💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-myths-about-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:18:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Myths about anarchism Author: Anarcho Date: January 9, 2016 Language: en Topics: myths Source: Retrieved on 24th April 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=930
This is a write-up of my talk at the 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair. It
is based on my notes and so will not be exactly the same as at the event
but it will be close enough. The meeting summary initially submitted for
the programme was:
Anarchists and anarchism have had a lot of nonsense written about them
over the years. Whether it is proclaiming that we want chaos or see
revolution as an easy process, the “conventional wisdom” is often at
odds with reality. This applies to individual anarchists, with Proudhon
painted as an advocate of “labour notes” or Kropotkin a gentle Prince of
non-violence who had an idealistic vision of social revolution. This is
not true. Anarchism and anarchists have a coherent and practical vision
of both social change and a better (not perfect) society. Join Iain
McKay (author of An Anarchist FAQ) as be explodes some of the common
myths about anarchism and anarchists.
The meeting itself was well attended with some good questions and
discussion after my talk. Attendees seemed to be happy with it but it is
up to the reader to determine whether the talk meet the expectations of
the summary!
---
There is so much nonsense written about anarchism that it is hard to
know where to start. While this applies across the political spectrum,
perhaps needless to say, Marxists are particular prone to writing
completely inaccurate articles but at least these are easy to refute as
they just repeat themselves by regurgitating the nonsense written by the
likes of Marx, Engels and Lenin!
I think that the biggest is that anarchism is just “anti-state”. As I
will show, this is not remotely the case but it is, I think, the biggest
myth which produces the biggest confusion. First, however, I will
discuss some of the other more obvious and silly myths.
The most obvious general myth is that anarchism equals chaos. Seriously,
who in their right mind wants chaos? Not anarchists. Yet this myth is
interesting as it says more about current society than it does
anarchism.
After all, what is chaos? It is a situation where anyone can coerce
anyone else as much as can get away with. That is, ruling them. Chaos
equals everyone acting like a state or boss. Or, in other words, the
state is legal chaos, just “legal” coercion and rule as defined by
itself.
Hence the old anarchist saying that “government is chaos, anarchy is
order”!
The next big one is that anarchism is against organisation. This is
suggested by some people who you would expect to know better. Indeed, I
remember reading an academic author proclaiming Max Stirner was not an
anarchist because he was in favour of organisation (his “Union of
Egoists”)! So anarchists were, apparently, even more individualistic
than the arch-egoist himself.
Sometimes you have to conclude that such claims are driven by political
needs. For example, one Marxist graphic “guide” to Marx rightly noted
that Bakunin warned against the dangers of the abuse of power in the
so-called workers’ state but then immediately proclaimed Bakunin was
against all forms of organisation! You cannot help concluding that this
nonsense was written to stop people looking at the libertarian socialist
alternative for what sensible person would look into Bakunin’s ideas
after reading that?
In reality, anarchists have thought about organisation from the start.
We are against specific forms of organisation, namely those which are
hierarchical, authoritarian, centralised, top-down – as in the
capitalist workplace or state. We are for specific forms of
organisation, namely self-managed, decentralised, federal, bottom-up
ones which end the division between rulers and ruled.
Thus we find that Proudhon argued for a socio-economic federation based
on workers control to end wage-labour (that is, the selling labour and
liberty to a boss) as well as the election, mandating and recall of
delegates to end the state (that is, delegating power to a few
governors). He advocated a libertarian social organisation rooted in
federalism and contract (free agreement) – collective self-rule within
free associations.
Anarchists, then, recognise that co-operation does not equal coercion
and so Engels (in his awful “On Authority”) was wrong in equating
agreement with authority. This is liberal nonsense and anarchists had
long argued that freedom is a product of association, not isolation, and
so it is how we associate, how we organise, which is important.
Which brings me to my next myth, namely that anarchism is a fusion of
liberalism and socialism. This is wrong for anarchism is a socialist
(egalitarian) critique of state and capitalism. Its main influences were
Rousseau’s critique of liberalism and workers movement – liberalism only
featured in terms of anarchist critiques of “Malthusian” economics and
the class-ridden society it produced.
It is worthwhile reminding ourselves that classical liberalism not very
liberal (in the modern sense). It justifies voluntary subjection,
voluntary authority, exploitation, and so on. However, is the problem
with slavery or dictatorship really that they are not voluntary? Yes,
according to “libertarian” (i.e., propertarian) Robert Nozick who is
echoing classical liberal John Locke. No, according to anarchists like
Proudhon and Bakunin who opposed the wage-labour liberalism defended.
