💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › colin-jenkins-juxtaposing-anarchy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:36:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Juxtaposing Anarchy Author: Colin Jenkins Date: May 15, 2015 Language: en Topics: libertarianism, punk, USA, Noam Chomsky, left libertarianism Source: Retrieved on 5/25/15 from http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/juxtaposing-anarchy.html
Anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder. It is a term that stands
in direct contrast to the archetype of society we have become accustomed
to: hierarchical, highly-structured, and authoritative. Because of this,
it carries negative connotations. Merriam-Webster, the consensus source
of meaning within the dominant paradigm, defines anarchyas: a situation
of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group,
organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws; or, a state of
disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority. The
implications made in these definitions are clear - any absence of
authority, structure, or control most surely amounts to confusion,wild
behavior, and disorder. In other words, human beings are incapable of
controlling themselves, maintaining order, and living peacefully amongst
one another. So we are to believe.
Far removed from the general presentation of anarchy is anarchism, a
political philosophy rich in intellectual and theoretical tradition.
Again turning to Merriam-Webster, we are told that anarchism is: a
political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be
unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary
cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. Even from
within the dominant paradigm, we see a wide range of divergence between
anarchism, which is presented strictly as an idea, and anarchy, which is
presented as the real and absolute consequence (though hypothetical) of
transforming this idea to praxis. Juxtaposing these terms, injecting
historical perspective to their meaning, and realizing the differences
between their usage within the modern lexicon and their philosophical
substance should be a worthy endeavor, especially for anyone who feels
that future attempts at shaping a more just society will be fueled by
ideas, both from the past and present.
While comparing and contrasting the various ways in which anarchy is
deployed, we recognize three arenas: 1) Popular culture, which embraces
and markets the association of chaos, wild behavior, and disorder; 2)
Corporate politics, which uses the term as a pejorative, mostly to
describe dominant right-wing platforms like the Tea Party and USAmerican
libertarian movement; and 3) In activist and theoretical circles, where
anarchism is understood as an authentic and legitimate political
philosophy with roots firmly placed in the Enlightenment.
The anti-authoritarian tendencies of anarchism are understandably
attractive in a world that is overwhelmingly authoritative, intensely
conformist, and socially restrictive. The conservative nature of
American culture, which is notorious for repressing attitudes and
beliefs that form outside of the dominant "white, Judeo-Christian"
standard, begs for the existence of a thriving subculture that is based
on rebellion, if only as an avenue of personal liberation and
expression. The 1955 James Dean movie, Rebel without a Cause, offered a
first glimpse into this nihilistic backlash against the deadening and
soulless culture of conformity as it showcased the contradictory and
often confusing nature of adolescence in white, middle-class suburbia.
On the heels of Dean was a baby-boomer revolution fueled by radical
inquiry, hippie culture, bohemian lifestyles, and a "British Invasion."
For the better part of a decade, the counterculture movement in the US
that came to be known quite simply as "the '60s" boasted a wide array of
meaningful causes, addressing everything from poverty to institutional
racism and segregation to war. However, this brief period of
revolutionary cause dissipated into a new and distinctly different
counterculture through the 1970s and 80s, taking on a rebellious yet
counterrevolutionary identity. In contrast to the existentialist nature
of the 60s, which sought answers through philosophical exploration, the
collective angst that developed in subsequent decades sought individual
freedom through nihilism, self-destruction, and chronic apathy. Not
giving a shit about detrimental traditions transformed into not giving a
shit about anything. In turn, acts of defiance morphed from politically
conscious and strategic opposition to oppressive structures to spiteful
and self-destructive nothingness.
The revolutionary uprising of the 1960s, which had been stomped out by
government suppression and maligned as an "excess of democracy," was
effectively replaced by a reactionary insurrection bankrupt of any
constructive analysis or productive goal. This nothingness was embraced
by a significant counterculture that developed alongside the punk rock
music scene, which flirted with anarchist politics before descending
into an egoistic and narrow identity based in privilege. What followed
was a brand of "pop anarchy" devoid any meaning beyond contrived images.
