💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dave-neal-anarchism-ideology-or-methodology.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:14:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism: Ideology or Methodology? Author: Dave Neal Date: 1997 Language: en Topics: ideology, strategy Source: Retrieved on 27 March 2011 from http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/practice/sp001689.html
“It’s an odd feature of the anarchist tradition over the years that it
seems to have often bred highly authoritarian personality types, who
legislate what the Doctrine is, and with various degrees of fury (often
great) denounce those who depart from what they have declared to be the
True Principles. Odd form of anarchism.” — Noam Chomsky
One issue that remains unresolved within the anarchist movement revolves
around the nature of anarchists themselves. If you’ve perused these
pages, you by now know about social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism
as the most public schism among anarchists, with the latter deriding
class struggle as fruitless, pointless, and irrelevant, and the former
declaring that the latter aren’t anarchists at all, but are rather
bourgeois poseurs.
To the casual browser, it seems a silly, pointless debate. And in many
respects, you’re right! The social versus lifestylism debate revolves
around the idea of what it means to be an anarchist.
However, underlying this debate is a less obvious thread, namely whether
anarchism is an ideology — a set of rules and conventions to which you
must abide, or whether anarchism is a methodology — a way of acting, or
a historical tendency against illegitimate authority. I believe this
debate underlies the social versus lifestylism dilemma, and will attempt
to elaborate on it.
I’ll call ideological anarchists Anarchists — big “A” anarchists, and
methodological anarchists anarchists — small “a” anarchists, so you know
who I’m referring to.
Anarchism clearly means a particular thing. For example, it is defined
by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
1. The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable, and should be abolished; 2. Active resistance and terrorism
against the state, as used by some anarchists; 3. Rejection of all forms
of coercive control and authority.
So, in this sense, an anarchist is one who finds all forms of government
oppressive and undesirable, and rejects all forms of coercive control
and authority. A person who doesn’t fit this criterion is no anarchist.
This supports the idea that anarchism is an ideology — a consistent set
of ideas based on a core principle. Does that mean, however, that every
person who says they’re an anarchist is an anarchist?
Clearly not, which forms the basis for the lifestylism argument, as well
as anarchist opposition to the intellectual affront that is
“anarcho-”capitalism.
But there’s a difference between ideological objection and
methodological opposition. For the Anarchist, they say “X is not
anarchism” with the implicit understanding that they know what anarchism
is about. For them, there is no need to prove or demonstrate it — their
statement alone is fact enough.
To the anarchist, lifestylism and “anarcho-”capitalism are rejected
because, methodologically, they aren’t the way to arrive at anarchism.
They use the wrong means to achieve similar ends — namely, human
happiness.
See the difference in approaches?
The Anarchist stresses ideological conformity as the prerequisite for
social revolution — in other words, you swallow A,B, and C doctrines and
then you are an Anarchist. Their plan of action revolves around: 1)
creating a central Anarchist organization; 2) educating (e.g.,
indoctrinating) the working class as to the tenets of Anarchism; 3)
thereby building a mass movement; 4) creating a social revolution.
The Anarchist is comfortable with the idea of a manifesto, platform, or
other guiding doctrine as the means of “spreading the gospel” — their
emphasis is unity in thought and action, and ideological conformity as
the basis for effective organization.
The anarchist, however, rejects all of this. We hold, instead, that: 1)
anarchist organizations cannot be created before the demand for them
exists; 2) indoctrinated people are not free people; 3) a movement based
on a central authority (e.g., the central Anarchist organization) and on
masses of indoctrinated followers will be an elite, political one, not a
popular, social one; 4) the social revolution will invariably be
betrayed by such an effort, becoming a political revolution whereby the
Anarchists seize power.
This is not a semantic difference; rather, it strikes at the heart of
the movement itself, and the roots of this debate go back to the
founding of the first International, which was why I posted those essays
by Bakunin.
Who is right? I hold that the methodology of anarchism is more important
and vital than the ideology of it. That’s because I recognize that
language, particularly in the services of the ambitious, is routinely
turned on its head in the service of power elites.
