The True Nature and Goals of Anarchism
75
Chaos and Disorder?
It's one of the most prevalent and enduring myths regarding Anarchism. It's reinforced daily with news reports of countries that have "descended into anarchy" or political pundits railing against things that we can't do because it would (gasp!) lead to anarchy. The idea that Anarchy and chaos are synonymous has been firmly entrenched within the lexicon of modern imagery.
Yet, it couldn't be much further from the true nature of Anarchism. Anarchists don't oppose society, order, or laws in general. What they do oppose is the idea that one segment of any society should arbitrarily be elevated above and given the power to lord over the rest of that society, not the existence of society itself.
In order to understand the distinction it is essential to avoid confusing governance with the Government. The Government, as an institution, is a segment of the population which is set apart from and above the population in general. They are imbued with unwarranted privileges and vested with the authority to dictate to the rest of that population, usually against the will of the vast majority of that populace, generally by force, and often without having to observe those same rules themselves.
On the other hand, governance is simply the rules by which a group structures the society in which they live. Anarchists believe that it is not only possible, but actually beneficial that members of any society be free and willing participants of the governance of that society.
Such self-governance ensures that the members of that society have a vested interest in it's welfare and success. In contrast, a multi-tiered system of society creates a situation in which an individual or group of individuals is elevated above the rest of society. At best, this creates opportunities for corruption and abuses of authority. At worst, this leads to outright slavery of those at the bottom rungs of that ladder.
Furthermore, most Anarchists are opposed to unnecessary violence and destruction and many even are pacifists. The Government, however, has always, without exception, resorted to force of one type or another to impose their will upon their subjects. In fact, the very nature of hierarchical rule creates an "us against them" type of relationship that encourages conflict between those making the rules and those being ruled.
Many simply accept the idea that, because some level of governance is necessary within a society, then we must bow down to and be abused by people who take advantage of that need to justify and legitimize their crimes and extort special privileges from the rest of society. Anarchists recognize that there is a better, less violent, way.
Related Articles
- Real examples of anarchism in history are problemati...
You do not see good examples of anarchism in history because you do not know what anarchism is. You think it is chaos. It is not. - Maginity on Anarchy
Its funny that I could attend high school and college government classes and never be taught a thing about anarchy. It took a lot of independent research to really learn about this ideal. I started learning... - Why I'm An Anarchist (And What That Really Means)
Wait...did you say you're an anarchist? Yup. That's right. Now hold on, before you hit that - ideas on anarchism
Anarchism has populary been disregarded as a pejorative term, associated by the mainstream media machinery as a synonim to chaos, disorder, the punk movement, the squatters and the like. The term anarchism...
The Nature of Anarchy
What do you believe Anarchy is?
See results without votingIs Self-governance Possible?
Can a society exist without a government?
See results without votingOther Articles by EYEAM4ANARCHY
- The Top Ten Cover Songs of All Time
What makes a great cover song? For good or bad there have been alot of cover songs made over the years. While a good, technical rendition of a song from decades past is nice to hear, what separates a great cover from a good cover is when the band doi - Will Barack Obama Bring the Change We Really Need?
Will Barack Obama bring the change that we really need? In fact, can he change the way politics are conducted even if he genuinely wants to? Can somebody that is a product of the system change that system? If so, why are there so many scandals associ - We Need the Wobblies Now More Than Ever!
A history of the Industrial Workers of the World, commonly known as - Is It Fair to Say Feminists Don't Care About Violenc...
Not only is it unfair, it's extremely dishonest and intellectually lazy. It's your typical, garden variety strawman which is only meant to distract from legitimate issues involved in a subject or debate.... - Typical Causes, Symptoms, and Treatments of Sciatica...
Sciatica related lower back pain is caused by an inflammation of the sciatic nerve, which is the longest nerve in the body running from the spinal cord across the buttock and hip area and down the back of each leg. It is actually a secondary... - Building Social Skills Among Homeschooled Children.