Just as anarchism is socialist and not liberalism, the next myth is that
anarchism is individualism. While this is popular with Marxists, it
baseless and simply that shows their ignorance. At the forefront of
producing ignorant Marxist distortions about anarchism was Hal Draper
who proclaimed anarchism the most anti-democratic ideology there is.
Really? So monarchy or dictatorship is more democratic than anarchism?
Is the party dictatorship implemented and advocated by Lenin and Trotsky
more democratic? It just makes you wonder what Draper understood by
democratic!
Yes, anarchists are in favour of individuality, individual liberty, free
association. However, we draw egalitarian or democratic conclusions from
these and not (classical) liberal ones. We recognise that a social
organisation does not equal the state and so are looking for
associations which are free internally as well as free to join.
Individualism, in contrast, justifies authoritarian organisations while
for anarchists individual freedom implies self-managed organisations and
not hierarchical ones like the state or capitalist workplace.
There is an element of truth in the argument anarchists are
“anti-democratic” simply because history shows that the majority can be
wrong and oppressive. This means that minority rights, freedom to
protest, freedom to experiment, and so on are important not only in
themselves as a defence of freedom but also to ensure social evolution.
This means that anarchists argue for majority decision making within
freely joined associations but against majority rule.
Needless to say, while the majority can be oppressive we recognise that
minority rule is oppressive – whether politically (dictatorship or
monarchy) or economically (feudalism or capitalism). Anarchists
recognise that while the majority need not right, no minority (even one
elected by a majority) can be trusted not to abuse its position.
From what has been said so far, it is clear that the sadly too common
notion that anarchism is just anti-state is a myth. This one is popular
with both Marxists and Propertarians (for obvious reasons) but it
overlooks a significant aspect of anarchism, not least that the first
anarchist book was What is Property? rather than What is the State? and
that it concluded property was both “theft” and “despotism”!
Thus the property owner was the sovereign over their property and those
who use it. This meant that wage-workers sold labour and liberty to boss
which, in turn, ensures exploitation happens. From this Proudhon – like
subsequent anarchists – concluded that property had to be abolished by
becoming socially owned and managed by the individuals and groups who
used it – workplaces would be run by their workers, houses by their
tenants, communities by its member and so on.
This system of use-rights was termed “possession” and it would end
wage-labour by association. In short, anarchism has stood for workers’
control of production since 1840.
This analysis of the hierarchical nature of property, of capitalism,
feed into the anarchist critique of the state. The state defends
exploitation and oppression of the many by the few which property
creates, it is an instrument of class rule to enforce boss’s authority
and cannot be anything else due to its structure (which reflects its
role). It cannot be “captured” by the many for it is an unreformable
instrument of the few.
So libertarian principles of being anti-state and anti-property are
intertwined and interlinked. Ah, what about the so-called “libertarian”
right? Does that not show that anarchism is just anti-state? No, for the
“libertarian” right stole the name libertarian from the left in 1950s
America – apparently, theft is property! They also defend state-like
social relationships (most obviously, wage-labour and landlordism) and
usually support fascism to ensure them (von Mises eulogised fascism in
the 1920s while von Hayek supported Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile).
This is only surprising if you think they are genuinely interested in
liberty rather than property – and the power that goes with it.
Anarchists are often portrayed as being utopians but the notion that
anarchism just about a perfect future world is a myth. Far from it, we
all about applying our ideas in the here and now for we recognise that
people change through struggle. Hierarchy corrupts our character, both
the rulers and ruled, while resisting hierarchy improves our character.
Indeed, it is the struggle for freedom which makes us able to live as
free individuals. Thus we create the new world while we fight the
current one.
Nor does it mean anarchists think everyone will be perfect in a free
society. People are not perfect and there will always be arseholes – the
difference is they will not be in positions of power! It is because
people are not perfect that we are anarchists – you cannot give
imperfect, flawed people power over others! Hence our arguments for free
association, election, mandates, and recall – power corrupts both those
at the top and those below.
Another myth, although perhaps a more understandable one, is the notion
that anarchism is Proudhonism, Bakuninism, Kropotkinism, and so on. This
is wrong because we do not (like some!) name ourselves after
individuals. Individuals, as should be obvious, can be wrong! While
Proudhon laid down many of the keys ideas of anarchism he was completely
wrong – and self-contradictory – on the issue of feminism. His sexism is
an obvious example of why we reject calling ourselves after individuals.
No one is completely consistent and even the best anarchist makes
mistakes – Kropotkin in the First World War springs to mind! So it is
not the case that because an anarchist said it that it is anarchist but
rather whether the statement is it consistent with anarchist principles.
