The philosophy that became known as ‘Tolstoyism’ was outlined in the body of work the writer produced from the late 1870s onwards. It was essentially a form of Christian anarchism based on the doctrine of non-resistance.
Tolstoy rejected the state (because it could only exist on the basis of physical force) and all institutions derived from it: the police, law courts, the army and the Russian Orthodox Church. He condemned private property and money and advocated living by one’s own physical labour. He also came to believe in vegetarianism, complete chastity and abstinence from tobacco and alcohol.
This was a period of intense and widespread concern with social reform and Tolstoy’s ideas appealed to many individuals who were disillusioned with modern industrial society and the politics of the time.
During the 1890s a vigorous Tolstoyan movement developed. Those who formed its core often had a background in socialist or reform politics and their reception of Tolstoy’s writings varied with their own experiences.
At its height in the late 1890s Tolstoyism seemed to be winning western converts by the minute.
Yet by the time of Tolstoy’s death in 1910 the international movement he inspired was in decline and many former Tolstoyans had turned to other socialist or cooperative enterprises.
Tolstoy’s philosophy of non-resistance influenced and was developed by later thinkers. The most famous of these was Gandhi, who corresponded with Tolstoy in the year before the latter’s death, founded a cooperative colony named for Tolstoy in South Africa and drew on Tolstoy’s idea in the development of his own philosophy of non-violent, or passive resistance.
Cataloguing the failures of the movement serves to obscure the more interesting questions about why individuals chose Tolstoyism, why they subsequently rejected it and the contexts from which they arrived and into which they departed.
Great author, but he wasn’t an anarchist as much as a pacifist. The scorn that Mises heaped on the ‘anarchist’ position fully applies to Tolstoy’s ideas.
“Great author, but he wasn’t an anarchist as much as a pacifist. The scorn that Mises heaped on the ‘anarchist’ position fully applies to Tolstoy’s ideas.”
I think Camus said it best in The Rebel (**L’Homme révolté):
“Christ, for Nietzsche as for Tolstoy, is not a rebel. The essence of His doctrine is
summed up in total consent and in nonresistance to evil. Thou shalt not kill, even to prevent killing. The
world must be accepted as it is, nothing must be added to its unhappiness, but you must consent to suffer
personally from the evil it contains.”
I think Tolstoy’s position both an acceptance of evil, while refusing to do evil. You must accept evil in order to not do it.
Also, some off the top of head things to consider based soley off the bullet points:
It seems that “Tolstoyism” ought to be compared to such things as “similar” (not neccasarily ideologicaly, but “social position”/ power structure wise perhaps) revolutionary or pre revolutionary ideologies (Ex: French Revolution, 1840’s Germany, 1900 Russia, etc).
It also ought to be looked at in it’s relation to a “viable” revolutionary position compared with other more or less “viable” positions. It seems reasonable that the same thing that could have happened to a relatively successful US third party (Ex: The Populist party of the 1890’s) could be explained in the same manner as the dissolution and assimilation of Tolstoyism.
Well, since Leo Tolstoy is one of my favrotie authors of all time, and the fact that I am a Christian in the same sense as Tolstoy’s pacifism, and I also carry The Kingdom of God is Within You all with me, I would suggest a tweaking of what Camus said.
It is not a matter of acceptance of evil - in The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy quoted, and seemed to fully agree with Adin Ballou’s list of what Non-Resistance to Evil means. It is extreme pacifism to the highest extent - it is not accepting evil (unless you’re solely referring to its very existence), it is truly having no part with it, it is as a matter of fact not participating in anything having to do with evil.
For instance, it takes the stance of Jesus when Jesus paid taxes merely to pacify authority. It is not a matter of accepting tax collectors’ evil - you “hate” the sin, but you do not hate the sinner. Simply put, the non-resistance to evil is simply non-resistance - it has nothing to do with accepting sin in any way, shape, or form. Pacifying authorities is not the same as accepting them.
Why couldn’t those both be the same or indeed not contradictory.If violence is wrong meaning pacifism is true ,the state is violent thus anarchy is desirable.
Anarcho-pacifism is a well known old tradition.It just happens Tolstoy was one of its most famous proponents.He was also a Christian Anarchist.
i am not sure anarcho-capitalists could be considered true pacifists. after all, the enforcement of property rights requires, well, force.
different anarchists have different rationales for justifying that force, but it disqualifies them from being pacifists in the sense that tolstoy or ghandi were pacifists.
Well one can be ancap and pacifist if you do not want to enforce property rights but just rely on them being respected. Ancap merely means that one thinks, property rights are most viable and desireable form of social organization under anarchy.