💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-anarchy-in-iraq.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 19:39:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Anarchy in Iraq?
Author: Anarcho
Date: December 22, 2008
Language: en
Topics: Iraq, statelessness
Source: Retrieved on 29th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=168
Notes: An attempt to explain, after the defeat of Saddam back in 2003, why anarchists are not surprised when states disappear that disorder results. Rather than refute anarchism, such events show that the anarchist analysis of social transformation is correct. Anarchy cannot by given, it is an act of self-liberation (both individually and collectively). Once this is understood, the difference between chaos (disorder) and anarchy (without rulers) becomes clear.

Anarcho

Anarchy in Iraq?

After the fall of Saddam’s dictatorship, a wave of looting erupted in

towns and cities across Iraq. The media was outraged, often more

concerned about stolen property than the civilians wounded and murdered

by the US invasion. It was proclaimed that Iraq was falling into

“anarchy.” This is unsurprising, if annoying, for anarchists. It is

worthwhile to explain why the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq is not anarchy

nor, in fact, a case against anarchism.

Kropotkin once said that “without disorder, the Revolution is

impossible” and he was right. Every revolution has been marked by

“disorder,” by strikes, riots, looting and so on. However, in social

revolutions such periods are short lived. Inspired by ideas and hope for

the future, the mass of people quickly go beyond the destructive phrase

of popular revolt and start the construction of a new world.

So Kropotkin argued against the idea of “one-day revolutions” and the

idea that a revolution could occur independently of popular struggle and

mass movements. A “structure based on centuries of history cannot be

destroyed by a few kilos of explosives,” he correctly stated. Anarchy

would be the product of collective struggle at the heart of society, not

the product of external shocks. “To make the revolution,” he argued,

“the mass of workers will have to organise themselves. Resistance and

the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing this.” Thus it

was “a question of organising societies of resistance for all trades in

each town ... against the exploiters ... of federating them ... Workers’

solidarity must no longer be an empty word but practised each day

between all trades and all nations.” In the struggle against oppression

and exploitation, we not only change the world, we change ourselves at

the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom which creates people

capable of taking the responsibility for their own lives, communities

and planet. People capable of living as equals in a free society, so

making anarchy possible.

Therefore, what happened in Iraq is not an example of anarchy. As George

Barrett put it, the strength of the state lies “in the superstition of

the people who think that it is right to obey [it]. So long as that

superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head

of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown

accustomed to rely on something outside themselves.” This means that

“if, then, by some external means” the state was destroyed then people

would “rebuild the old society.” However, if “the people develop their

ideas of freedom, and then themselves get rid of the last stronghold

tyranny — the Government — then indeed the Revolution would be

permanently accomplished.” Like Kropotkin, he saw anarchist revolution

in terms of working class people self-organisation and direct action,

with the capitalist class “abolished by the people so organising

themselves that they will run the factories and use the land for the

benefit of their free communities, i.e. for their own benefit ... The

only thing then that will be put in the place of government will be the

free organisations of the workers.”

This has not happened in Iraq. Rather, the government has been destroyed

by quite a few kilos of explosives. Unsurprisingly, therefore, chaos

rather than anarchy resulted. It cannot be denied that

the looting is, in part, a reaction to inequality and class society. It

is a form of wealth redistribution. Nor can it be denied that some of

the looters see their actions as a form of justice. “Every single item

that we take is the blood of the people,” said one. However, it is not

the end of private property, simply a change in who claims to own it.

This can be seen from the irresponsible attacks on hospitals and other

resources that should be held in common, not squandered by breaking them

up and destroying them.

Aware of this, anarchists are not in favour of looting as such.

Anarchists, to quote Luigi Fabbri, “do not think of expropriation in

terms of some sort of ‘help yourself’ operation, left to personal

judgement, in the absence of any order. Even were it possible to predict

as inevitable that expropriations, once disorder sets in, would take on

an individualistic complexion ... anarchist communists have no intention

of adopting that sort of an approach as their own.” In other words,

collective expropriation must replace individualistic looting. Instead,

he pointed out that the working class has its “own, free institutions,

independent of the state” (such as federations of unions and

co-operatives) to achieve the end of private property and that “during

the revolution other collective bodies more attuned to the needs of the

moment will be set up.”

And this is the problem in Iraq. There has been no popular movement that

created the framework of a new society while fighting the old. Rather we

have people who, in the main (and so far), have not seen beyond statism

and capitalism taking advantage of a break down of the state and its

protection of property. Can we be surprised that chaos ensured?