A group could call themselves Anarchists, but that surely doesn’t make
them anarchists, does it? You’d do well not to take them at their word
blindly, but rather approach them on your own terms.
The two models of social struggle from history are the Marxist model —
the idea of a political vanguard guiding the masses to a socialist
society; and the Bakuninist model — the idea of rejecting all political
authority and using popular direct action as the means of realizing
socialism in the here and now versus some unforseen future.
To date, the Marxist model has dominated the radical left for over a
century, although recently, with the demise of the USSR, we see the
ideological air clearing for the first time in decades. This is why the
debate is so timely and critical, if anarchism is to proceed and grow.
My main objection to ideological Anarchism is that it depends not on
freethinking and direct action, but on obedience, passivity, and
conformity to an externality — either a manifesto, platform, or other
mechanism of control. Further, it focuses on a top-down, centralized
organization as a means of bringing Anarchism from the center outward.
It is ludicrous to assume, however, that you can use unfree means to
attain a free society. It is similarly ridiculous to try to create a
popular, libertarian organization before you have a mass following! What
you’d get, instead, is an elite cadre of activists, which,
unsurprisingly, parallels the current situation of the radical left!
Further, since doctrinal purity is most important to the ideologue, they
end up: 1) eternally quarrelling about minor points; 2) forever looking
for and purging heretics; 3) alienating potential fellow travellers
through this elitism.
Anarchism isn’t “anything goes” — it means something. However, a working
person shouldn’t have to be indoctrinated to make them “suitable” to the
movement. Noam Chomsky put the methodological view of anarchism best
when he said that he saw anarchism as the historical tendency of people
to rise up against illegitimate authority.
For example, when the sailors of Kronstadt rose against the Bolsheviks
in 1921, they were engaging in methodological anarchism — direct popular
action against illegitimate authority — whereas the Bolsheviks had
betrayed the Revolution by securing themselves in power, despite their
claims to the contrary.
Anarchists should focus on passing along anarchist ideas and, most
importantly, anarchistic ways of organizing, rather than trying to turn
people into Anarchists. It’s a fine, but an important distinction.
Anarchists hold that the social struggle itself — propaganda by the deed
— politicizes and radicalizes the masses. When they get a sense of their
own empowerment, attained through collective direct action, what you get
are “anarchized” people — folks who will understand the ideas of
anarchism in practice rather than doctrinally, which is where it
matters. You get empowered, active freethinkers, who are not afraid to
engage in direct action — in other words, anarchists.
Not to say that all activists are anarchists, because they aren’t. The
right wing has a fair share of reactionary activists, but they are, in
truth, functionaries of a larger authority structure — drones, who jump
when their bosses order them to. Or (more commonly), they are
well-meaning people who have been duped and manipulated into supporting
a position contrary to their real interests.
But when you get a group of people working together, organizing and
engaging in direct action against illegitimate authority, you’re more
likely to have folks sympathetic to anarchism than to any other
doctrine, which calls for obedience and passivity. The social struggle
itself promulgates the anarchist idea, when waged anarchistically.
Sadly, what we have today are a plethora of Anarchists — ideologues —
who focus endlessly on their dogma instead of organizing solidarity
among workers. That accounts for the dismal state of the movement today,
dominated by elites and factions, cliques and cadres.
And, since the Cardinal Rule of Ideology applies — that the ideologue is
not, and cannot ever be wrong — what it means is the disputes never,
ever end, and everyone divides into countless little, irrelevant
enclaves.
Methodology is far more open — there is that which works, and that which
doesn’t, and degrees between those points. If one strategy doesn’t work,
you adjust until you get something that does work.
The anarchist holds that the working person is ready in the here and now
for social revolution, in terms of inclination and instinct — people
want to be free; they want an improvement in their circumstances and
quality of life. People don’t want to be slaves — those in power spend
much time convincing people that they’re free when, in fact, they
aren’t. We believe that everyone values their freedom, whereas the
Anarchist holds that the working people are too racist, sexist,
apathetic, homophobic to “get the message” — they view the masses with
almost Marxist contempt.
