đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș lemermeyer-introduction-to-anarchism-english.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:04:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Introduction to Anarchism Author: Jamie Lemermeyer Language: en Topics: syndicalism, confederalism, introductory
Wages and capital have existed for thousands of years, but capitalism
has only come into major play in the western world around the 17th
century. In the ongoing struggle against capitalism, many forms of
resistance have emerged, the most revolutionary of which, is anarchism.
The word anarchism comes from the greek anarkhos meaning âwithout a
chiefâ. Anarchism first gained popularity in the late 1800s and then
reemerged with punk culture in the 70s and 80s.
Anarchism is a (typically) far left socioeconomic theory against (again,
typically) capitalism, authoritarianism, and state socialism (this does
not mean anarchists are not socialist, just that they usually rival the
ideas of state socialist countries such as the USSR or Cuba). There are
hundreds of sub-theories of anarchism and no anarchist shares the exact
same values of another, but there are a few values most anarchists can
agree on. These include but are not limited to: direct action,
solidarity, autonomy, and mutual aid. Anarchismâs main ideal is that of
a stateless, classless society; one where people are truly free.
An anarchist society doesnât mean one without order. Stateless and
wageless societies have existed for thousands of years, yet too many the
idea seems impossible. The idea of humans making decisions and enforcing
justice in egalitarian ways may to some feel farfetched, but it is
entirely possible. Unfortunately, many modern anarchist societies were
not, as their imperialist neighbours decided that they would be better
rulers. This is why itâs important that any anarchist society is armed
and organised. People in local town-sized communities would band
together to create small confederacies which the fruits of every manâs
labour would be stockpiled and redistributed equally. People would
belong to labour unions which would organise labour and protect workers'
rights. Through these labor unions, the workers would control the means
of production. Decisions in the union would be made by councils formed
of qualified volunteers, as would decisions in the confederacies. The
elected chief of each confederacy would oversee that everyone does their
part and that the unions stay uncorrupt. Just because there is a chief
does not mean there is someone in charge. Being the chief is simply
another job, and it is highly likely a union of chieftains would form.
Have stateless societies existed before? Could our society be stateless?
Of course when talking about anarchy many questions of plausibility come
up. Stateless societies have the best track record in North America, but
not to say that they didnât exist elsewhere. First Nation and Inuit have
thrived under stateless societies for thousands of years (until
imperialist European countries arrived) and had quite a success. The
stateless society described in this paper is based off First Nation
confederalist societies and syndicalist theory. Of course, FN society is
very different from ours, but there have been a few anarchist societies
more similar to ours and more recent. During the Spanish civil war,
anarchist and socialist factions seized control of farms and factories
and organized themselves and the economy based on the ideas of
communism, anarchism, and collectivism. The same thing happened in Korea
in 1929, when the Korean Communist Party established a small anarchist
society in Manchuria, known as the Shinmin Autonomous Zone. Even today
Rojava stands strong as a anarchist society, battling ISIS in North
Syria. These small anarchist societies prove that anarchy can work in
practice.
Europeâs political landscape is a wartorn wasteland. Far left and far
right militant groups battle for supremacy in eastern Europe, protestors
riot in the streets of France, while in Germany and Britain the growing
nationalist factions threaten modern progressives. On the other side of
the world white nationalists and fascists march in the cities and
children are held in concentration camps. It would be greatly beneficial
for western society to drop state capitalism and adopt anarchist
socialist values and principles.
Anarcho-socialism would liberate the working class, disrupt wage slavery
and free the common man from the bonds of capitalism. Capitalism is a
monster of infinite hunger and greed. Capitalism creates the illusion
that a man is only worth his productivity under its bonds. Disabled
people, those with mental illnesses, and possibly even the common worker
with a broken ankle are seen as lessers for the fact that they are not
as productive or cannot meet the status quo. Under anarchist society all
are expected to do the best they can and are provided with the materials
they need to succeed. Peopleâs value would no longer be determined by
their labour but rather the content of their character. The working
class would no longer be oppressed under the rule of the bourgeoisie and
could live a fulfilling life that capitalism only grants to the rich and
powerful.
Capitalism is certainly efficient, but the cost of that is it alienates
the worker from his work. Before capitalism a clockmaker might make one
clock a day-something he could put love and care into and see a finished
product to be proud of. With a group of they could make 10 clocks a day.
Under capitalism profits are maximized; every clockmaker might instead
make one piece of the clock. Because their job is so specific they can
become incredibly efficient; maybe the group can make 100 clocks in a
day. 100 clocks is better than 10 right? Not necessarily. Making one
clock a day a clockmaker can see the fruits of his labor at the end of
the day. When he makes instead 100 cogs under capitalism at the end of
the day none of the 100 clocks really feel like they are his-the fruits
of his labour seems nonexistent. Because of this concept a fulfilling
life under capitalism is nearly impossible. Most donât see the great
things their work went to accomplish-very few can truly enjoy what they
do and get a sense of fulfillment.
Anarchism would be great for the natural world and reduce the human
impact on the environment. The industrial revolution and its
consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Part of the
anarchist revolution would require deindustrialization-factories would
be shut down, oil companies would go out of business, and fossil fuels
would stop being burnt. Corporations-the ones primarily responsible for
climate change and pollution-would, for the most part, cease to exist.
Corporations gain power and wealth by creating monopolies on the means
of production and exploiting workers to create capital. The liberation
of the workers would come with the liberation of the environment.
Destruction of the environment would no longer be profitable or
worthwhile for anyone.