💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › john-r-what-is-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:32:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: What Is Anarchism?
Author: John R.
Date: April 2016
Language: en
Topics: anarchism, introductory, Common Threads
Source: Retrieved on 21st January 2022 from http://www.wsm.ie/c/introduction-anarchism-2016
Notes: Published in Common Threads Issue 1.

John R.

What Is Anarchism?

Like almost any political term, ‘anarchism’ is very broad in scope and

covers a huge range of ideas and practice. Instead of trying to give an

exhaustive description, or detail everything that is and isn’t

anarchism, this article will attempt to get to the heart of it, and

capture the essence, as far as possible, at the core of anarchism.

Giving a complete definition of such a broad term would take many more

words than will fit here and has been done well in other places (e.g. An

Anarchist FAQ).

Any short, simple statement trying to define anarchism will necessarily

fall short: it will lack nuance, depth, and be open to

misinterpretation. However, if a concise defining phrase is what we’re

seeking then, “favouring cooperation over authority”, seems about as

complete and accurate as can be captured in just a few words, though it

does, of course, leave a huge amount of room for discussion.

Anarchism embodies a kind of skepticism of power and domination in that

it assumes that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to exert

them. In other words, I don’t have to give reasons why I should be free,

you have to give reasons (and good ones!) why I shouldn’t be. The

definition given above naturally splits in two: favouring cooperation

and disfavouring authority.

On the pro-cooperation aspect, anarchism proposes alternate (leaderless)

models of organisation and concepts for better, more egalitarian

organisational mechanisms and structures. On the anti-authority aspect

we find analysis of the current system, criticism of its manifestations,

exposition of its lies and machinations, and challenges to its

institutions through direct action.

There are many myths and misconceptions about anarchism and, though this

will not be an exhaustive list, it seems useful to address a couple of

the more common ones. The first is that anarchy equals chaos and no

rules, and anarchists are those who want chaos (or bomb-throwing mayhem)

and a society where everyone simply does whatever they feel like all the

time.

There may very well be some people who wish for this, but no one can

seriously expect to be able to run a complex society this way. However

this seems to be the definition most often upheld by the mainstream.

Beyond simple misunderstandings of the term, the most common criticism

of anarchism is that it is utopian and therefore unrealistic. That it

requires that all ill intentions cease in the absence of repressive

force, and everyone becomes something like a perfect being.

Anarchism makes no promises of such an idealistic world to come, only

one to strive for — and this it surely has in common with most any other

ideology. Dictionaries tend to define anarchism in terms of its

opposition to governments, but this is really something that comes out

of anarchism rather than being a defining feature.

The fundamental question underlying any political philosophy is: what

values or ideals do we wish to promote and emphasise, and which ones

will we devalue and de-emphasise? In the state-capitalist world in which

we live, one of the main values that underpins the political system is

authority — the right for someone to have control over others’ actions.

Some people are in charge of others and make decisions for them, or on

their behalf. We are expected to (for the most part) obey those who are

in charge of us, and be obeyed by those we are in charge of. This is how

most of society’s organisations are arranged, there is a hierarchy of

authority from the ‘ordinary’ members or workers, up through some sort

of management structure to a single person and/or small committee at the

top (board of directors, council, etc).

The main value that’s sacrificed under this system is freedom. The

freedom for people to decide for themselves — or even, in many cases,

have any input into decisions that affect them — is ceded to managers

or, within the electoral system, ‘representatives’.

What we’re supposed to gain from this sacrifice is order, and a well

functioning system. This rests on the assumption that outside of

authoritative systems order is impossible. History has tested this

assumption many times and has found it wanting: the Paris commune, the

Spanish Revolution, the Limerick Soviet. These are just some examples of

events in history in which communities decided to favour the value of

freedom over authority and oppression.

Devaluing authority as an ideal doesn’t mean we eliminate it completely.