In fact, when things don’t go the Anarchists’ way, they blame everyone
but themselves, which accounts for the isolation and elitism of the left
wing — you working people are just “too stupid/racist/sexist” to get
their Lofty Ideas. With that attitude, you can see why working people
ignore the radical left.
One thing ideologues of all stripes share is a negative view of human
nature — they see us all as basically bad, and in need of improvement
(achieved by a period of indoctrination, naturally, which they offer).
Further, ideologues hold themselves exempt from this principal of
negative human nature — that is, they are okay, but the rest of the
world is screwed.
However, this view is incompatible with anarchism, and entirely
appropriate to authoritarian ideologies — authoritarians all view people
as basically bad, and in need of education, supervision, and above all,
control, which they are all too willing to provide.
The anarchist, conversely, holds that human beings are basically good
and not in need of guidance, coercion, and control — indeed, we hold
steadfastly to the idea that the only evils in society come about when
some seek to control and coerce others, and that the mechanisms of
power, privilege, and control turn even the saintliest stalwart into a
connniving manipulator.
In other words, anarchists view people as good, and systems of control
as bad, whereas ideologues hold the other view — that people are bad,
and systems of control are good (so long as they control those systems —
if someone else controls them, then they’re bad — that’s how they seem
anti-authoritarian when out of power — but just wait until they do get a
measure of power, and you’ll see). It’s an important difference, and
determines the nature of the organization that arises from these
foundations.
The organization based on a negative view of human nature will focus on
power and control, centralizing these things in as few hands as possible
— the people who can be trusted with such power (meaning, the most
obedient and doctrinally sound), whereas the organization based on a
positive view of human nature will seek to disseminate power and
eliminate control, decentralizing and dispersing these in as many hands
as possible.
The most pernicious threat of the ideologue is that they exempt
themselves from their own rules — again, stemming from the notion that
they have “seen the light” and the rest are either: 1) idiots; or 2)
evil (for turning their backs on the Truth). Thus, they can never be
reasoned with, because they are irrational themselves — if you object to
their program, regardless of the reason, then you are at fault, not
them.
That’s why a natural corollary of the ideologue is the use of force —
because they are dogmatic and irrational, all they can ultimately rely
on for legitimacy is force, which necessitates centralization and
control of force — e.g., the State, in a newer, more pernicious form.
In a sense, the ideologue is a closeted authoritarian, which is why they
are so treacherous. They seem anarchistic because they reject authority
that exists when they have no part in it; however, they are really
objecting to being disempowered themselves, rather than rejecting
authority itself. When they attain a position of authority, they turn as
despotic as anyone who preceded them.
Their Authority is in their ideology itself — their Big Idea — which you
resist at your own peril. It was this that caused the Galleanists
(Italian anarchist followers of Luigi Galleani) to engage in several
bombing campaigns, even against innocent passerby — to the Galleanists,
anyone who didn’t get The Idea wasn’t innocent.
This may seem paradoxical coming from a political Web page, but that’s
okay — the anarchist holds that Truth tends to end up in the back pocket
of the most powerful — that is, the most powerful hold that their views
are the Truth, and woe to you if you say (or even think) otherwise.
There’s nothing more ideological than pretensions toward ultimate Truth,
and anarchists should have no part of it. Our view, conversely, is that
the only truth worth holding is that there is no truth, because there is
no external truth out there for us to perceive — there is merely that
which makes sense to us and that which doesn’t.
Reality exists (although some philosophers debate that, too) — reality
is objective, whereas truth is entirely subjective. If you hold out a
rock and let it go, it will drop. That’s because gravity is an objective
force — it’s an aspect of what is — reality. Truth derives from reality
(e.g., let go of a rock and it will drop), not the other way around.
The subjectivity of truth is something authorities are very
uncomfortable with, because it’s a revolutionary concept — if truth is
subjective, then the framework of our society collapses — law, religion,
the State — all implode if you recognize that what some claim to be
Truth is, in reality, opinion backed by force. Where power is concerned,
what is considered Truth ends up, in reality, mythmaking, lies, and
superstition.