There are many places outside of school where children interact. One of the most prevalent questions posed to parents who homeschool their children concerns the perceived absence of the opportunity for... - Deviled Eggs That Bite Back - An Extra Spicy Recipe
A great and easy to make recipe for deviled eggs with a little extra spice to them. Perfect for parties, potluck dinners, and quick snacks. - My Picks for the Wildcard Round of 2009 NFL Playoffs
The Cardinals led by 37 year old Kurt Warner host the Falcons and their 23 year old rookie. Atlanta is hot having won three straight and seven of their last nine, while Arizona limped to the finish after clinching a playoff spot going 1-5 since that - My Picks for the Divisional Round of the 2009 NFL Pl...
Well, my Wildcard Round picks could have been better. Ended up 2-2 straight up (Bal. + Phil.) and 1-3 (only Philly came through for me) against the spread. But I'm back and I'm ready to turn it all around... - My Picks for the Conference Championship Round of th...
Another week of reruns, but of course, both of these retreads are going to be well worth watching. One is a genuine grudge match; with no hyperbole needed to sell it as such. The other is the most unlikely conference championship matchup ever; featur - My Picks for Superbowl XLIII
My picks for Superbowl XLIII, featuring the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. the Arizona Cardinals. Who will win and why, both straight up and against the spread. Also, predictions for the over/under, Superbowl MVP, and the opening coin flip.
 | Amazon Price: $8.06 List Price: $9.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $18.27 List Price: $28.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.47 List Price: $16.95 |
|
The Intersections of Anarchism and Community Organizing
Current Bid: $4.50
|
|
Anarchism Pelican Book A622 George Woodcock
Current Bid: $1.55
|
|
Zapped Pyramid T-Shirt Libertarian Anarchy Anarchism
Current Bid: $14.99
|
|
|
Zapped Pyramid T-Shirt Libertarian Anarchy Anarchism
Current Bid: $14.99
|
|
|
Zapped Pyramid T-Shirt Libertarian Anarchy Anarchism
Current Bid: $16.99
|
CommentsLoading...
Thnx
Would you mind to elaborate on "socialist" anarchism vs "capitalist" anarchism?
There is no such thing as capitalist anarchy!
Ignorance is a bliss :D
Sure:
Social Anarchism is actually an umbrella term for a broad category of Anarchist theory including (but not limited to) Anarcho-collectivism, Anarcho-communism, and Anarcho-syndicalism. Each subgroup espouses different approaches to achieving their goals of creating an Anarchist society, but the common factor is their emphasis on the community based and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. They generally emphasize social equality and mutual aid within a community.
The other major subset within Anarchism is Individualist Anarchy, of which Capitalist Anarchy (Anarcho-capitalism) is a member. The main belief of Individualists is that an individual person's freedoms and self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. They generally emphasize individual freedoms and autonomy.
While both groups are similar in their desire to eliminate statism, there are some major differences. The main difference between Socialist Anarchy theory and Individualist theory is their attitude toward property rights and economics. Collectivists believe that there should be no private ownership and property should be owned collectively by the community or the workers within an industry. In addition, while there are different approaches to the process, for the most part collectivists advocate the elimination of the wage system, which they consider hierarchical in nature. On the other hand, individualists believe in private ownership of property and also favor a free market economy without government intrusion.
Anarcho-capitalism is a rather new school of thought that takes Individualist theory to an extreme, by proposing essentially that government be privatised. The police and military would be replaced by private security forces employed either by the individuals or businesses that they protect. Also, contracts between willing parties would replace laws. The central belief is that the expense of conducting war and the bad reputation caused by unscrupulous business practices would be so damaging to profits that it would discourage such actions. This is a pretty controversial branch of Anarchism and many Anarchists (as you can see by the earlier post) don't accept this as a genuine form of Anarchism. The obvious criticism, being that eventually corporations, equipped with their own private armies, would eventually become governments in everything except name. Another criticism being that capitalism is inherrently heirarchical and therefore at odds with basic Anarchist beliefs of equality.