Acts of rebellion were central, but a cause was neither constructed nor
needed. The anarchist and revolutionary symbolism that screamed for
meaning was reduced to shallow marketing schemes as remnants of
legitimate angst were redirected into childish rants against parents,
teachers, "the man," and "the system" - terms that often carried little
meaning for those who used them. The exclusivity that developed made
political organizing virtually impossible, and had an alienating effect
on many. "Looking at the fact that most people who rear their heads at
anarchist 'movement' events are roughly between 16-30 years old, with
background influences of 'punk' or other 'alternative' persuasions,"
explains one former anarchist from the punk scene, "it is easy to
understand why such 'movements' tend to alienate most people than
interest them." A major problem that was exposed was demographics. "Punk
primarily appealed to middle-class, staright white boys, who, thought
they were 'too smart' for the rock music pushed by the corporations,
still wanted to 'rock out.' It is also a culture that was associated
with alienating oneself from the rest of society, often times in order
to rebel against one's privileged background or parents." Because of
this, "we have to admit that it was (and still is) exclusive."
By contrasting US punk culture of this time with its British
counterpart, one could see the development of a counterculture that
lacked revolutionary meaning or class context. As Neil Eriksen explains:
"The distinctions between US and British punk rock are based solidly on
differences in the audience. In the US the counter-cultural character of
punk is evident in the primary emphasis on style of dress and posturing.
'Middle class' youth can copy the style of the British punks and are
afforded the economic and ideological space to make it a whole
lifestyle, similar to the way the hippies dropped out, turned on and
tuned in. It is primarily those who do not have to work for a living who
can afford the outrageous blue, green and orange punk hair styles and
gold safety pins. The working class generally cannot choose to go to
work with orange hair. In England punk is much more complex, especially
given the history of other sub-cultures such as the Mods, Rockers and
Skinheads. British punks find in their sub-cultural expressions of music
and attitudes, as well as styles, more of an organic indication of their
experiences as under- or unemployed youth. In the US, punk has few
organic working class roots, and it thus functions as a broad
counter-cultural milieu that does not indict the system for lack of
jobs, but tends toward nihilism and mindlessness."
The counterculture described above was a favorable, and almost
inevitable, result of both appropriation from above and cooptation at
the hands of capitalist profit. Revolutionary politics, in its authentic
form, is not a profitable commodity. Instead, the radical roots of
anarchist philosophy, which are briefly described in the definition of
"anarchism" provided by Merriam-Webster, serve as a threat to any
society that possesses extreme divisions of power and wealth. The United
States - with its hierarchical governmental structure, no-holds-barred
corporate landscape, and extreme divisions between the wealthy and
everyone else (20% of the population owns 90% of the wealth) is no
exception. For this reason, anarchism has (historically) been
appropriated by the dominant culture (which is shaped by this 20%),
diluted to anarchy, and served to the masses in the form of
entertainment. This process has led to "gradual appearances in
mainstream culture over the course of several years, at times far
removed from its political origin (described bySituationists as "
recuperation"). These appearances typically connected it with anarchy
and were intended as sensationalist marketing ploys, playing off the
mainstream association of anarchy with chaos."
The most recent form of this appropriation has come in the popular
television series, Sons of Anarchy, which depicts a California biker
gang inundated with drama, drug abuse, senseless murders, gun-running,
and gang activity. Despite glimpses and a few mentions of the fictional
founder's manifesto, which included some scattered words by genuine
anarchists like Emma Goldman and Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the show
clearly chooses chaos and senseless, self-serving crime as its theme.
The pinnacle of this appropriation, and ignorance of the rich history of
philosophical anarchism, concludes with reviews that refer to one of the
show's main characters, a ruthless, murderous, and power-hungry leader
by the name of Clay Morrow, as a " true anarchist."
In the midst of the US government shutdown in October of 2013, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to criticize the
move. "We have a situation where we have a good day with the
anarchists," Reid said. "Why? Because the government is closed." Reid's
comment was meant as a jab to the Republican Party, which was largely
responsible for allowing the shutdown to take place, purely as a
political ploy. A few days later, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren
referred to "anarchist tirades" and "thinly veiled calls for anarchy in
Washington" coming from Tea Party members in the House as the impetus
for the shutdown. Warren even went as far as equating anarchists with
"pessimists and ideologues whose motto is, 'I've got mine, the rest of
you are on your own,' while ironically tying in neoliberal deregulation
that "tolerates dangerous drugs, unsafe meat, dirty air, or toxic
mortgages," as an "anarchists' dream."
