters, Tolstoy quotes the following words from Lichtenberg: 'If a traveller were to see a people on some far-off island whose houses were protected by loaded cannon and around those houses sentinels patrolled night and day, he could not help thinking that the island was inhabited by brigands. Is it not thus with the European states?'42 What armies protect is only what has been unduly earned from plundering other states, as well as what has been stolen from the enslaved domestic population. And the main tool used by the state to enslave its people, Tolstoy says, is law.

2.2. Law Tolstoy declares that 'the essence of slavery lies [...] in the fact that legislation exists - that there are people who have power to decree laws profitable for themselves.'43 The one characteristic of all laws is that their enforcement is based on the threat of punishment: if one man does not fulfil them, 'those who have made these laws will send armed men, and the armed men will beat, deprive of freedom, or even kill, the man who does not obey the law.'44 Violence or the threat of it is critical to the enforcement of law, and for Tolstoy self-evidently a sign of enslavement: 25

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

'being compelled to do what other people wish, against your own will, is slavery.'45 As long as violence is used to compel people to obey a law against their will, there will be slavery. The problem, Tolstoy argues, lies in the combination of law with social pluralism. Every state action is considered good by some and pernicious by others - in other words, there are always disagreements about state action. As long as there are some people who disagree with any given state action, with any given law, then all state activity eventually requires violence to be enforced.46 Thus all state activity logically results in slavery. The very existence of the state is inescapably bound to violence and slavery. Tolstoy furthermore rejects the idea that laws reflect the will of the whole people since, he says, those who wish to break these laws arc always more numerous than those who wish to obey them,47 More to the point, if laws expressed the will of the people, violence would not be necessary to enforce them. In fact, Tolstoy insists,

Tolstoy also addresses the argument that people need to be guided, that they need to be taught how to live in a way that ensures the well-being of the entire community. Fine in principle, says Tolstoy, but what proof is there that those legislators 'are wiser than those on whom they inflict violence?'51 Actually, he continues, '[t]he fact that they allow themselves to use violence towards human beings, indicates that they are not more, but less wise than those who submit to them.'52 A violent guide is neither wise nor rational. As another anonymous epigraph to one of his chapters reads, 'Why does man have reason if he can only be influenced by violence?' 51 For Tolstoy, reason and violence are mutually exclusive:

everyone knows that not in despotic countries only, but also in the countries nominally most free - England, America, France, and others - the laws are made not by the will of all, but by the will of those who have power, and therefore always and everywhere are such as are profitable to those who have power: be they many, or few, or only one man.4* Tolstoy thus rejects the standard case for preferring representative democracy to authoritarianism. In an anonymous epigraph to one of Tolstoy's chapters, the tone of which suggests it was actually written by him, one can read: When among one hundred men, one rules over ninety-nine, it is unjust, it is a despotism; when ten rule over ninety, it is equally unjust, it is an oligarchy; but when fifty-one rule over forty-nine (and this is only theoretical, for in reality it is always ten or eleven of these fifty-one), it is entirely just, it is freedom! Could there be anything funnier, in its manifest absurdity, than such reasoning? And yet it is this very reasoning that serves as the basis for all reformers of the political structure.49 According to Tolstoy, the idea that the rule of the majority is somehow an embodiment of 'justice,' of 'freedom,' is utterly ridiculous. Democratic or not, 'Laws are rules, made by people who govern by means of organised violence for non-compliance with which the non-complier is subjected to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered.'50 Laws are written by those in power, in line with their own interests; and since they require violence to be enforced, they amount de facto to slavery. 26

One of two things: either people are rational beings or they are irrational beings. If they are irrational beings, then they are all irrational, and then everything among them is decided by violence, and there is no reason why certain people should, and others should not, have a right to use violence. In that case, governmental violence has no justification. But if men are rational beings, then their relations should be based on reason, and not on the violence of those who happen to have seized power. In that case, again, governmental violence has no justification.- 4 For Tolstoy, no government can rationally justify the use of violence to educate the population. Social order is maintained either by reason or by violence. In the last years of his life, while Tsarist Russia was in increasing political turmoil, Tolstoy wrote a pamphlet in which he insisted that both the government and the revolutionaries were equally immoral in their use of violence to justify their aim.55 But, he noted, revolutionaries only acted as the government taught them to. They were 'educated' by a violent state under enslaving laws, so their violent conduct was like that of a misbehaved child mimicking unruly parents. Yet just as the child's behaviour is understandable, Tolstoy argued that the revolutionary policy was at least coherent: unlike the government, revolutionaries did not pretend to be Christians but repudiated all religion; unlike the government, their actions were consistent with their proclaimed philosophy.56 In short, Tolstoy considered all laws to amount to violence and thus slavery, be they passed by democratic or by despotic governments. By their very nature, these laws cannot educate - they can only exhaust reason. And their purpose is none other than the economic exploitation of the populace. 2.3. Economic Slavery As Hopton remarks, for Tolstoy, exploitation is a product of the economic system just as violence is a product of the state system; but economic exploitation is in fact violence, only a form of violence that is 'more subtle 27

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

and more pervasive' precisely because it is less obvious yet equally restraining than direct physical violence.37 Tolstoy argues that the state uses its legitimised monopoly of violence against its own poorer citizens in order to maintain the wealth of the privileged. Throughout his writings, he describes several instances of such economic exploitation that he himself witnessed, and then uses these cases as starting-points for his ensuing reflections on the ills of state power.58 Tolstoy argued that all states were exploitative no matter how they were constituted: authoritarian Russia was using more visible methods than liberal regimes, but that was the only difference. In fact, his critique could easily be adapted by those who, today, see capitalism as slavery disguised under benevolent investment. The following cynical statement, for example, has hardly lost any of its potency in the twenty-first century:

by public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence;'62 but '[t]ens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor, while thousands of people close by have no fuel, need protection by violence.'63 Laws on private property only protect those who should not own what they have appropriated for themselves. Laws protect the wealthy. Throughout history, new excuses have constantly been sought to justify the uneven distribution of the burden of labour across society. Thus '[i]n olden times, men who utilized the labor of others asserted, first, that they belonged to a different race; and secondly, that they had from God a peculiar mission, - caring for the welfare of others; in other words, to govern and teach them.'64 The justification was biological and theological. But over time, this justification gradually lost its ground.65 So, Tolstoy submits, new excuses have had to be devised, and this time 'science' provided the explanation.66 This new justification for the 'idleness of all so-called educated people' (and the concomitant slavery inflicted upon the rest of the population), according to Tolstoy, runs like this: 'We men who have freed ourselves from the common human duty of taking part in the struggle for existence, are furthering progress, and so we are of great use to all human society, of such use that it counterbalances all the harm we do to the people by consuming their labor.'67 In other words, this apparently uneven division of labour is the best possible distribution to ensure the progress of society as a whole. Society is like a natural organism, with different members performing different functions, so the current distribution of labour is the most natural to reach - it is the natural equilibrium of a healthy, organic society.68 Of course, for Tolstoy, this 'scientific' justification for an unjust economic system is, quite simply, another cunning He concocted by those who benefit from it. For a start, this theory is not drawn from 'the natural properties of human societies,' but merely from a 'particular case.'69 That a society must reach such uneven division of labour is not a universal truth, but only what happens under specific circumstances. And the defining feature of these circumstances is the presence of a privileged minority in charge of a powerful state that defines the rules by which the majority is to live, and that uses force to ensure compliance with these rules. Under these conditions no division of labour can be described as 'natural.' If the division of tasks happens by itself, guided by reason and conscience, then this division of labour is a right one; but as soon as any form of coercion distorts the workforce's choices, then the result is 'usurpation of other men's labor,' which is far from natural or just.70 Tolstoy accepts that there has always been a division of labour, but it is what guides it that defines whether or not it is acceptable. If guided by

If the slave-owner of our time has not slave John, whom he can send to the cess-pool to clear out his excrements, he has five shillings of which hundreds of Johns are in such need that the slave-owner of our times may choose anyone out of hundreds of Johns and be a benefactor to him by giving him the preference, and allowing him, rather than another, to climb down into the cess-pool.59 Although modern slavery is not as explicit and visible as it was in preemancipation America, it is slavery nonetheless. In fact, economic slavery is even worse than the slavery described in history books, because it is veiled under the illusion of free choice, and is considered natural, even beneficial. The slave-owner of today is not the wealthy colonist anymore, but the benevolent business owner, the shareholder. Indeed, the poorer members of any (local or, today, global) community face little choice: 'for a bare subsistence, people, considering themselves freemen, [think] it necessary to give themselves up to work such as, in the days of serfdom, not one slave-owner, however cruel, would have sent his slaves to.'60 Just to get bread on their table, poor employees are obliged to put up with humiliating working conditions. The economic model championed by the enlightened state and protected by its laws ensures that 'one way or the other, the labourer is always in slavery to those who control the taxes, the land, and the articles necessary to satisfy his requirements.'61 Today's labourer is no better than yesterday's slave, and the state system ensures that things remain that way. Why, other than to protect the wealthy, would laws (hence violence) need to be invoked, for instance, to defend the private ownership of land? Only large swathes of misused land, of stolen property, need to be protected by aggressive legislation. For Tolstoy, '[tjhings really produced by a man's own labour, and that he needs, are always protected by custom, 28

29

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

reason and conscience, by the free and rational choice of workers, then the division is just; but if distorted by violence, then it cannot be right.71 And it is no good to declare that this division of labour allows science to flourish or humanity to progress because new technology multiplies the poor workers' plight at least as much as it allegedly relieves it:

fiction. Everything that would disturb the external appearance of wellbeing, all the hungry people, the sick, the revoltingly vicious, all are hidden away where they cannot be seen.'76 Even if it tries its best to appear holy, the state structure is a malicious system that transgresses all that Jesus' rational teaching stands for. The state, therefore, is an organisation that 'resembles a cone of which all the parts are completely in the power of those people, or that one person, who happens to be at the apex,' an apex which 'is seized by those who are more cunning, audacious, and unscrupulous than the rest.'77 So even in a 'democracy,' one must not be deluded into thinking that the rulers are honest 'representatives of the aggregate of citizens,' because all they are is 'a set of men who do violence to others.'78 Democratic or not, the leaders of a state can only be bullies: 'To seize power and retain it, it is necessary to love power,' but love of power comes with 'pride, cunning, and cruelty.'™ Because of the very structure of the state, to reach its apex, one needs characteristics that come with immorality and viciousness. In any case, supposing that good persons can reach this apex, they would quickly be corrupted since the state's mechanisms require the transgression of the most basic principle of morality:

Though a workingman, instead of walking, can use the railway, it is this very railway which has caused his forest to be burned, and has carried away his bread from under his very nose, and put him into a condition which is next door to slavery to the railway proprietor.72 The new knowledge and technologies made available by science arc much more accessible to the wealthy few than to the enslaved workforce, which means that it is the privileged slave-owners, rather than the slaves, that stand to gain the most from 'scientific progress.' So those who invoke sociological laws to justify their comfortable position in the current economic system are just fortunate liars. They may say '[i]t is not we who have done all this; it has been done of itself; as children say when they break any thing, that it broke itself. [...] But that is not true.'71 One need only watch the lifestyle of these people and realise that they are not innocent. They like to think that their prosperous lifestyle has no connexion with the economic and political violence perpetrated by the state, [tjhey like to believe that their privileges exist of themselves, and result from voluntary agreement among people, and that the violence enacted also exists of itself, and results from some general, higher juridical, political, or economic laws. They try not to see that they enjoy their advantages as a result of the very thing which forces the peasants who have tended the wood and are of great need of the timber to yield it up to a wealthy landowner, who took no part in tending it during its growth and is in no need of it - that is, the knowledge that if they do no give it up they will be flogged or killed. 74 But it is not so. Even if they try to hide from the truth and do their best to forget it, these wealthy few and the state system they grandiloquently defend are responsible for the economic exploitation of the masses.75 2.4. A Violent Machine with Violent Elites In sum, because it instigates wars against its neighbours, because it imposes laws upon its people, and because it exploits its workforce, the state is a vicious, brutal and pernicious machine. The state kills, steals and enslaves. Hence '[a]ll that well-being of the people which we see in socalled well-governed States, ruled by violence, is but an appearance, a