One thing that should be understood is that, while there are many different schools of Anarchist theory and most people who identify as Anarchists might agree more with one or the other, by and large, the most don't subscribe to one rigidly. Rather, they take bits and parts that they agree with from many sources. Personally, I would consider myself a Syndicalist, which is socialist in nature, although I do feel that free markets are possible, provided that a strong, aggressive union (such as the IWW) is used as a counterbalance to protect the intrests of labor.
Thanks Eye, it's an interesting reading. I did discover recently that my views are very close to anarchism, so that topic sorta interest me. I can't really couple anarchism with communism or socialism, due to my experience with USSR. So I am closer to anarcho-capitalists in your classification :)
You're very welcome,
There is quite alot of history between the communists and Anarchists, mostly bad. Anarchists share many of their opinions and goals regarding capitalism and class divisions. However, they disagreed with Marx's statist approach to those goals. In fact, Mikhail Bakunin, a 19th century Anarchist, predicted quite accurately that a Marxist government would become worse than the tsars within a year.
Yes indeed! Anarchy as a political philosophy is much misunderstood and underrated. The old stereotype of an anarchist with a bomb has led to many problems of understanding.
I personally am of what you characterise as social anarchy, and also am a pacifist, which adds to the problem!
Love and peace
Tony
We do need to limit government, but just goes too far. We need a minimal libertarian government.
Thanks Tony!
As far as Libertarianism goes, the biggest problem I have with them (as well as Minarchism, which overlaps alot) is that their idea of a limited government is one in which you eliminate everything that has any sort of positive potential that the government does and you retain the most destructive and corrupt aspects of it.
I'm against government services, such as welfare, because of the fact I don't think the government should exist at all and I think there are much better methods of providing for those needs. However, if you believe we should have a government, then why shouldn't they provide us with something beneficial?
Of course, the answer you would get from a Libertarian is that they don't want to pay taxes for those services. But, if you look at the actual budget of the government, significantly more taxes are used for the military and police, which they want to maintain, than for any social services.
Just doesn't add up for me.
Excellent hub. I am shocked to discover that I too am an anarchist. I guess once you have been through a few years of political bullshit and discovered that your government is not even slightly interested in you or your opinions, this is the logical choice.
Now where did I put that bomb?........
LOL Mark, this should have really hooked you - I don't remember you commenting on anybody's hub but your own :P
Thanks Mark!
Usually in the propaganda cartoons the bombs are in a black bag like the doctors carry. Easy access is essential.
LOL
Misha - I comment on them occasionaly. But only when they really attract my attention. Of course, usually that results in a deleted comment, but not this time.
E - OK, black bag it is :)
I don't believe in censorship.
You did open a totally different perspective for me. I do agree with your contention of self governance but at the same time I would never encourage taking law into our own hands. It is a very delicate balance to tread. Thumbs up for a great thought provoking hub.
Thanks alot for the compliment.
It's not so much a matter of taking the law into your own hands as much as it is a cooperative, non-coersive manner of creating laws within a voluntary society.
I know Mahatma Gandhi's non cooperation or civil disobedience movement is a classic example but most of the times the crowd goes out of control and start damaging public property in anger. Anarchy if pursued in the lines of Gandhi is certainly a welcome alternate voice of the people against the "government".
Anarchists are involved in demonstrations and civil disobedience, but by and large, we mainly work through what is known as community building. This consists of organizing local groups and demonstrating that services provided by governments can be provided in a better and more efficient way by members of a community, independent of any government interference. If they would simply leave us alone, there would be no need for demonstrations or protests.
Truth is that the government perpetuates and, in fact couldn't exist without, violence. Even in cases where there is violence during a protest, it's almost without exception, a result of somebody responding to government actions or policies.
Great Hub.