"Anarchy" has maintained its status as a pejorative in the modern
American liberal lexicon, but not by choice. Borrowing from the nihilism
of pop anarchy, it embraces misconceptions, ignores historical roots,
and guts the term of genuine meaning. Considering that such rhetoric is
coming from folks who have advanced degrees in political science,
careers as political pundits, and a working knowledge of history, it can
only be explained as calculated fear-mongering. The fact of the matter
is that the Republican Party is just as "statist" as the Democratic
Party, if only in different ways. And while the approach of political
sects like the Tea Party and USAmerican "libertarian" movements present
a less-statist platform than their counterparts from within the
establishment, their philosophical make-ups (if you can even call them
that) include a blatant disregard for the public at-large, an underlying
racism that is dangerously oppressive, a love affair with capitalism, a
childish refusal to recognize needs outside of privileged interests, a
fanatical support for gun rights, and a narrow-minded obsession with
protecting private property and personal wealth - beliefs that are more
in line with the self-absorbed, reactionary nature of fascism than with
the revolutionary, "cooperative individualism" of anarchism. Ultimately,
the Tea Party, much like the USAmerican "libertarian" movement, is
focused on one goal: protecting an embedded array of privilege and
maintaining the status quo; and the means to their end (at least,
theoretically) is the coercive power structure of the market, as opposed
to that of the state. If and only when the market hierarchy is
threatened by, say, a popular uprising, a workers strike, or a movement
for civil rights, this brand of "libertarian" views the state - in the
form of domestic police and military forces - as a necessary component.
In other words, these so-called "anarchists" are really nothing of the
sort. Instead, they are more than willing to use state power to uphold
historically-based inequities related to wealth accumulation, racism,
and class division.
If the cheap political jabs used by liberals were packed with historical
context, they could be closer to the truth. However, this would defeat
the purpose. Parts of the right-wing have, in fact, appropriated and
twisted anarchist philosophy, mostly through a concerted effort to adopt
an ahistorical version of "libertarianism." In his "anarcho-capitalist"
manifesto, Betrayal of the American Right, Murray Rothbardexplained this
intent:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the
first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word
from the enemy. Other words, such as 'liberal,' had been originally
identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by
left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather
feebly 'true' or 'classical' liberals. 'Libertarians,' in contrast, had
long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchist; that is for
anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist
variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view
of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and
therefore of the individual's right to his property."
Of course, like all others who claim this contradictory title of
anarcho-capitalist, Rothbard either failed to recognize "how property
results in similar social relations and restrictions in liberty as the
state," or simply believed that "liberty" was synonymous with
feudalistic ideals. As one anarchist (of the authentic variety) writer
laments, the thought process of this faux-anarchism is that a
"capitalist or landlord restricting the freedom of their wage-workers
and tenants" is ok, but any such restrictions from "the state" is not.
"It's an oddity that in the United States, the main current of
libertarian thought has been twisted and inverted into a kind of
monstrous stepchild," explains Nathan Schneider. "Rather than seeking an
end to all forms of oppression, our libertarians want to do away with
only the government kind, leaving the rest of us vulnerable to the
forces of corporate greed, racial discrimination, and environmental
destruction."
Since the Democratic Party's use of the term borrows from the
simplistic, nihilistic version of "pop anarchy," rather than the
complex, philosophical version of anarchism, it becomes useful within
the modern political arena. The true right-wing appropriation of
anarchism as noted by Rothbard, which is fabricated in its own right,
becomes buried under the fear-mongering and falsely implied association
by the likes of Reid and Warren. Historically, this same type of
fear-mongering has allowed for fascist scapegoating (Reichstag Fire),
capitalist scapegoating (Haymarket Affair), and unlawful state
executions ( Sacco and Vanzetti), all designed to exploit widespread
ignorance regarding anarchist beliefs and prevent authentic libertarian
movements from spreading through the populace. "The figure of the
anarchist has long dominated our national imagination," explains Heather
Gautney. "It's a word that conjures up the lawless, the nihilistic and
even the violent. It's the image Senators Reid and Warren invoked in
their talking points against the Republicans." It's also an image devoid
any real meaning. By removing its substance and demonizing its
association, the establishment wins.