30

All men in power assert that their authority is necessary to keep bad men from doing violence to the good, thus assuming that they themselves are the good who protect others from the bad. But ruling means using force, and using force means doing what the man subjected to violence does not wish done, and to which the perpetrator would certainly object if the violence were applied to himself. Therefore to rule means to do to others what we would not have done to ourselves - that is, doing wrong.80 Hence only the wicked can ever be rulers. No good person can ever head a state. In other words, by the very nature of the state, '[tjhe evil always domineer over the good and inflict violence on them.'81 The state's existence is justified on the grounds that it prevents violence and injustice, yet it brings about violence and injustice of itself. Tolstoy borrows a comparison made by Eugen Schmitt: 'Governments, justifying their existence on the ground that they ensure a certain kind of safety to their subjects, are like the Calabrian robber-chief who collected a regular tax from all who wished to travel in safety along the highways.'82 The state sells itself to its subjects by proposing to keep them safe, yet the only real threat to their security comes from the state itself and sure enough, if the subjects do not pay and obey, various laws ensure that their safety is indeed at risk. Moreover, the system is very cunning: once established, the state (like the Calabrian robber-chief) can easily

31

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

maintain itself, as taxes are collected by troops which are maintained by means of these very taxes.83 The state justifies its existence to curb internal dissent and violence, but in the process grants itself a monopoly of violence that, in this case, is unchecked by any moderator- so it freely uses and misuses its supremacy, and thereby behaves exactly like the villain it is supposed to eradicate, only on a much broader scale.84 But coercion can only work while the other is weaker: one day the weak will grow strong and retaliate by using the same brutal techniques that had kept them in check.85 In other words, state violence breeds more violence, and the ensuing vicious cycle brings society further and further away from Jesus' teaching. In sum, for Tolstoy, a state cannot but be violent and must therefore be un-Christian and irrational. Christian states do not escape this verdict: all the states that have allegedly adopted Christianity have forced both their own peoples as well as neighbouring ones to act against their will.86 Because of its very structure and because those who lead it cannot be anything but immoral and self-interested, the state is necessarily violent and domineering.

for the then recent Franco-Russian alliance, warning that although state leaders pretended that this alliance was a peaceful one, it was in fact a clear declaration of warlike intentions against Germany.93 Why else would millions continue to be spent on the military, and why else would the military advantage of this alliance be stressed by the press?94 These alliances are agreed precisely because of their military advantage; they are clearly geared towards future wars. But the hypocrisy of state authorities and associated elites does not apply only to the international sphere. Whether about war or about more domestic concerns such as economic slavery, they only propose amendments to current arrangements that do not deprive them of their privileges.95 They defend the feebleness of the changes they introduce by the need to preserve 'culture' or 'civilisation.'96 The current state and its economic system, they say, is what brought about 'culture,' so we must guard against introducing too radical a change lest it destroys this unique cultural heritage. But a culture that is the product of violence rather than reason and which results in oppression is not one that Tolstoy is prepared to preserve and defend. Affluent elites will also invoke 'iron laws,1 such as the natural division of labour mentioned above, to claim that things cannot be changed substantially anyway. Some will rely on the theological justification, inspired by official Christianity, which states that people have different destinies; others will point to the Hegelian idea that the state is a historical necessity; others still will put forward the scientific view whereby society is like a biological organism - but they will all hide behind some false theory to explain why they do not implement the only change that really would improve the condition of the people: the abolition of the state and the honest implementation of Jesus' rational teaching.97 None of these 'iron laws,' Tolstoy argues, are immutable. Instead, the current conditions of society 'merely result from human laws concerning taxes, land, and above all, [... ] concerning property.*98 Thus 'it is not some sociological "iron" law, but ordinary man-made law, that produces slavery.'99 Man-made laws are written precisely to enslave the people, and the claim that their plight cannot be radically improved is just another hypocritical statement by the elites to defend the status quo. Clearly, then, the authorities do not live by the Christian values that they profess. Christianity proclaims the equality of men, yet these elites are busy justifying the unequal system that they happen to benefit from.100 Moreover, their hypocrisy 'corrupts, embitters, and brutalizes people' because it 'wipes out in men's consciousness the difference between good and evil and thereby debars them from avoiding evil and seeking good, depriving them of the very essence of true human life and therefore blocking the path to all improvement.'101

3. ORGANISED DECEPTION Over and above its inherent violence, Tolstoy fiercely denounces another key characteristic of the state: its structure of deception.87 This section examines Tolstoy's understanding of deception and the ways in which it becomes manifest in the state. 3.1. Hypocrisy of State Authorities Since for Tolstoy, the cause of state violence lies in the very existence of the state, war, for instance, cannot be eradicated by peace conferences and alliances - for the scourge of war to disappear, the state itself must disappear. To pretend that international treaties and alliances can eradicate war, Tolstoy says, is sheer hypocrisy. Who would enforce such treaties anyway?88 Other states using their armies? How would that be different from war? Peace treaties are based on cooperation between existing states, but according to Tolstoy, it is the very existence of these states that causes wars in the first place.89 Besides, these treaties are never honestly lived up to: soon enough, state leaders always find a way to argue that this or that war does not actually contravene this or that international treaty.90 They sign treaties with the stated aim of ensuring peace, but months later argue that this or that new danger faced by their people is an exception to the treaty and must be dealt with using the tools of war.91 As to bilateral alliances to allegedly guarantee peace, they are blatantly alliances for war.92 Tolstoy devoted a whole essay on the 1893 celebrations 32

33

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

The irresponsible lifestyle daringly enacted by the upper-class in the name of Christianity corrupts the consciousness of those that look up to it. 'Instead of changing their way of life' and becoming shining beacons of Jesus' sensible teaching, these elites 'try by all means to stifle and deaden consciousness.'102 The pinnacle of their hypocrisy is finally reached when, having thus brutalised people, they 'then produce these same people [...] to prove that it is impossible to deal with people except by brutal violence!'10:1 This completes the self-fulfilling logic of the elites' hypocrisy.