I was watching the BBC today, and they were reporting upon a riot in Athens, a response to a Bulgarian trade unionist having acid thrown in her face.
In true style, the BBC kept blaming 'anarchists' for the trouble, even though it was, quite plainly, left-wing Trade Unionists. At best, this is lazy reporting, at worst a case of oversimplifying the complex issues. Much easier to blame anarchists than actually do some research.
With the state of the media, especially in America, I certainly wouldn't discount laziness in such cases. More often than not though the government has those reporters in their back pocket, if not actually on the payroll. It wasn't too long ago that the Bush administration was feeding Judith Miller stories and then citing her NYT articles as proof of their claims about the need to invade Iraq.
Another factor with the media is sensationalism, like in this story: http://cbs5.com/local/inside.oakland.riot.2.903374 ; where a bunch of peaceful protesters, who were just following along in a confused daze, were incited to violence by a group of instigators , who "appeared to be Anarchists," yelling for them to come back. Innocent people caught up in the mob mentality of a few anti-government agitators, who are just looking for any excuse to attack the police, makes for a good story.
The fact that the protests resulted from the illegal and unnecessary murder of an unarmed, completely defenseless person and only turned violent once the police decided to forcibly break up the legal and peaceful protests doesn't quite have the same zing.
The government was privatized by the oil companies who got Bush to do everything they wanted, from stealing Iraq oil to fighting Afghanistan in order to get the pipeline that the taliban rejected when they went to Texas in 1997!
Philosophical anarchy must have some similarities to populism. Si, No?
You're right bgamall, but the government was bought and payed for long before Bush was ever a part of it.
In terms of ideology, Anarchist theory does overlap alot with populism in that they both deal with class warfare and elitism. However, the methods of achieving their goals are very different. Unlike Anarchists, populists generally believe in government intervention and regulation to "protect" people in the lower classes. That is why most populist uprisings have been associated with state socialism and have usually resulted in a dictatorship eventually.
Thanks for the comment!
Just a quick note on some updates:
I added a links section with some related hubs and a couple polls people can vote on (vote early, vote often). And some news feeds down below the comments
Well, sure, I get that anarchists aren't all a bunch of dreadlocked, bandana wearing people who like to throw chairs through the windows of Starbucks and set mattresses on fire, I think the philosphy is great for a small scale sort of culture. The US is just too darn big.
I'm fine with a small scale sort of culture.
I want to live in a small scale culture.
We should all be so lucky.
I am trying to round up some old friends (and I do mean old) to all pitch in and buy an old fresh air camp or something and establish a sort of communal thing. Actually some young folks would work out as well. The geezers could cook, babysit, garden, clean, and be wise. The younger ones could make money. :)
That sounds like a great plan Dolores. I'd tell the youngsters to go easy on the counterfeiting idea, though. That's a real good way to attract the wrong kinda attention.
Hahaha, eye, I meant the young ones could go out and get actual jobs. Not me, of course.
The labelling of protesters as anarchists is to demonize them so that people think all protesters are just a bunch of nuts. Back in 1983, 50 companies controlled the media. Now it's down to 6 or so. So they can spin the news any way they want. One should always stand against power.
I think you're right, but it's more of two-fold objective. First, you associate anyone trying to protest with the Anarchist label to scare people into thinking they are dangerous and shouldn't be supported. Secondly, you try to associate Anarchists with any protest that takes place to make them seem like a bunch of cynical, violent, nuts, who aren't worth listening to. It's much easier to just marginalize and discredit someone (especially when you control the media) than it is to provide an honest answer to their questions.
This file tells how to defeat the
mechanism on certain vending machines. It is my contitutional right to write this file. This is for
informational purposes only as use of the information contained herien is illegal.