a Cause
While "pop anarchy" took over much of the American punk scene in the
'70s and '80s, it was only part of the story. Punk culture still served
what Henry Rollins once succinctly described as "the perfect expression
of postmodern angst in a decadent society," creating an outlet for
rebellious urges seeping from the dominant culture. It also served as a
catalyst for pockets of revolutionary politics. When done right, it was
the perfect combination of expression and meaning. The hard, edgy, and
chaotic sounds spilling from the music represented a form of liberation
that was desperately needed, while the lyrics roared against the
establishment and aimed at deadening conformity and the music industry's
increasingly corporatized and cookie-cutter production value. The UK
provided an example of this perfection when it birthed anarcho-punk.
"From the numerous situationist slogans that graced the lyrics of early
punk bands, to the proliferation of anarcho-punk bands such as Crass and
Conflict in the early eighties, punk rock as a subculture has had a
unique history of having a strong relationship with explicitly anarchist
and anti-capitalist political content over the years," explains an
anonymous Colours of Resistance blogger . "Many anarchists today,
including myself, are by-products of punk rock, where most become
politicized from being exposed to angry, passionate lyrics of
anarcho-punk bands, "do-it-yourself" zines, and countless other sources
of information that are circulated within the underground punk
distribution networks. Some are introduced to punk through the
introduction to the anarchist social circles. Regardless of which comes
first, the correlation between the punk scene and the anarchist scene is
hard to miss, especially at most anarchist gatherings and conferences."
Within the anarcho-punk movement, "the possibilities for advances in
popular culture in the dissolution of capitalist hegemony and in
building working class hegemony" began to surface. "The fact that punk
rock validated political themes in popular music once again," Eriksen
suggests, "opened the field" for the left libertarian movements. As an
example, punk initiatives like "Rock Against Racism were able to sponsor
Carnivals with the Anti-Nazi League drawing thousands of people and many
popular bands to rally against racism and fascism" and "openly socialist
bands like the Gang of Four were taken seriously by mainstream rock
critics and record companies, and thereby were able to reach a broad
audience with progressive entertainment."
Punk ideologies that arose from this era touched on concepts like
anti-establishment, equality, freedom, anti-authoritarianism,
individualism, direct action, free thought, and non-conformity - many
ideas that are synonymous with historical-anarchist thought. This social
consciousness naturally led to activism, and specifically, acts of
direct action, protests, boycotts, and squatting. These elements
represented authentic anarchist philosophy and served as a counter to
nihilistic and empty "pop anarchy," while politicizing many.
Another form of "rebellion with a cause" came from American hip-hop and
rap. The rise of hip-hop in the US paralleled that of the punk scene,
and shared many of the same revolutionary tendencies. While not
explicitly anarchist, hip-hop took on an identity that mirrored
authentic anarchist philosophy. Its anti-authoritarian nature was far
from nihilistic, but rather survivalist; born in response to centuries
of racial subjugation, economic strangulation, and violent oppression at
the hands of domestic police forces. Hip-hop's birthplace, the Bronx
(NYC), characterized its development. "Heavily influenced by the
economically and socially oppressed ghettoes, along with the echoes of
the last generation's movements for liberation and the street gangs that
filled in the void they left," Derek Ide tells us, "the South Bronx
provided the perfect matrix in which marginalized youth could find a way
to articulate the story of their own lives and the world around them. In
this historically unique context, a culture would be created through an
organic explosion of the pent-up, creative energies of America's
forgotten youth. It was a culture that would reach every corner of the
world in only a couple decades.."
In the end, hip-hop and gangsta rap provided endless displays of
socially-conscious and revolutionary tracks throughout the '80s and
'90s, and combined with the punk scene to construct a form of "conscious
chaos" that provided valuable social and cultural analyses as well as
revolutionary goals that sought to establish a more just world. These
counter-cultural movements represented an important about-turn from the
contrived nihilism and "pop anarchy" that had surfaced in response to
the "excess of democracy" in the '60s, and displayed elements that
echoed authentic anarchism, as a revolutionary libertarian philosophy.