At each rung on the ladder, men think they are merely fulfilling their 'duty,* they are just doing the job they were appointed to do. 110 Some are bound by oaths of allegiance; others are just honouring their professional function - but they are certainly not answerable for the cruel deeds committed by the state as a whole. As a result, the moral responsibility that men are built to feel is diluted in the system. Tolstoy explains:

3.2. Evasion of Responsibility As already mentioned, economic and political elites shrug their shoulders at the exploitation of the masses, as if there was no other choice.104 They actually believe their own lies about this being the result of unalterable laws.105 Tolstoy in fact suggests that 'people of the well-to-do classes, believe this because they must believe it.'106 That is, either they must realise that their whole way of life is based on robbery and murder, and that they are 'very dishonourable men; or they must believe that all that takes place, takes place for the general advantage, in accord with unalterable laws of economic science.'107 Consciously or unconsciously, they shut their eyes to their true responsibility and blame external iron laws: they must believe that they are not at fault, because otherwise, surely, they would stop. Furthermore, the state system is so arranged that it becomes easy to think that somebody else is responsible for state violence. Hopton explains how each individual unit shifts responsibility either higher up or lower down the system.108 But in line with the aim of scrutinizing themes raised by Hopton, Tolstoy's own words deserve to be reproduced here: At the bottom of the social ladder soldiers with rifles, revolvers, and swords, torture and murder men and by those means compel them to become soldiers. And these soldiers are fully convinced that the responsibility for their deed is taken from them by the officers who order those actions. At the top of the ladder the Tsars, presidents, and ministers, decree these tortures and murders and conscriptions. And they are fully convinced that since they are either placed in authority by God, or the society they rule over demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held responsible. Between these extremes are the intermediate folk who superintend the acts of violence and the murders and the conscriptions of the soldiers. And these, too, are fully convinced that they are relieved of all responsibility, partly because of orders received by them from their superiors, and partly because such orders are expected from them by those on the lower steps of the ladder.1011 34

Not a single judge will consent to strangle with a rope the man whom he has condemned to death in his court. No one of higher rank will consent to snatch a peasant from his weeping family and shut him up in prison. [...] These things are due to that complicated machinery of Society and the State, which makes it its first business to destroy the feeling of responsibility for such deeds, so that no man shall feel them to be as unnatural as they are. Some make laws, others apply them. Others again train men and educate them in the habit of discipline, in the habit, that is to say, of senseless and irresponsible obedience. Again others, and these are the best trained of all, practise every kind of violence, even to the slaying of men, without the slightest knowledge of the why and wherefore. We need only clear our mind for an instant from the network of human institutions in which we are thus entangled, to feel how adverse it is to our true nature.1" This subdivision of tasks is the only explanation for why men collectively commit such barbarous acts. They lose sight of the fact that their own contribution is at least partly morally responsible, along with the contribution of all the other individual units in the complex machinery, for the violence they inflict upon others.112 Thus all the units of the state system are hypnotised into feeling they have special duties. 113 They forget that they are just men, equal to other men, and instead 'represent themselves to others as being [...] some special conventional beings: noblemen, merchants, governors, judges, officers, Tsars, ministers, or soldiers, not subject to ordinary human duties but to aristocratic, commercial, governatorial, judicial, military, royal, or ministerial, obligations.' 114 They are intoxicated by their social function and overlook their most basic moral responsibilities as human beings. Even the ruling classes hypnotise themselves to some extent. 115 Still, consciously or unconsciously, they are the ones who perpetuate the system: Tolstoy believes that the subdivision of tasks that alleviates any feeling of responsibility for a public execution 'is carefully arranged and planned by learned and enlightened people of the upper class.'"6 To some extent, state authorities arc hypnotised just like everybody else; but as the men lucky

35

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

enough to get an education, as the men formally in charge of the state machinery, they also ensure that the various tasks of any act of state violence remain cleverly subdivided so as to alleviate anybody's potential feeling of responsibility. And of course, when the church (with its alleged moral aura) then comes in and approves of public executions, people are led to believe that it is not such an immoral or evil thing after all. 117 So the complex machinery of the state, supported as it is by the church, ensures that nobody takes moral responsibility for the immoral acts committed in the name of the state (or Jesus). People blame immutable laws for the social ills they do nothing to improve; and they shift responsibility for acts of state violence either above them, to those who formally ordered them, or below, to those who asked for these orders to be sent or to those who will actually commit the dirty work for them. The result is moral depravity on a collective scale. Hence Tolstoy's quotation from Kant: 'We live in an age of discipline, [...] but it is still far from being a moral age.'118 Morality is sacrificed for discipline; it is diluted in the state machinery.

peoples of the so-called Christian world'to a 'state of brutality.'128 A lot of thinking remains to be done for true Christian consciousness to shake off this cruel feeling of patriotism.129 But if patriotism continues to brutalise even the people who come across Jesus' rational teaching, it is because these people are hypnotised into adoring their nation and their state system from very early childhood.130 The state will use every trick in the book to instil patriotism in all its citizens, from outright bribery to the use of new technology.131 From childhood on, people are taught to respect what is directly contrary to Jesus' teaching - to consider violent institutions as sacred, to avenge insults, to judge, condemn, resist and make war.132 As they grow older, men are often obliged to enrol in the army, where brutal discipline is used as another means of stupefying even the softest, most Christian souls.133 Tough training there deprives men of their humanity, of their rationality,13'' and turns them into 'fit instruments for murder.'135 When conflict eventually breaks out, all 'Christians' come together and blindly join in the war effort. Tolstoy's own words are so moving, and so typical of his style, that they merit their extended quotation:

3.3. The Hypnotism of Patriotism This discipline, this hypnotic delegation of morality to the state, is further supported by the blind emotional reverence of patriotism. Tolstoy thus sees patriotism as a deadly myth, a 'gross and harmful delusion,' a 'deceptive dream,' a 'stupid and immoral' sentiment, a 'cruel tradition' that he even compares to a 'psychical epidemic.1"9 As Hopton notes, the sole purpose of patriotism is to bind together rulers and ruled in a common delusion. 120 Patriotism ensures devotion and submission to the existing government.121 It is orchestrated by the ruling classes in order for them to retain their position.122 These ruling classes 'inflame patriotism by perpetrating every kind of injustice and harshness against other nations, provoking in them enmity towards their own people, and then in turn exploit that enmity to embitter their people against the foreigner.'123 It is aroused artificially to divide and rule, to stimulate crude hatred and war upon which the government can then further its 'ambitious and mercenary aims.'124 Seen this way, patriotism therefore amounts to 'slavery.'125 The state needs it to survive: patriotism is its spirit, its blood - without it, the state would die.126 Patriotism is also incompatible with the Sermon on the Mount: as a preference for one's own nationals, patriotism contradicts Jesus' instructions to love your neighbour and your enemy. It may have been useful in former times, but Jesus replaced this Law of Violence with 'the higher idea of a brotherhood of man,' with the Law of Love.127 Nonetheless, two millennia after Jesus, patriotism is still widespread: it continues to kindle artificial enmities, arms races, violence and instability, and reduces 'the 36

Wealthy people contribute insignificant portions of their immorally acquired riches to this cause of murder, or to the organization of assistance in the work of murder, while the poor, from whom the government annually collects two milliards, deem it necessary to do likewise, offering their mites also. The government incites and encourages crowds of idlers who walk about the streets with the Tsar's portrait, singing and shouting hurrah and under the pretext of patriotism committing all kinds of excesses. All over Russia from the capital to the remotest village the priests in the churches, calling themselves Christians, appeal to the God who enjoined love of one's enemies, the God of love, for help in the devil's work - the slaughter of men. And stupefied by prayers, sermons, exhortations, processions, pictures, and newspapers, the cannon-fodder - hundred of thousands of men dressed alike and carrying various lethal weapons - leave their parents, wives, and children, and with agony at heart but with a show of bravado, go where at the risk of their own lives they will commit the most dreadful action, killing men whom they do not know and who have done them no harm. And in their wake go doctors and nurses who for some reason suppose that they cannot serve the simple, peaceful, suffering people at home, but can serve only those who are engaged in slaughtering one another. Those who remain rejoice at the news of the murder of men, and when they learn that a great many Japanese have been killed they thank someone whom they call God.136 37

ANARCHIST STUDIES These are the dreadful successes of patriotism. Stupefied, hypnotised, brutalised, entire nations of 'Christians' unite (sometimes against one another), each pooling all their resources into the killing of fellow men. They thereby forget the social problems back at home, let alone Jesus' wise commands. The folly of patriotism succeeds in making men do the very opposite of what they regard as reasonable. All men say they want peace, but are (artificially made to be) prepared to go to war to defend the Fatherland, their faith, their honour, even civilisation itself; some will moreover feel obliged to go because they have already sworn an oath of allegiance to their government - against Jesus' very warning not to do so.1" And if asked to explain the obvious contradiction, they will say they are too busy for such discussions, which anyway they regard as idle - besides, there is no time to argue when the entire nation is calling for help.138 In other words, patriotism is an incredibly successful method to hypnotise men into submitting to the will of the state. 3.4. The Ultimate Paradox: Universal Conscription Tolstoy therefore maintains that men are caught in a circle of violence made up of four methods that join and support one another.139 The first is intimidation, whereby the state organisation is presented as something sacred and immutable that punishes barbarously any attempts to alter it. 140 The second is corruption, which consists in taking wealth from the working population to enrich officials who then use this remuneration to strengthen people's enslavement. 141 The third is hypnotisation of the people, which retards the spiritual development of men and is organised in a complex manner from early schooling to the encouragement of patriotic and religious superstitions using monuments, festivals, censure and so on.142 The fourth method consists in selecting some strong men from the stupefied masses in order to stupefy and brutalise them further and thus make them submissive instruments for government brutality - that is, military conscription. 143 And for Tolstoy, universal military conscription perfectly exemplifies the profoundly contradictory way of life of'Christian' states.144 Christian children are sent to Sunday school where there are told that they should turn the other cheek, only to be then duly sent to the army where they learn to resist, to hate, to kill. 145 That is to say, men are taught to be at the same time Christians and gladiators;146 and the official teachers of Christianity are paradoxically involved in both.147 The church plays an important role by using its authority to sanction what would otherwise appear blatantly opposed to Jesus' rational teaching. On the whole, the "methods of instruction' used to mould new conscripts are: 'deception, stupefaction, blows and vodka.'148 Together, they ensure that within a year, 'good, intelligent, healthy-minded lads will 38

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE become brutalised beings just like their instructors.'149 These conscripts stop thinking, stifle their conscience and learn to obey blindly and submissively - to the point that they do not even realise that by joining the army, they ironically become the perpetrators of their enslavement.150 It is therefore hardly surprising that Emperor Frederick the Great said: 'If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.'151 The existence of the army depends on the brutalisation and stupefaction of conscripts. Otherwise, they would realise how contradictory it is to be Christian and to be a soldier - let alone an accomplice in one's own enslavement. This paradox of conscription, however, quickly leads Tolstoy to a comparison of the current state of affairs with the ideal Christian society which, although a very interesting area of Tolstoy's thought, is one that falls outside the remit of this article. The point here is that for Tolstoy, instead of recording the social revolution implied in Jesus' teaching, history narrates the composition, by political and ecclesiastical elites, of a brutal, dishonest and hypnotic social system that tramples over Jesus' rational commandments and enslaves those that naively believe themselves to be his followers. This paradox, according to Tolstoy, is most glaringly obvious in 'Christian' states* enforcement of military conscription. 4. THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF TOLSTOY'S CRITIQUE What, then, does Tolstoy's thought tell us? His recurring theme is that the state is a prison that humanity must break out of, but this can only happen if the violence and deception that it is guilty of is exposed. Tolstoy was not comfortable with being called an anarchist because the violence that was then routinely associated with the term was contrary to the non-violence that formed the basis of his own condemnation of the state. Yet this condemnation and his hopes for a stateless society make him an important figure in the broad and eclectic pantheon of anarchist thinkers. 152 Besides, he found it curious that people 'are afraid of anarchists' bombs, and are not afraid of this terrible organization which is always threatening them with the greatest calamities' 153 - they fear exceptional and sporadic bombs but not permanent oppression by the state. Even though he was active a hundred years ago, Tolstoy's accusations of state violence continue to be (almost self-evidently) relevant today.154 As the recent history of the Middle East indicates, wars continue to be waged (at least partly) to exploit other countries' resources, and they continue to cause more conflict further down the line. Laws still lead to violence in the sense that Tolstoy described, and will continue to do so until consensus replaces the tyranny of the majority. Economic exploitation has now spread to a global scale - which if anything makes the hiding 39

