💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › larry-gambone-what-is-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:04:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What is Anarchism? Author: Larry Gambone Date: 1997 Language: en Topics: introductory, Any Time Now Source: Retrieved 11/30/2021 from https://web.archive.org/web/20000925102810/http://ri.xu.org/arbalest/definition1.html Notes: From a 1997 issue of Any Time Now
“Right now I'd like to strengthen the federal government.”
- statement by the alleged anarchist Noam Chomsky in The Progressive,
March 1996
A most incredible confusion exists as to what exactly anarchism is. Some
of this is due to the media images of chaos, terrorism and mad bombers.
A pseudo-anarchism also grew up out of the remains of the New Left, a
subject that I have dealt with elsewhere. Of late, we have Chomsky's
seeming betrayal of anarchism and the bizarre spectacle of anarchists
marching in defense of the Welfare State. The word “anarchist”
practically screams for clarification.
Anarchism is the ideal of a society without coercion, a society where
membership in all organizations is voluntary. Such an ideal society may
never come into existence, yet the anarchist considers it something
worth working toward. While we most certainly don't need ideologies, we
still need ideals to push us forward. When robbed of ideals we can
easily descend into the vulgar materialism of consumerism or false
ideals like Communism and Nationalism. Admittedly, ideals are not for
everyone, and neither is anarchism, especially in its demanding the
maximum of responsibility and self-reliance.
What about the people who go part way – those who accept most, but not
all of the message? What are they? I suggest that people who generally
want less coercion in society, yet do not accept the “final goal,”
should be called libertarians and not anarchists. Those who accept only
a portion of the anarchist message, say, mutualism, federalism or
decentralism, should be called mutualists, federalists and
decentralists, not anarchists. Generally, such people lump themselves in
(or get lumped in) with anarchists and this is a cause for a great deal
of confusion.
What I am talking about is the problem of the difference between the
“final goal,” and the actual process of movement. This is a problem
which haunted the authoritarian and revolutionary radicalisms, but does
not have to be a problem for anarchism. Anarchism is the goal and
libertarianism, decentralism, etc. is the process.
No shame nor sectarianism need be implied in not being considered an
anarchist. There is nothing wrong with being “merely” a libertarian or
decentralist. I just want to clear up a problem of definition and
minimize confusion, for if “anarchism” means any old thing, then we have
lost an important idea – the anarchist ideal.
One outcome of this attempt at definition is the realization that most,
if not all, supposed anarchist movements were not really anarchist, but
at best, libertarian. How else to describe a movement like syndicalism,
led by anarchists, but made up overwhelmingly of workers who accepted
only part of the anarchist program? Does it not then make sense that
members hived-off into Communism, Fascism or Social Democracy when the
syndicalist movement fell on hard times?
(Another problem is people, like Chomsky, who claim to be anarchists,
yet when push comes to shove, are not even good decentralists.)
For the past thirty years I have been making an error one might
awkwardly describe as movementism. I have been searching for practical
ways to build an anarchist movement, not realizing that my search was
futile – a kind of modern day quest for El Dorado. An anarchist movement
is most unlikely ever to occur, and what I've always described under the
heading of “practical anarchism” would be more correctly termed
“practical libertarianism.”
Anarchism was not born as a mass movement. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the
first person to call himself an anarchist, was not the leader of an
anarchist movement, but of a broad-based workers' movement called
Mutualism. Neither was Bakunin in a specifically anarchist movement, but
was a militant within the First International, and his group was known
as Collectivists. Only after 1876 do we find a large group categorized
“anarchist,” and then only pejoratively by Marx and his friends to
attack the libertarian movement.
In the 1890s during the “classical” French Anarchist movement, contrary
to what one might think, there were few anarchists. The two largest
anarchist publications, La Revolte and Pere Peinard – combined – had
only 1500 subscribers. Two decades later, at a time when the
anarcho-syndicalist CGT had hundreds of thousands of members, the two
largest anarchist papers had the same small number of subscribers. From
1890 to 1940, at any one time, there were probably no more than 3000
active anarchists out of a population of 40 million. (Jean Maitron, Le
Mouvement Anarchiste en France.) However, several million people
supported at least some anarchist goals – i.e., in mass movements such
as the syndicats, mutual aid societies and regionalist-decentralist
organizations.
The future of anarchism, if there is one, will at best involve a few
thousand people, as individuals or small groups, in larger libertarian
decentralist organizations. (Some will choose to work alone, spreading
the anarchist message through writings and publications.) It is
imperative that such people, so few in number, yet with potential
influence, should know what they are talking and writing about.
Anarchism has already been distorted and dragged through the mud enough
times in its history. Please, let's try to get it right this time! One
cannot emphasize enough: though few in number, anarchists do not form a
“vanguard” or an elite of know-it-alls to lead these movements. We are
people who choose anarchism as our ideal and act upon it.
Another source of confusion is class-reductionism. Older forms of
Anarchism had a populist concept of class (the People vs. the Elite),
but modern anarchists borrowed marxist class analysis. Thus, we have an
emphasis upon the “working class” and the supposed need for “Class
Struggle Anarchism” – This creates a situation where rationalization of
support for the State can easily occur. For example, the welfare system
is considered a “victory” of 1930s class struggle. Cutbacks are
supposedly the result of the “capitalists” who want to “beat back the
working class” – Ergo, “anarchists” support the welfare State – a clear
perversion of anarchism.
This scenario is the product of an archaic and Manichean world view
which ignores the fact that the welfare system was a co-option of the
workers' movement by the corporate elite, and that most contemporary
workers support the cuts, as they are sick of paying high taxes. Class
reductionism does not take into account today's economic realities, at
least in the developed world, where workers are no longer the
poverty-stricken, beaten-down wretches of the past, but are consumers,
taxpayers and investors.
A clear and unambiguous statement of anarchist principles is needed to
separate the muddled authoritarian sheep from the anti-statist goats.
Such as the statement below:
aid, or sympathize with terrorists and so-called national liberation
movements.
nihilism or immoralism, but entails the highest level of ethics and
personal responsibility.
desire that all organizations be voluntary and declare that a peaceful
social order will exist only when this is true.
“limited states” or welfare states. Anarchists are opposed to all
coercion. Poverty, bigotry, sexism and environmental degradation cannot
be successfully overcome through the State. Anarchists are therefore
opposed to taxation, censorship, so-called affirmative action and
governmental regulation in general.
destruction are not ultimately caused by transnationals, the IMF, the
USA, the “developed world,” “imperialism,” technology, or any other
devil figure, but are rooted in the power to coerce. Only the abolition
of coercion will overcome these problems.
desires a non-coercive economy composed of voluntary organizations.
effort to decrease statism and coercion and to replace authoritarian
relations with voluntary ones.