Anarchists hold that truth is subjective, or they should, which forms
the basis for our rejection of dogma and manifestos. No Anarchist can
come up with an ultimate manifesto which can account for every possible
human encounter and interaction, although some do try.
Freethinking is the only methodology you can safely rely on, in the
absence of external Truth — that is, thinking and evaluating for
yourself what is and isn’t, rather than letting someone else define your
world for you. And the currency of this type of exchange is reason,
rather than force.
Authoritarians hold to an objective ideal — the Truth — which only they
can see, of course. And your role in the process is to obey their Truth
or suffer accordingly. Thus, the liberty-cherishing capitalist puts a
“Trespassers will be shot” sign on “his” property and sleeps easy at
night (even though the original title holder trespassed and shot others
to get that property!), and the god-fearing Christian puts a witch to
the torch, while preaching “love one another” from the Good Book.
Ideologues are forever trampling their lofty words by their atrocious
deeds — and anarchists want no part of it. We reject them and their
Truths!
Does anarchist rejection of Truth mean that anarchism, in turn, means
anything goes? Yes, and no — that which destroys illegitimate authority
is anarchistic; that which doesn’t, isn’t. That is the basis for our
methodology, and for our resistance to the privileged and powerful.
It means that the only legitimate authority is that which is freely
accepted, in the complete absence of coercion — e.g., free association.
This allows for an extraordinarily wide range of human activity, and
creates the appearance of “anything goes” — anarchy — but this can only
be attained through consistent, dedicated organizing on the part of the
members of society.
In this manner, we reject lifestylists, because what they seek —
narcissistic autonomy — is impossible in our interconnected society, and
is not anarchistic, because it disdains class struggle and organization
in favor of turning inward and abandoning human solidarity.
The methodological basis for our rejection of lifestylism is that it
liberates no one, including the lifestylist, and is thus no threat to
illegitimate authority whatsoever. The “temporary autonomous zone” is a
pipe dream, as it leaves the prime source of oppression — the State —
untouched, unchallenged, and intact.
It’s the wrong method, even if the lifestylist disdain for ideology is
well-founded. Social anarchists should leave lifestylists to their
antics, rather than forever arguing with them. For the social anarchist,
the goal, instead, is to organize effectively, rather than deriding
lifestylists for their way of life.
Anarchism is a rational theory and philosophy, requiring observation and
thought, and above all else, organizing and action.
While on the topic of reason and rationality, there is something which
distinguishes the ideological Anarchist from the methodological
anarchist — namely, deduction versus induction. I’ll elaborate.
Deduction is where you proceed from a premise. For instance, if I say:
“I am an Anarchist, therefore all which I do is anarchistic.”
I am being deductive in my assessment of my anarchism. If you say that
something I’m doing isn’t anarchistic, I’d disagree for that reason —
I’d say, “no, you’re wrong, because I’m an Anarchist — I know what
Anarchism is — Anarchism is what I do. And, since you are disagreeing
with me, and I am an Anarchist, then you must be an authoritarian — you,
therefore, are my enemy.”
See the problem? Now, this kind of deductive ideology isn’t confined to
Anarchism — in fact, it’s even more common among all the authoritarian
ideologies out there, in which people say one thing and do quite
another.
However, with anarchism, this kind of thinking is positively deadly — it
gets in the way of freethinking and closes your mind.
Inductive anarchism, rather, looks at what you do and why, and comes to
the conclusion that you are an anarchist based on what you do, not on
what you say.
Not everyone who is fighting illegitimate authority is an anarchist —
that’s not the case at all. Rather, what inductive anarchism means is
that one’s actions become the criterion of judgment, not one’s claims.
This is a very important distinction, because it allows you to be on
guard for creeping authoritarianism and vanguardism within the movement
itself. That’s what Bakunin noticed when he was confronting Marx — Marx
and his gang all said they were for socialism, and wanted everyone to
embrace their program as the “best” way to get to it, even as their
program proved to undermine and destroy the socialism it claimed to be
for.