This would be undesirable, and surely impossible. One can think of many

examples where authority is not only favourable but essential. For

example, if we see a toddler about to run out on the road into oncoming

traffic, we would exercise authority over the child in order to

physically prevent them from doing so. Instead of seeking to abolish

authority, anarchism prescribes that authority requires justification.

Strong justification. This justification is primarily owed to those over

whom authority is to be wielded, If I wish to exercise authority over a

group of people the best way to justify it would be to get their

agreement. This, of course, does not always make sense and is not always

possible, as in the example above — we do not stop to get the child’s

permission before we prevent them from running into traffic.

Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are both strong values that

seem to develop naturally within all us of from the time we are

children. We are resistant to authority (“You’re not the boss of me!”)

and at the same time we exercise authority over those smaller/weaker

than us — a child might take a toy from a smaller, younger sibling.

The notion that authority requires justification is also an early

development. If asked why did you take the toy, the child generally

doesn’t simply say, “I’m bigger and stronger and I wanted it.” Instead

we’re more likely to hear justifications like, “Well they weren’t using

it anyway” or “I had it first.” It’s much easier for someone wielding

authority to justify it to themselves than to the subject of the

authority.

Of course the younger sibling in the example is unlikely to accept or

agree with the justifications and would, if they could, resist the

imposition of authority and keep the toy in question.

So what this example also points to is the fact that authority doesn’t

exist on its own, and cannot uphold itself by its own virtue. Instead it

needs to be underpinned by violence, or “might makes right”. In the

example of the siblings, the older child is essentially backing up their

authority with something like an implied threat. They want the toy, they

take it, and, since the younger child is physically overmatched, any

struggle to retrieve it will likely be met with some force.

Similar implied underlying threats exist within the world’s political

system(s). The word ‘violence’ is a rather poorly defined term, and

doesn’t have a very agreed-upon definition; how it is used in this

article in the context of authority is to mean, “something bad will

happen to you if you don’t obey.” It’s quite easy to test that this is

the case within society, just stop obeying and see what happens. Just to

take one example, let’s say you decide that you want electricity in your

house but you can’t (or don’t wish to) pay for it. First step is

probably to stop paying your electricity bills.

What’s likely to happen then is you’ll be written to, called on, phoned,

texted, emailed, or all of the above, with requests and entreats to pay

off the bills. These are likely to then escalate to demands and threats

— of being cut off and/or having debt collection agencies employed to

retrieve the payment.

Once your electricity is inevitably cut off, if you decide to just

reconnect it yourself, you’ll then be committing a crime and the

electricity company (assuming they find out) may very well press

charges. If you keep pushing it far enough, particularly if you are open

and forthcoming about what you’re up to, eventually people (police) will

come to your house and physically remove you and lock you up, and if you

resist this part of the process you will be subjected to what most

anyone would agree is violence — i.e. battery.

The authoritarian, hierarchical nature of the system inherently makes

greater reward available to those further up the hierarchy. The division

is extreme currently, with a fraction of a percent of the world’s

population owning most of the wealth, but the general trend is only to

be expected: those in power will naturally pay more attention to their

own needs and desires, like most people.

This is at the heart of class division. Class analysis is an extremely

complex and in-depth subject and a single paragraph can barely hope to

scratch the surface, but, put simply, in a ‘democracy’, there’s a

specialised class: the elite, political, or manager class.

These are the responsible, intelligent people (historically, men) who

presume to know what’s best for everyone and have the role of doing the

thinking and planning. The part everyone else is expected to play is to

mostly be spectators, and occasionally to turn out to the voting booths

to choose between one or another member of the specialised class to be a

leader (these days usually called a representative).

The underlying framework of this system has changed very little, if at

all, since early civilisation. The ostensible leaders (even in

dictatorships) rule only as long as they have the support of those with

real power — the wealthy elites who own society. In older times,

merchants and manufacturers; these days, CEOs, hedge-fund managers and

such. What has changed is how power is imposed upon the masses.