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

ANARCHIST STUDIES away of what disturbs any external appearance of harmony even easier. And power is still said to corrupt even the initially most promising political leaders. As to the state's structure of deception, again, little seems to have changed. The United Nations was created to eradicate war, and yet great powers still seek, hypocritically., either to use its mechanisms to legitimise their next war or to bypass these mechanisms altogether. Domestically, too, leaders shy away from truly radical reform by citing timeless laws of social science. Units within the state system continue to evade responsibility for state violence: police officers using the full force of the law on demonstrators will say they followed orders, the legislators who passed the initial law will say they were just representing the views of their constituency, and those in between will similarly argue they are just fulfilling their duty. Patriotism today may in some countries not rely much on church collaboration anymore, and may be slightly less pervasive than at the end of the nineteenth century, but in an age of citizenship classes, flag burning and international football, it remains a key hypnotic tool that benefits the state. Universal conscription may be the only element of the state's structure of deception that seems to have lost importance since Tolstoy's death. Then again, Tolstoy only used it as an illustration of the contradiction inherent in an allegedly Christian society justifying the recruitment of a standing army. If this contradiction is less glaring today, it is not only because many states have returned to professional armies, but also because the role of Christianity has lost much of the importance it still enjoyed in those days. Be that as it may, regardless of his comparisons with any ideal Christian society, and even if Tolstoy passed away long ago, his critique of the state as violent and deceptive continues to resonate in the twenty-first century - which means that he does indeed continue to be a worthy member of the family of classical anarchist thinkers. This article has sought to analyse Tolstoy's anarchist critique thematically to introduce him to new readers and to invite further readings of his work. If his assessment of the state is even partly right, then his call to humanity to shake itself out of its selfinflicted hypnosis and live in love and forgiveness - which he saw as the only possible solution to all this violence and deception - might be considered anew. The author wishes to thank Stefan Rossbach, Nassos Christoyannopoulos, Sharif Gemie, Ruth Kinna, and the three anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

40

NOTES 1. Terry Hopton, 'Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' Anarchist Studies 8 (2000): 2752. 2. Leo Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,1 in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi: Rupa, 2001), 507. 3. Leo Tolstoy, What I Believe , trans. Fyvie Mayo? (London: C. W. Daniel, [ 1902?]); Leo Tolstoy, 'Church and State,' in On Life and Essays on Religion, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1934); Leo Tolstoy, 'A Reply to the Synod's Edict of Excommunication, and to Letters Received by Me Concerning It,* in On Life and Essays on Religion, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1934). 4. Tolstoy, What I Believe. 5. The classic biography is Henri Troyat, Tolstoy, trans. Nancy Amphoux (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967). 6. John Bayley, Leo Tolstoy (Plymouth: Northcote House, 1997); E. B. Greenwood, Tolstoy: The Comprehensive Vision (London: Methuen, 1975). 7. Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy (London: Oxford University Press, 1930). 8. Isaiah Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox (London: Mentor, 1957); George Orwell, Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, available from http://www.orwell.ru/ library/essays/I ear/en glish/ejtf (accessed 7 June 2006); Ronald Sampson, 'Tolstoy on Power," Journal of the Conflict Research Society 1/2(1977): 66-74. 9. For Urban, the 'mystery' of the two opinions on Tolstoy mirrors that of the two opinions of Russia. Wilbur B, Urban, Tolstoy and the Russian Sphinx,' International Journal of Ethics 28/2 (1918): 220-239. 10. Rene Fueloep-Miller, Tolstoy the Apostolic Crusader,' Russian Review 19/2 (I960); 99-121, 99; Marc Slonim, 'Four Western Writers on Tolstoy,' Russian Review 19/2(1960): 187-204, 190. 11. For instance: J. H. Abraham, The Religious Ideas and Social Philosophy of Tolstoy,' International Journal of Ethics 40/1 (1929): 105-120; Archibald A. Bowman, The Elements and Character of Tolstoy's Weltanschauung,' International Journal of Ethics 23/1 (1912): 59-76, 75; W. B. Gallic, Tolstoy: From 'War and Peace'To The Kingdom of God Is within You',' in Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engels and Tolstoy (London: Cambridge University Press, 1978); Richard F. Gustafson, Leo Tolstoy: Resident and Stranger: A Study in Fiction and Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' part 1; Slonim, 'Four Western Writers on Tolstoy,' 196, 203; David Stephens, The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy,' in Government Is Violence: Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, by Leo Tolstoy, ed. David Stephens (London: Phoenix, 1990); George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975). 12. E. B. Greenwood, Tolstoy and Religion,' in New Essays on Tolstoy, ed. Malcolm Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 162; Greenwood, Tolstoy, 125. 13. B. M. Eikhenbaum, 'On Tolstoy's Crises,' in Tolstoy: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Ralph E. Matlaw, trans. Ralph E. Matlaw (Englewood Cliffs:

41

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

Prentice-Hall, 1967), 53-54; Jane Kentish, 'Introduction,' in ,4 Confession and Other Religious Writings, by Leo Tolstoy (London; Penguin, 1987), 12. 14. R. F. Christian, ed., Tolstoy's Diaries, 2 vols., vol. 1 (New York: Scribncr, 1985), 101; R. F. Christian, ed., Tolstoy's Letters, vol, I (London: Athlone, 1978), 95-6. 15. Fedor Stepun, 'The Religious Tragedy of Tolstoy,' Russian Review 19/2(1960): 157-170, 157. 16. Abraham, 'The Religious Ideas and Social Philosophy of Tolstoy'; Antony Flew, 'Tolstoi and the Meaning of Life,' Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy 73/2 (1963): 110-118; Fueloep-Miller, Tolstoy the Apostolic Crusader'; A. A. Guseinov, 'Faith, God, and Nonviolence in the Teachings of Lev Tolstoy,' Russian Studies in Philosophy 38/2 (1999): 89-103; Maude, The Life of Tolstoy, chap. 2; Stepun, The Religious Tragedy of Tolstoy.' 17. Nicolas Berdyaev, The Voice of Conscience from Another World: An Introduction,' in Essays from Tula, by Leo Tolstoy, trans. Free Age Press (London: Sheppard, 1948); Greenwood, Tolstoy, chap. 14; Greenwood, Tolstoy and Religion.' 18. G. W. Spence, 'Suicide and Sacrifice in Tolstoy's Ethics.' Russian Review 22/2 (1963): 157-167; G. W. Spence, Tolstoy's Dualism,' Russian Review 20/3 (1961): 217-231; G. W. Spence, Tolstoy the Ascetic (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967). 19. Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy: Later Years (London: Oxford University Press, 1930), chap. 13. 20. George Kennan, 'A Visit to Count Tolstoi,' The Century Magazine 34/2 (1887): 252-265. 21. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' part I ; R. V. Sampson, Tolstoy: The Discovery of Peace (London: Heinemann, 1973). 22. Ernest Howard Crosby, Tolstoy and His Message (BoondocksNet Edition), available from http://www.broondocksnet.com/editions/tolstoy/index.html (accessed 18 August 2003). 23. David Redfearn, Tolstoy: Principles for a New World Order (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1992). 24. Kenneth C. Wenzer, An Anthology of Tolstoy s Spiritual Economics (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 1997); Kenneth C. Wenzer, Tolstoy's Georgist spiritual Political Economy (1897-1910): Anarchism and Land Reform,' American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56/4 (October 1997): 639-667. 25. Milivoy S. Stanoyevich, Tolstoy's Theory of Social Reform. I,' The American Journal of Sociology l\/5 (1926): 577-600; Milivoy S. Stanoyevich, Tolstoy's Theory of Social Reform. 11,' The American Journal oj 'Sociology 31/6(1926): 744-762. 26. For academic textbooks, see for example Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Second ed (London: Macmillan, 1998), 209; Andrew Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies, Second ed (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 297. For an example of an academic journal article, see R. B. Fowler, The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought,' The Western Political Quarterly 25/4 (1972): 738-752. Note also that Tolstoy's writings have made it into respected 'readers' on anarchism, such as George Woodcock, ed., The Anarchist

Reader (Glasgow: Collins, 1977); Leonard I. Krimerman and Lewis Perry, eds., Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition (Garden City: Anchor, 1966). For more popular press, see for instance Imminent Anarchy Press, The Greatest Violence Is Committed by the State: Reassessing the Works ofTolstoy,' Peace News, 28 October 1983, 10. For statements by other anarchists, see for example Peter Kropotkin, 'Anarchism', from the Encyclopaedia Brilannica (Anarchy Archives), available from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/Kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.ht ml (accessed 26 April 2007); Jim Missey and Joan Thomas, eds., The Book of Ammon by Amman Hennacy, Second ed. (Baltimore: Fortkamp, 1994), 152. 27. Michael C. Elliott, Anarchism: An Annotated Bibliography, available from http://anz.jesusradicals.com/elliott.doc (accessed 17 July 2006); Michael C. Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture (London: SCM, 1990) 125, 212; D. Novak, The Place of Anarchism in the History of Political Thought,' The Review of Politics 20/3 (1958): 307-329, 315; J. Philip Wogaman, 'Christian Pacifist and Anarchist Perspectives,' in Christian Perspectives in Politics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 57. 28. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism'; Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Fontana, 1993), chap. 22. 29. Woodcock, Anarchism, chap. 8. 30. Stephens, The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy.' 31. Brian Morris, Tolstoy and Anarchism (Spunk Library), available from http://www.spunk.org/library/pubs/freedom/raven/sp001746.html (accessed 29 July 2003); Imminent Anarchy Press, The Greatest Violence Is Committed by the State.' 32. Peter Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 465-467; Peter Brock, Tolstoy ism and the Hungarian Peasant,' Slavonic and Eastern European Review 58/3 (1980): 345-369; Fueloep-Miller, Tolstoy the Apostolic Crusader,' 1 1 4 - 1 1 9 ; M. J. de K. Holman, The Purleigh 33. Paul Avrich, 'Russian Anarchists and the Civil War,' Russian Review 27/3 (1968): 296-306; Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914,464-467; Fueloep-Miller, Tolstoy the Apostolic Crusader,' 1 1 6 - 1 1 9 ; Kentish, 'Introduction,' 9-10; Viktor Postnikov, 'Russian Roots: From Populism to Radical Ecological Thought,1 Anarchist Studies 12/1 (2004): 60-71, 67; Gleb Struve, Tolstoy in Soviet Criticism,' Russian Review 19/2 (1960): 171-186; Woodcock, Anarchism, 218. 34. Christian Bartolf, Tolstoy's Legacy for Mankind: A Manifesto for Nonviolence,' paper presented at Second International Conference on Tolstoy and World Literature, Yasnaya Polyana and Tula, 12-28 August 2000; Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, 468-470; Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 82, 382; Stephens, The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy,' 18. 35. Kennan, 'A Visit to Count Tolstoi'; Leo Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,' in A Confession and Other Religious Writings, trans. Jane Kentish (London: Penguin, 1987). 36. Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, trans. Aylmer Maude and Louise Maude (Ware: Wordsworth, 1993).