The same risk exists with anarchism. Where deductive Anarchism can be
easily turned on its head by authoritarian opportunists within the
movement (and are unlikely to be challenged because such movements
discourage dissent and disagreement in favor of ideological conformity)
— meaning that such opportunists won’t be challenged within their own
groups!
Inductive, or methodological anarchism, however, can’t be so readily
betrayed, because it involves adding everything up and determining for
yourself if it balances out, rather than letting someone else tell you
it does. It means thinking for yourself instead of letting others think
for you.
Deductive Anarchists are fond of manifestos and platforms — tracts and
doctrines which they produce and expect you to learn, memorize, and
obey. They think that if they could just convert enough of you to their
way of thinking, then Anarchy will be possible. They hold that you’re
not ready for it yet.
Inductive anarchists think that’s ridiculous — we hold that no tract or
manifesto can possibly cover all human dreams, hopes and aspirations.
Further, we hold that everyday people are already able to understand
anarchist ideas, and put them into practice — they earn this faith on
our part by virtue of being human.
Humans don’t like being told what to do, or being kept in bondage. If
they did, those in power wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, and money
hoodwinking you into thinking you’re free when in truth you’re a slave.
The anarchist’s role in all of this is merely to create that initial
awareness, and to communicate organizational methods that weaken and
destroy authority, and let the process take care of itself.
The Anarchist, conversely, wants a more active, vanguardist role — since
they hold that only their tribe can be trusted with the Truth only they
can see, they see themselves as the shadow guides who’ll keep everything
in line from behind the scenes, because everyone knows you poor slobs
can’t be trusted to do it yourselves.
That attitude is why the radical left so often derides the working class
as apathetic, reactionary, racist, sexist, homophobic — a thousand
maladies. They see you as lesser beings who are in need of their
guidance and instruction.
As an anarchist, I think that attitude is insane — indoctrinated people
are unfree, and it is impossible to create a free (that is, anarchist)
society using unfree methods.
The point is that only two things really matter: 1) organizing
solidarity among working people; 2) encouraging popular direct action.
That’s the goal of anarchists, or should be. It’s not our purpose to
teach others how to behave, or what to think — that’s their own
business, certainly not ours.
The Anarchist holds that “if only the rest of the world were Anarchists
(like me) everything would be fine” — they hold themselves as the sum
total of anarchistic purity — but that’s a vanguardist sentiment in the
extreme, and is Marxist at root, and ultimately, in effect.
The methodology of anarchism is most important, because it’s so easy to
determine if you’re off course or not, whereas words and doctrines are
hollow and meaningless — they can be wrapped around the basest tyranny
and made to seem sweet and true. All the enemies of freedom practice
this — the US carpet bombs people and assassinates democratically
elected leaders in the name of “democracy” and “freedom” — a claim that
holds up only if you embrace the Ideology of America, rather than the
methodology of democracy!
In fact, if you examine the US system of government methodologically,
you find that it doesn’t even remotely approximate “democracy,”
“freedom,” “popular will,” or “representation” — but all of these words
are used with nauseating frequency by the elites in power.
Lenin, while attempting to rally support for the Bolsheviks, made “all
power to the soviets” the slogan of his party, knowing that popular
self-rule was what the workers wanted. The workers put their faith in
Lenin and Trotsky to do this, and lo and behold, when the Bolsheviks
came to power, they quickly shifted gears, and destroyed every worker
soviet they came across — “all power to the soviets” in practice became
“all power to the Bolsheviks” (which really meant The State). The
“Communist” Party destroyed communism, because the latter threatened
their power base!
The anarchist’s job is solely to shows the means by which libertarian
social revolution can be carried out — the anarchist’s toolkit, if you
will, rather than a roadmap. And this strategy is more anarchistic than
the other route, because it leaves the initiative where it should be: on
the street, at the shop floor, in the classroom — a thousand arenas
where individuals band together to fight illegitimate authority.
Dave Neal
9/17/97