Thanks to labour organising and other large-scale mass direct action,

the amount of freedom available to the public in western societies has

increased dramatically and the oppression, and degree to which those in

power are able to resort to violence, has decreased (particularly if

you’re of the ‘right’ colour, creed, nationality, gender, etc). It was

becoming easier for people to organise collectively and effect positive

changes in public policy. No longer could the people simply be beaten

down.

The ability for people to achieve societal, system change is a serious

threat to the established order: most people would like the world to be

more fair, which necessitates the rich and powerful become less rich and

powerful. Naturally this is something they’re against: to oppressors,

fairness and equality feel like oppression.

As totalitarian states grudgingly gave way to ‘democracies’, propaganda

took over from the bludgeon as the main tool for controlling populations

and set itself to the task of diverting people away from organising and

participating in politics, and of promoting values that serve the

interests of power.

This tendency is visible right up through all the major institutions of

society beginning with the family unit and the education system. Schools

tend to instill values like obedience and competitiveness and individual

achievement, and discourage values like dissent, challenging authority

and mutual cooperation.

The public relations industry is by now a massive, multi-billion euro

enterprise, the main function of which is influencing and controlling

the public mind. Spectator sports, tv shows, advertisements, movies, and

the like, all serve to divert and distract people’s attention from the

ills of society, while building up power-serving values.

Those who succeed or ‘make it’ in this system will tend to be those who

have had the required values successfully instilled in them. And those

who reject these values will tend to be ostracised or marginalised by

society’s institutions.

A tiny minority of the population have had their hands on the reins of

the system, shaping and designing it to their ends, while at the same

time trying their best to hide this from the masses.

International investment agreements are negotiated in secret; neoliberal

capitalist organisations have almost no answerability to the public,

just to their shareholders (the majority of whom are other members of

the wealthy elite); and governments plead national security whenever

they can, and employ other instruments in order to hide what they’re up

to.

The level of secrecy in place is a good indicator both of the extent of

public opposition to the policies, and also of how damaging they are —

destroying the environment, and spreading tremendously powerful weapons

throughout the world, are two examples that come to mind.

This is not a conspiracy of course, it’s just how the system works, and

what it tends to emphasise. If you’re the CEO of a major corporation and

you decide to adopt fairer, greener, or more equitable (and, therefore,

popular) policies you’ll soon find your corporation floundering or, more

likely, lose your job.

If you’re a politician seeking to implement popular policies you’ll be

less likely to receive the backing of the business community (which

includes, crucially, the media) and most likely find yourself losing out

to the candidate who aligns themselves with economic interests.

The state-capitalist system upholds and propagates a lot of dangerous

and damaging trends in humanity — economic inequality, resource

depletion, environmental destruction, warfare, large scale

discrimination and racism, among others. They are opposed by the

majority of the world’s population, polling data from almost everywhere

it’s gathered shows this pretty clearly.

The will to end, or at least address, them exists — what seems to be

lacking are popular, widespread, interconnected institutions that can

challenge the power and domination of the wealthy minority, along with

showing alternate, more egalitarian, modes of organisation.

Anarchism holds that these should be institutions of cooperation and

mutual aid, worker- and community-controlled enterprises that are well

structured but leaderless and without top-down power hierarchies. Human

beings have all sorts of natural tendencies: greed and generosity,

compassion and animosity, solidarity and individual ambition.

Leadership roles tend to not only attract, but also emphasise the

negatives of greed and personal ambition; while leaderless, egalitarian

organisations encourage the positives of generosity and solidarity.

There are many such organisations in existence: worker owned

co-operatives, community groups, and activist collectives are just some

examples that come to mind of non-leadership organisations.

Many of these use ‘bottom-up’ forms of organisation, with members making

the decisions and accountable delegates appointed to carry them out.

This form of organisation seeks to eliminate (using agreed rules and

guidelines) the possibility of a leadership emerging to make decisions

‘on behalf of the members’ and keep the group under the control of its

membership.