The roots of Anarchism, as a school of thought, are firmly placed in the
Age of Enlightenment and, specifically, within two major themes stemming
from that period: liberalism and socialism. In a sea of definitions, one
of the most concise and encompassing is offered by Lucien van der Walt
and Michael Schmidt in their 2009 book, "Black Flame: The Revolutionary
Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism." In it, they describe
anarchism as "a revolutionary and libertarian socialist doctrine" that
"advocates individual freedom through a free society" and "aims to
create a democratic, egalitarian, and stateless socialist order through
an international and internationalist social revolution, abolishing
capitalism, landlordism, and the state." [1]
Anarchism's roots in the Enlightenment are undeniable. From Jean-Jacques
Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality" to Wilhelm von Humboldt's "The
Limits of State Action," the libertarian strain born of this time served
as the precursor to the anarchist thinkers of the 19th and 20th
centuries. Their similarities are found in a philosophical examination
of social inequities like personal wealth, private property, political
power, and all forms of authority established within human societies -
elements that are heavily scrutinized by anarchists. However, despite
these roots, Schmidt and van der Walt tell us that anarchism should be
considered "a relatively recent phenomenon" that emerged specifically
"from the 1860s onward within the context of the modern working-class
and socialist movement, within the womb of the First International." [2]
For this reason, anarchism can most aptly be described as "socialism
from below." In fact, the demarcation between enlightenment philosophy
and anarchist thought is generally found in their distinct reactions to
hierarchies created by systems of monarchy, feudalism, and theocracy
(enlightenment) and hierarchies created by the exploitative nature of
capitalism and the modern liberal, democratic state (anarchism).
The development and separation of anarchism from the Enlightenment was
made clear by prominent anarchist thinkers at and around the turn of the
20 th century. In the years following the Paris Commune, Russian
revolutionary anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, expressed his disgust with the
idea of a "purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by
the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than
the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest," and "the
shabby and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J-J Rousseau and
the other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be
rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of
each - an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of
each to zero."[3] A few decades later, in a critique of liberalism,
Peter Kropotkin denounced the aim of all so-called "superior
civilizations," which was "not to permit all members of the community to
develop in a normal way," but rather "to permit certain, better-endowed
individuals fully to develop, even at the cost of the happiness and the
very existence of the mass of mankind." This separation had much to do
with the newly developed social constraints stemming from capitalism. As
Noam Chomsky explains, "It is true that classical libertarian thought is
opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper
assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free
association..." however, "on the same assumptions, capitalist relations
of production, wage labor, competitiveness, and the ideology of
'possessive individualism' all must be regarded as fundamentally
antihuman" as well. For this reason, he suggests, "libertarian socialism
is properly regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the
Enlightenment," while it also embraces its own identity through the
inclusion of a class analysis and critique of the coercive structures
stemming from the capitalist hierarchy.[4]
The socialist nature of anarchism represents a fundamental current in
both its thought and process, yet is often overlooked by many who claim
to be anarchists, especially in the United States. This misunderstanding
is caused by both pro-market (and even pro-capitalist) "libertarian"
movements that are ahistorical and seemingly blind to the authoritative
structures of modern, industrial capitalism, as well as by the
abovementioned "pop anarchy" phenomenon and "liberal enabling" that
falsely limit anarchism to a vague and unsophisticated "anti-government"
stance. Superficial dualities that have captured consensus thought, most
notably that of "collectivism vs. individualism," are also largely
responsible for this misinterpretation. Because of this, the virtual
disappearance of class analysis from modern libertarian thought in the
United States not only represents a significant departure from nearly
two centuries of libertarianism, but also neglects to address a
highly-authoritative and hierarchical private structure that has long
surpassed its governmental counterpart. Schmidt and van der Walt explain
the importance of rejecting "pop anarchy" stereotypes and maintaining
this class analysis within anarchist thought:
"For anarchists, individual freedom is the highest good, and
individuality is valuable in itself, but such freedom can only be
achieved within and through a new type of society. Contending that a
class system prevents the full development of individuality, anarchists
advocate class struggle from below to create a better world. In this
ideal new order, individual freedom will be harmonised with communal
obligations through cooperation, democratic decision-making, and social
and economic equality. Anarchism rejects the state as a centralised
structure of domination and an instrument of class rule, not simply
because it constrains the individual or because anarchists dislike
regulations. On the contrary, anarchists believe rights arise from the
fulfilment of obligations to society and that there is a place for a
certain amount of legitimate coercive power, if derived from collective
and democratic decision making.
