This article was signed M.N. and dated 22.2.1909. It was first published in Gustav Landauer's "Der Sozialist", 15.3.1909. Upon a suggestion by Leo Kasarnowski, the later publisher of John Henry Mackay, who identified M.N. as Max Nettlau, it was reprinted in "Der individualistische Anarchist" (The Individualist Anarchist), published by Benedikt Lachman, in Berlin, 1920, pages 410-417. It is here translated by John Zube from the German reproduction in "Zur Sache", No9 (On the Topic, No.9), produced 1985 by the Mackay Gesellschaft, Germany, editor: Kurt Zube, 1905 -1991.
The existence of this article by Max Nettlau was quite new to me and pleased me very much. I had long sought for anarchist responses to De Puydt's essay, but in vain, except within my own close circle. Alas, Kurt Zube had failed to point it out to me earlier. De Puydt's proposal, as a core requirement for a consistent anarchism, supplemented by essential conditions, forms the foundation of the autonomous protective and social communities described in Solneman's 1977 "The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom." Its English edition appeared in 1983. But already in 1930, in Kurt Zube's "Radikaler Geist", Berlin, on pages 450/51 (5th issue), appeared the related programme of Werner Ackermann' s The Cosmpoolitan Union. In "Zur Sache" the program of "The Cosmopolitan Union" is appended but I have left it out here since it has already appeared, repeatedly, in my Peace Plans series, in English, German and even in French. It is the central idea in my own two peace books, in Peace Plans 16-18 & 61-63 (German in Peace Plans 399-401), written between 1962 and 1975.
Herbert Spencer discussed similar ideas in his chapter: "The Right to Ignore the State," in "Social Statics," original edition in 1850 and Johann Gottlieb Fichte discussed individual secessionism in his 1793 book on the French Revolution. Voluntary taxation schemes are one of the preconditions or consequences for panarchies. Historical precedents for panarchism abound and go back much further (but they are NOT discussed in most history books), in the form of personal law associations, capitulations, the millet system or djemma, special courts for foreigners and consular jurisdiction). Remnants of this tradition persisted into the 20th century, e.g. in Morocco to 1955 and to our times, e.g. as personal law in civil jurisdiction, in the Middle East and Malaysia. Curiously enough, most minority groups have shown little to no interest in this form of potentially full exterritorial autonomy for all minorities that want to form their own volunteer communities. They remain addicted to territorialism -- and the atrocities that follow from it.
Panarchism provides the only framework that could, at the same time and in the same country, satisfy the rightful aspirations of all kinds of statists as well as of all kinds of freedom lovers. Since the radical freedom lovers are almost everywhere a small minority and have little chance, in the short run, to convert all the statists to their point of view, they should be the first ones to adopt this program. However, they find it very difficult to do, since they are, like most statists, stuck on the territorial model, which excludes tolerance for exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities. It is also the cornerstone for any rightful and efficient peace, defence, revolution and liberation effort, since it could turn most of the resources of any dictatorial or totalitarian regime against it and could do so without driving the regime into a corner, ready to undertake mass murderous steps. Even the worst regime has some voluntary followers and under panarchism it could retain these, as long as it satisfied them. I know of no better program to defuse and finally abolish the threat posed by ABC mass murder devices combined with popular notions on collective responsibility and enemies, all tied to the territorial model.
One of the remaining panarchistic traits, in all too distorted form, is the practice of and international law on diplomatic immunity. However, this is a bad example because its current version permits diplomats to get away with serious crimes against foreigners. That was NOT the traditional practice in law systems. But then the rulers and their followers or representatives have degrees of secrecy and immunity for their crimes.
A preliminary literature on panarchism, 11 pages, appeared in Peace Plans 66/69.
A 2 pages list of 1989 can be found in Peace Plans 920.
An extended bibliography on panarchism, on 56 pages, can be found in Peace Plans No.1540.
For a long time I have been fascinated by the thought how wonderful it would be if at last, in public opinion on the succession of political and social institutions, the fateful term "one after another" would be replaced through the very simple and self-evident "simultaneously."
"Down with the State!" and "Only upon the ruins of the State. . ." express emotions and wishes of many but it seems that only the cool "Opt out of the State" (No. 2 of "The Socialist") can help them towards their realization.
When a new scientific insight appears, then those convinced of it do simply proceed upon it, without wanting to persuade the old professors who do not intend to follow it or to force them to accept the new way or to slay them: Quite on their own, they will fall behind, diminish in reputation and dry up -- if only the new method is full of life. Indeed, in many cases, maliciousness and stupidity will put many obstacles in the road of the new idea. That is the reason why hard struggles must be fought for unconditional mutual tolerance, until it is finally achieved. Only from then on will everything proceed automatically, science will bloom and advance, because the necessary foundation for every progress, namely experimental freedom and free research have been achieved.