Of the problems the power-hierarchy based system has created, there are

two that loom particularly large: environmental devastation, which seems

poised to eliminate the possibility of decent human existence on the

planet; and nuclear weapons, which, either through war or accident (and

there have been many close calls on both) could also make our planet all

but uninhabitable, but on a much shorter timescale — this is an

extremely serious threat that is largely missing from mainstream media

and conversation.

These two issues bring a sense of extreme urgency to the anarchist

pursuit, an urgency that has been noticeably lacking from the

governments and institutions of the state-capitalist system. To the

contrary, their responses have been, on the one hand, planning for the

further exploitation of natural resources (e.g. Arctic oil and mineral

exploration), and, on the other, spending billions upgrading nuclear

arms (in contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). The

powerful minority is failing to address these (and many other) issues,

that necessarily leaves it up to the rest of us! A common (possibly even

the standard) response to the overwhelming complexity and severity of

the world’s problems, is a kind of passive urban nihilism: the world is

screwed, there’s nothing I can do as an individual, might as well just

get on as if it’s not happening: concentrate on work, or raising my

family, or just partying.

This response is perfectly understandable, the problems are much too

huge for any one person to attempt to address. But we should keep in

mind that those most responsible, the rich and powerful, would barely

fill the average town hall.

They are organised, active and engaged, and they command massive

military and police force, but their numbers are small and their grip on

power tenuous — and they are well aware of this, hence the massive

propaganda enterprise and military spending. However understandable this

passive despair reaction is, it has the function of supporting the

continuation of the power division, since it tends to isolate and

demotivate people so they don’t pay attention to what their leaders are

up to.

And even if our world is beyond the point of saving why should we not

live together as well as we can for as long as we can? We need to get

ourselves organised and figure out what we want to do about our problems

and how we want to live together.

Anarchist organising is something almost everyone is familiar with, in

informal settings. A group of friends on a night out, for example, is

usually leaderless, with no one particular person deciding what movie to

go see or where the group spends the evening.

What tends to happen is someone makes a suggestion and sees if the

others are on board. If somebody strongly disagrees then perhaps another

suggestion will be made, and so on until the group comes to general

agreement, also known as consensus.

Such a leaderless group can be thought of as an informal anarchist

collective, using informal consensus decision making. In anarchist

organising, formal consensus decision making works in much the same way,

except the rules/guidelines tend to be codified and agreed upon.

The thrust of anarchist theory and activity is separable into six fairly

distinct, though overlapping, areas:

Create. Building the new egalitarian institutions, collectives and

enterprises, which are to comprise the massive-scale popular

organisation effort that will be required to bring about the society we

wish to inhabit.

Transform. Altering existing authority-based institutions and groups

into ones with more egalitarian structures.

Advocate. Anarchist advocacy, spreading the theory and practise of

anarchism, through writing, lectures, interviews, workshops, etc.

Challenge. Challenging the authority of power-centres of all kinds,

seeking good justifications for their authority and, when none are

found, seeking to dismantle them. In practise through direct action and

in theory through analysing and critiquing aspects and institutions of

the current system.

Expose. Seeking out and making public the secrecy, lies, corruption and

other machinations of the system.

Reform. Chipping away at some of the more oppressive aspects of society

through the available avenues within the current system.

Whatever kind of world we want to live in, it will not simply be granted

to us by our ‘masters’, we will all need to be involved in the running

and decision-making of the communities in which we spend our time. Where

we work, live, and socialise there are already businesses, institutions

and establishments that decide what these experiences are like. We

mostly tend to just accept them as they are because any one of us, as an

individual, can have little effect on them. What we need to do is

organise amongst ourselves to transform these institutions into

egalitarian, inclusive leaderless ones, or to create new ones of our

own. Seek out and get involved with such organising groups and, where

they don’t exist, find like minded people with whom to start them.

If we wish to have a hand in deciding what our world is like, and we

wish to leave something behind for future generations, each of us needs

to get active and involved.

---