The practice of defining anarchism simply as hostility to the state has
a further consequence: that a range of quite different and often
contradictory ideas and movements get conflated. By defining anarchism
more narrowly, however, we are able to bring its key ideas into a
sharper focus, lay the basis for our examination of the main debates in
the broad anarchist tradition in subsequent chapters, and see what ideas
are relevant to current struggles against neoliberalism."[5]
When considering and rejecting both public and private forms of
restriction, the most fundamental element of authentic anarchism clearly
becomes cooperation. This theme was thoroughly established by Kropotkin
in his 1902 classic, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, in which he
pointed to "the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the
earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and
undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in
the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle - has
had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time,
we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our
race." This theme was echoed by Rudolf Rocker in his 1938 treatise on
Anarcho-Syndicalism. Said Rocker, "Anarchism is a definite intellectual
current in the life of our time, whose adherents advocate the abolition
of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive
institutions within society" while calling on "a free association of all
productive forces based upon cooperative labor" to replace "the present
capitalistic economic order."[6]
The importance of Anarchist theory lies in its critique of hierarchies
and the uneven distribution of power emanating from such. This makes
this school of thought an important component as we move forward in
attempting to address the pervasive ills of society, whether coming from
the state or corporate structures that tower over us. The mere
questioning of these "authorities" is crucial in itself. As Chomsky
tells us:
"… any structure of hierarchy and authority carries a heavy burden of
justification, whether it involves personal relations or a large social
order. If it cannot bear that burden - sometimes it can - then it is
illegitimate and should be dismantled. When honestly posed and squarely
faced, that challenge can rarely be sustained. Genuine libertarians have
their work cut out for them." <[7]
While many socialist-oriented strains incorporate this same analysis,
some do not. Essentially, regarding the formation of
class-consciousness, anarchist theory of all varieties (syndicalism,
mutualism, communism, etc.) act as ideal compliments to historically
strong currents of Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and Trotskyism, and should
be included within all such theoretical considerations. When
transforming theory to praxis, anarchism's inclusion of worker
collectivization in the form of labor or trade unions prove valuable in
this regard. In his treatise on Syndicalism, Rocker made a compelling
argument for the usefulness of this brand of anarchism as a component to
working-class emancipation. For the Anarcho-Syndicalists," says Rocker,
"the trade union is by no means a mere transitory phenomenon bound up
with the duration of capitalist society, it is the germ of the socialist
economy of the future, the elementary school of socialism in general."
He continues, "Every new social structure makes organs for itself in the
body of the old organism. Without this preliminary, any social evolution
is unthinkable. Even revolutions can only develop and mature the germs
which already exist and have made their way into the consciousness of
men (and presumably, women); they cannot themselves create these germs
or generate new worlds out of nothing." [8]
Putting this philosophy into action is still of utmost importance.