Now the Iraqi people have three choices. They can accept the rule of the

US, either freely or be forced to. This seems the most likely, although

it will be imposed by force upon a population which, while anti-Saddam,

is also anti-US, its occupation and the wealthy, westernised Iraqi

exiles it wants to rule the country. Or they fall behind some new

nationalist gang aiming for state power. This is less likely. Or,

finally, they can start to construct their own ways of getting society

back on its feet in a way that will be in their interests. This is the

anarchist solution and would result in a true anarchy, a society of free

and equal people co-operating together freely.

Impossible, it will be asserted. Far from it. No society could survive

without its libertarian elements, elements which often come to the fore

in periods of intense struggle and change. Every struggle and revolution

has seen anarchist ideas and practices develop spontaneously as people

draw the obvious conclusions from their own experiences, they have seen

free, self-managed, organisations develop whenever the people have

freedom of initiative. The French revolution had its sections and

communes, the Russian revolution its soviets and factory committees, the

Spanish revolution its unions, collectives and co-operatives. These were

the bodies that turned riot into revolution, expropriating capital for

the benefit of all and allowing society to be run from the bottom up (at

least for a time). So in terms of what anarchism is, we don’t need to

speculate about how Iraq shows the failure of anarchism. Its necessary

preconditions do not exist. The historical examples of anarchism in

practice show how very different real anarchy is.

The creation of new socialist and libertarian institutions is,

therefore, always a possibility. The Iraqi peoples’ experiences may push

them towards anarchist conclusions, the awareness that the state exists

to protect the wealthy and powerful few and to disempower the many. That

while it is needed to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is not

needed to organise society nor can it do so in a just and fair way for

all. This is possible. There is a history of Shoras (workers councils)

in Iraq, so many have an example of working class self-organisation that

can be applied. So we cannot dismiss the possibility that the chaos in

Iraq may be replaced by true anarchy, the self-organisation of a

self-managed society.

Unfortunately the odds are stacked against this. The Iraqi people have

had their state destroyed for them and are now subject to an occupying

power. So although developments towards real anarchy are possible, it is

unlikely to happen. But we can hope. And if this does happen, the Iraqi

people will have to defend their freedom from two enemies. Firstly, the

US/UK occupation forces. These have no interest in seeing a functional

grassroots democracy be built from below. And, secondly, those in Iraq

who seek to maintain inequality in wealth and/or power. Without a

conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are likely to be

used, abused and finally destroyed by parties or religious groups

seeking political power over the masses.

During these events the US occupying power has made its priorities

clear. While letting essential services like hospitals and priceless

historical treasures be looted, the US army secured oil fields and

defended only two government ministries (namely of Oil and of the

Interior). When US officials boasted that oil production would restart

soon, people across Iraq were wondering when the same would be said of

their water, food and electricity supplies. But, of course, this war was

not about oil so this must be a coincidence.

Nor should we be surprised by the fact that the US is reintroducing the

old regime’s police force. They did the same all across Europe and the

Far East after defeating the fascists, where they replaced popular

anti-fascist committees with fascist politicians and businessmen. We can

expect to see the Baath state resurrected, but with a new leaders at the

top. And who knows, perhaps this policy of tolerating chaos and looting

is part of a plan to “win hearts and minds,” to get people used to the

idea of a US dictatorship presiding over Saddam’s police force as the

alternative would be chaos?

And, lastly, it is doubtful that the US and UK government’s tolerance

for “public disorder” in Iraq will be applied in regards those seeking

meaningful regime change at home. Number 10’s recognition that

oppression and exploitation produces resistance and rebellion will not

be applied here. We will be expected to obey the state like good

citizens and be punished if we step out of line. After all, we live in a

democracy. It’s not like the government simply ignores the wishes of the

population in favour of pursuing policies that only benefit the few at

the expense of the many and the planet we live on…

---

2008 Addition

Looking back after 5 years, the first thing to note is that the article

completely failed to predict how religious organisations stepped into

file the vacuum created by the US invasion. That is not too surprising,

as my knowledge of the Middle East was not that great at the time (it

has grown, as the occupation and resistance to it developed). Equally

obviously, my hopes that the Iraqi people who develop towards a

libertarian perspective has failed to happen but, to be fair, I did note

that that was optimistic! Lastly, the occupation is still there and the

US imposed a formally “democratic” regime, a regime that it ignores as

and when required. Did it recreate the Baath state, but with a new

leaders at the top as the article predicted? No, but mostly because of

popular opposition (for example, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s call

for elections could not be ignored due to the non-violent protests of

his followers). So we have an occupied country, with the trappings of

“democracy” but whose state, in practice, does what the occupiers want

or is ignored.

I would just point out, in my defence (so to speak), that the aim of the

article was not to predict the results of the invasion but to refute

claims that there was “anarchy” in Iraq and that the disorder that

occurred after the invasion somehow caused problems for anarchists or

anarchist theory. It did not, as the article shows for obvious reasons

given a basic understanding of how anarchists see social change

happening as well as how hierarchy shapes those subject to it.