42

37. Greenwood, Tolstoy, especially chap. 4. 38. Leo Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' in The Kingdom of God and Peace 43

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi: Rupa, 2001), 449. At this point, it is worth confessing that Tolstoy's language is clearly male-centric: he always speaks of 'men,' never - or very rarely - of 'women.' Given the stated aim here of frequently quoting Tolstoy's own words to convey his poignant voice, this unfortunate bias cannot but be regretfully reflected in this article. 39. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 520. 40. Leo Tolstoy, 'The Kingdom of God Is within You,' in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi; Rupa, 2001), 199. 41. Tolstoy, 'The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 190-192. 42. Leo Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,' in Recollections and Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), 253. 43. Leo Tolstoy, 'The Slavery of Our Times,' in Essays from Tula, trans. Free Age Press (London: Sheppard, 1948), 108. 44. Tolstoy, 'The Slavery of Our Times,' 110. 45. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 120. 46. Lyof N. Tolstoi, What to Do? (London: Walter Scott) 148. 47. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 109-110. This argument is, admittedly, rather questionable; but Tolstoy's point is that since laws are made by the affluent minority against the interests of the poor majority, a majority of people are bound to disagree with such unfair legislation - such laws certainly do not represent their will. 48. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 111. 49. Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,' 165. 50. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 112. 51. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 118. 52. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 118. 53. Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,' 161. 54. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 119 (Tolstoy's emphasis). 55. Leo Tolstoy, 'I Cannot Be Silent,' in Recollections and Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1937). 56. Tolstoy, 'I Cannot Be Silent,' 404-409. 57. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' 39. 58. For instance: Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' chap. 12; TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 1 -2; Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' chap. 1. 59. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 95. 60. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 71. 61. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 100. 62. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 117. 63. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 117. 64. Tolstoi, What to Do? 143. 65. TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 26. 66. Tolstoi, What to Do? chap. 26. 67. TolstoT, What to Do? 145.

68..TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 28-30. 69. Tolstoi, What to Do? 76. 70. TolstoT, What to Do? 173, and more generally chap. 31. 71. TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 32. 72. TolstoT, What to Do? 183-184. 73. Tolstoi, What to Do? 133. 74. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 315-316. 75. Tolstoy, 'The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 315-318. 76. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 113-114. 77. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 516. 78. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 162. 79. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 164. 80. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 265. 81. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 267 (emphasis removed). 82. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 124-125. 83. TolstoT, What to Do? 106. 84. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 186-187, 85. Kennan, 'A Visit to Count Tolstoi'; Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 269. 86. Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,' chap. 2. 87. Thus the two main lines of criticism articulated by Tolstoy - of state violence and deception - reflect the two forms of anarchist criticism of government highlighted by Kinna. Ruth Kinna, Anarchism: A Beginner's Guide (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005), 46. 88. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 160; Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,'chap. 5. 89. Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 460. 90. Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,' 226-227; Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' chap. 5. 91. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' chap. 5. 92. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' chap. 5; Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' chap. 5. 93. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism.' 94. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' 442. 95. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 91; Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 237. 96. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' chap. 7; Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 398. 97. TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 38. 98. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes, 1 101. 99. Tolstoy, The Slavery of OurTimes,' 101. 100. TolstoT, What to Do? chap. 26.

44

45

ANARCHIST STUDIES

LEO TOLSTOY ON THE STATE

101. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'378. 102. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 181. 103. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 287. 104. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,'chap. 2. 105. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,'chap. 3. 106. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 85 (emphasis added). 107. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 85-86. 108. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' 37. 109. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 351; the same idea is expressed pages 325-326. 110. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 320, 352-358. 111. Tolstoy, What I Believe 46-47. 112. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 349. 113. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'358. ^ 114. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'354. 115. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 360. 116. Tolstoy, 'I Cannot Be Silent,' 396. 117. Tolstoy, '1 Cannot Be Silent,1 399-402. Tolstoy's extensive criticisms of the church constitute too big a topic for this article - suffice to note here that he was just as critical of the church as of the state, and that in fact he considered them accomplices in each other's depravity. 118. Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,' 211. 119. Respectively: Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 503; Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' 460, 469, 472, and 435. 120. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism,' 38. 121. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,'466. 122. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 508. 123. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 509. 124. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' 474. 125. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' 475. 126. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 527. 127. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 507. 128. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 511. 129. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' chap. 9. 130. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 466; Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,' 332-333. 131. Tolstoy, 'Christianity and Patriotism,'chap. 15. 132. Tolstoy, What I Believe 21. 133. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 30-33. 134. Tolstoy, The Slavery of Our Times,' 123. 135. Leo Tolstoy, Thou Shalt Not Kill,' in Recollections and Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), 196.

136. Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,' 212-213. 137. Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,'chap. 4. 138. Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,' 221-222. 139. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 211. 140. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'211-212. 141. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 212. 142. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'212-214. 143. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,'214-215. 144. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' chap. 7. Although since the Second World War, many such states have taken a step back towards the maintenance of a professional army (but only by relying on the threat of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to compensate for the loss of manpower), the very fact that they had come to such a low shows how unchristian the state essentially is. Besides, Tolstoy would probably see the return to professional armies as a cunning way for elites to make this particular contradiction inherent in 'Christian' societies less glaring. Either way, for Tolstoy, universal conscription is only an example, albeit a powerful one, in support of his case against the state - it is not the cause of his dislike of the state, but merely the ultimate illustration of the fundamental contradiction upon which the state is based. 145. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 139. 146. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 146. 147. Tolstoy, What I Believe 95; Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 338339. 148. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 341. 149. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 341. 150. Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You,' 195. 151. Quoted in Tolstoy, 'Bethink Yourselves!,' 229. 152. Hopton, Tolstoy, God and Anarchism.' 153. Tolstoy, 'Patriotism and Government,' 517. 154. Equally relevant today is his call for humanity to forego once and for all the use of violent means to try to achieve however laudable ends (a view that obviously defines Tolstoy's position in the everlasting debate among anarchists over the use of violence). This particular call and its relevance to the 'war on terrorism' is discussed in Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos, Turning the Other Check to Terrorism: Reflections on the Contemporary Significance of Leo Tolstoy's Exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount,' Politics and Religion I / I (2008): forthcoming.

46

47