Creating a brand that is palatable and accessible to the working-class
majority, without sacrificing its revolutionary tone and message, is
also crucial. In his 2013 book, "Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of
Occupy Wall Street," Mark Bray stresses the importance of deploying a
practical anarchism which avoids the esoteric idealism that so many
genuine and well-intentioned anarchists get bogged down in. This
pragmatic approach is perhaps most important when attempting to relay
information via short interviews and sound bites. Bray points to three
specific lessons he learned while interacting with mainstream media
during his time at Zuccotti Park:
"First, I learned the value of presenting my revolutionary ideas in an
accessible format. How I dress, the words I choose, and how I articulate
them affect how I am received, so if my primary goal is to convince
people of what I am saying, then it's often useful to shed my
"inessential weirdness." Second, I realized the usefulness of letting
tangible examples sketch the outline of my ideas without encumbering
them with explicit ideological baggage. Finally, I concluded that the
importance that Americans place on the electoral system dictates that
any systematic critique should start with the corporate nature of both
parties. Like it or not, that's where most people are at in terms of
their political framework, so if you skip past the candidates to
alternative institutions, for example, without convincing them of the
bankrupt nature of the electoral system, you'll lose them." [9]
Essentially, anarchism is what democracy is supposed to be -
self-governance. In this sense, anyone even remotely involved in the
Occupy movement had the privilege, likely for the first time in their
lives, to truly witness democracy (anarchism) in action. "This is not
the first time a movement based on fundamentally anarchist principles -
direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political
institutions and attempt to create alternative ones - has cropped up in
the US," explains David Graeber. "The civil rights movement (at least,
its more radical branches), the anti-nuclear movement, the global
justice movement … all took similar directions." And, in a country where
a large majority of citizens have given up on and/or no longer believe
in their representatives, a little democracy may be exactly what we
need, even if it's not what our white, wealthy, slave-owning "founding
fathers" wanted. "Most (of the founding fathers) defined 'democracy' as
collective self-governance by popular assemblies, and as such, they were
dead set against it, arguing it would be prejudicial against the
interests of minorities (the particular minority that was had in mind
here being the rich)," Graeber tells us. "They only came to redefine
their own republic - modeled not on Athens, but on Rome - as a
'democracy' because ordinary Americans seemed to like the word so much."
In our inevitable and necessary escape from the faux democracy of
America's colonists and founders, anarchist thought will undoubtedly
play a role. It is, after all, the only school of thought that can be
described as authentic, class-based libertarianism. Its foundation is
the reasonable expectation that all structures of dominance, authority,
and hierarchy must justify themselves; and, if they cannot, they must be
dismantled.
This covers ALL coercive institutions - not only governments, the state,
police, and military, but also cultural phenomena like patriarchy,
racism, and white supremacy, and most importantly, economic systems like
capitalism. Unlike modern forms of "libertarianism" in the US, which
ignore racist structures and the historical formations behind them, and
falsely view the labor-capital relationship inherent in capitalism as a
"choice," authentic Anarchism correctly views such elements as coercive
and forced; and seeks to dismantle them in order to move forward with
constructing a society based on free association, where all human beings
have a healthy degree of control over their lives, families, and
communities.
Contrary to consensus thought (propaganda), such as those rooted in
"rugged individualism" and "American exceptionalism," there is a
collective and cooperative nature to true liberty. We simply cannot gain
control over our lives until we learn to respect the lives of all
others. This is the essence of community. And we cannot begin to do this
until we deconstruct illegitimate hierarchies of wealth and power, which
have been constructed through illegal and immoral means over the course
of centuries. Recognizing these structures and realizing that they are
NOT legitimate, and therefore do not deserve to exist, is the first step
in this process. Embracing contributions from this school of thought is
crucial in this regard.
Fundamentally, Anarchism is a working-class ideology. Occupy Wall Street
was largely influenced by it. Workers' co-ops are largely influenced by
it. Any action that attempts to establish free association within
society can learn much from it. Its foundational requirement of organic
human cooperation and peaceful co-existence has been tried and tested
throughout history - from hunter-gatherer societies across the world to
Native American communities to the Paris Commune to revolutionary
Catalonia to Chiapas. It provides a philosophical foundation - not a
rigid blueprint - that allows for limitless potential in attempting to
solve our problems, collectively, while trying to carve out a meaningful
human experience for everyone. It may not provide all answers, or even
most, but its foundation is worthy of building from, or at least
considering. Its true value is found in its inclusion of historical
formations as well as its role as a catalyst for new ideas and action -
something we desperately need, moving forward.
Notes
[1] Schmidt, Michael & van der Walt, Lucien. Black Flame: The
Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press,
2009, p. 33
[2] Schmidt & van der Walt, p. 34
[3] Guerin, Daniel. "Anarchism: From Theory to Practice." Monthly Review
Press, 1970. Taken from the Preface by Noam Chomsky.
[4] Chomsky on Anarchism , selected and edited by Barry Pateman. AK
Press: 2005, p. 122-123
[5] Schmidt and van der Walt, p. 33
[6] Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, 6th
edition. AK Press, 2004. P. 1
[7] Chomsky on Anarchism , p. 192.
[8] Rocker, P. 59.
[9] Mark Bray, Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street.
Zero Books, 2013.