Thus Proudhon’s patriarchy was inconsistent with his own principles –
why should the home be excluded from the critique of hierarchy made with
regards to the state and property? Similarly, Proudhon’s opposition to
strikes is not reflected in the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and
other revolutionary anarchists.
Thinkers are part of a wider movement and gain influence because they
chime with it. They lose that influence when they no longer do – as
Kropotkin found out in 1914! – and so we reject the idea that quoting
individual anarchists is sufficient to define anarchism. Yet, for all
that, there are individuals whose work helped define and shape anarchism
and it is useful to discuss the myths associated with specific
individuals for these will help debunk some common myths about anarchism
as such.
Fittingly, I will start with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who, in 1840,
proclaimed himself an anarchist. There are many myths about Proudhon and
these are, in the main, due to a lack of translations of his voluminous
output and unreliable commentators (like Marx).
Suffice to say, Marx did not refute him in The Poverty of Philosophy –
that book is a hatch-job and there is simply too much nonsense within it
to go into here. As an example, Marx simply asserts Proudhon advocated
“Labour Notes” and fails to mention the numerous passages which show
this is definitely not the case.
Proudhon, regardless of Marx’s implication, did not oppose large scale
industry nor did he advocate “small-scale” property. In fact, his theory
reflects the rise of industry – rather than ignore or deplore it – by
arguing for workers associations (co-operatives) to run workplaces. Nor
was he an individualist for he recognised that groups were greater than
the sum of their parts due to what he termed “collective force”. Groups
were as real as the individuals who make it up and so these had to be
self-managed to ensure it group reflects individuals and their ideas. He
also saw the need for wide-scale organisation in the form of a
federation of self-governing associations in both society – communes (or
self-governing communities) – and the economy – associated labour
(self-managed workplaces). He even argued for a democratic armed forces
were soldiers elect their officers.
This would be a bottom-up federation with elected, mandated and
recallable delegates – as applied in the Paris Commune in 1871 and
praised by Marx. In short, he was the first modern socialist.
The next anarchist to discuss is Michael Bakunin and, again, there are
many myths about him – perhaps due to him being right on Marx? After
all, social democracy became as reformist has he feared while the
dictatorship of the proletariat indeed became the dictatorship over the
proletariat as he predicted.
Needless to say, he was not an advocate of “pan-destruction”. Indeed,
the famous “urge to destroy” quote used rolled out was uttered long
before he became an anarchist. During his anarchist phase he repeatedly
stresses that violence should be directed at institutions not people
(but recognised that this was unlikely to happen in practice due to the
popular passions produced by years of exploitation and oppression).
As an anarchist, he advocated what would later be called a syndicalist
strategy – working class self-organisation and struggle by means of
unions, strikes, general strikes, insurrection, workers councils. This
would build the new world while fighting the current one but while
recognising the need to win reforms by direct action Bakunin was not a
reformist like Proudhon but built on his ideas to advocate a revolution
in the popular sense of the word and, regardless of what Marxists may
say, he also recognised need for defence of a revolution by means of a
federation of workers councils and workers militias. In short, he was
the first modern – revolutionary – anarchist
Finally, I must mention Peter Kropotkin who was not a gentle prince of
co-operation or “non-violence” as some assert (pacifist, according to
one Marxist!) but rather a revolutionary anarchist like Bakunin. He,
also like Bakunin, advocated what would be termed a syndicalist strategy
– unions, strikes, general strike, workers councils, and so on.
Kropotkin did not think revolution would be easy. Quite the reverse for
he argued anarchism was needed because a state could not handle the
inevitable problems a social revolution would throw up. Nor did he deny
the role of individual or class struggle as many claims – he was very
clear that mutual aid was just one factor in evolution. Finally, he did
not think anarchy would just appear like manna from heaven and so, again
like Bakunin, saw the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists and
work within the masses to spread anarchist ideas.
I was going to discuss the great revolutions – the Paris Commune, Russia
1905 and 1917, Spain 1936 – but there is no time and I’m not a big fan
of being lectured to. Suffice to say, each one confirmed anarchist
theory in one way or another.
This includes the Spanish revolution which showed that anarchists make
mistakes rather than pointing to so fundamental flaw in anarchist theory
as Marxists proclaims. In short, the Russian revolution failed because
Marxists applied their ideas while the Spanish one failed because
anarchists did not apply their ideas – a very big difference!
I’ll end with the final myth, namely that anarchism cannot appeal to
working class people. This is obviously wrong as most anarchists – now
and then – are working class. I’m working class, a trade unionist, and
see its benefits. The real question is: how do we apply ourselves in
making anarchism a social movement again?
If we can burst this myth we will burst all the other myths about
anarchism as a consequence.