This
works on only certain candy and snack vending machines. Look for the kind that have a dial for each
selection. For instance, the little plastic spiral that holds the snickers bars would have its own
dial, with 2 slots in the dial for quarters. When you place the quarters in the slots, and turn the
dial clockwise, the quarters pass a switch that makes sure the coins are there. If there are no
coins, the switch wont let the dial turn any further. If the coins are present, the dial will turn
all the way around, advancing the candy far enough for it to fall on its own into the area where you
reach in. When the dial is turned halfway around, the quarters are pulled by gravity into a coin
box.
Here’s what to do: Get some toilet paper, or any paper. Loose leaf binder paper
works pretty well. wrap the bottom of each quarter with enough paper to firmly hold the quarter in
the slot. Put on enough paper to keep the quarter from falling when you turn the dial, but not so
much that you can’t get the quarter out after you are finished. Leave a ‘tag’ of paper that you can
grab onto for easier removal of the quarter. Then when you have properly loaded the quarters, turn
the dial and retrieve your snack and your quarters
I don't advocate any illegal activities. Unless it results in free candy.
Where are you finding a vending machine with $.50 candy bars?
"..what they do oppose is the idea that one segment of any society should arbitrarily be elevated above and given the power to lord over the rest of that society.." wow, you just made the ruling class cringe!
It saddens me that party after party, cause after cause, your species divides it's self asking for a monolithic machine for answers and help.
Community, lack of fearing your neighbor, and having no qualms about those who are different from you are often hard lessons to take to heart.
In ignorance and complacency breeds the Idiotocracy.
Justice is not "just us."
I consider one of my main duties in life to be making the ruling class cringe.
Ignorance certainly is one of their favorite tools to maintain control. Evidence of that goes all the way back to the middle ages, when they actively tried to prevent the commoners from learning to read because they didn't want them to read the bible and figure out that most of what they were being told wasn't even in there. With the advent of the public school system it has shifted a bit to selective education over forced illiteracy, but ignorance and complacency are still the goals.
Non government-sanctioned community is another big threat to the elite power structure. That's why you see things like riot police raiding Food Not Bombs chapters and arresting members who are simply trying to feed hungry people. If people ever figured out that they could provide for themselves and live peacefully without the Government, it would be all downhill from there for the ruling class.
Anarchy = order without authority
Personally, I think without coercion or coercive authority would be a little more accurate, but you are absolutely right nextstopjupiter.
This is EXTREMELY interesting. It's not very often that someone teaches me something worth any value these days but I actually learned something from this Hub. Thanks for sharing. :)
You're very welcome. That's what I'm here for; to share and learn. This s like a little internet-based cooperative.
very interesting hub...so where do you see America's political agenda taking us? Thanks for the info. :)
The same place that every political agenda is, and always has been, designed to take the people it is imposed upon. As much as people would like to believe otherwise, there isn't some new strategy that has just recently been enacted.
Governments have always been, and always will be, designed to enable the elite classes to take advantage of the other members of society with as little effort as possible and to keep resistance to a minimum by disguising it as a positive or at least necessary relationship.
Just stopping by to add some "beautiful" "awesome" etc.
Loved this man, linked to one of my newer works. =) Excellent.
Thanks Ixxy, it is very much appreciated.
EYEAM4ANARCHY,
I really enjoyed this hub.
I was wondering what you think of my hub... which I consider to be at least partly anarchist (or libertarian):
http://hubpages.com/hub/Libracracy
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it Daniel.
I don't have time to respond properly at the moment (I will comment in the near future), but I do see some points I would disagree with just off a quick read. That would include your interpretation of Anarchism. I also think it is a rather authoritarian vision of society and not very libertarian at all.
EYE AM 4 ANARCHY,
I knew you wouldn't like that bit about "pure lawlessness," but please give my essay a chance.
What I meant to say is classical anarchy is chaos. The democratic, capitalist system you propose is like a structured anarchy without a hierarchy.
As for authoritarian, I guess Libracracy could be considered that (in a vague sense of the word). But keep in mind every individual is a state in a decentralized confederacy. I look forward to your analysis.
Thanks,
Dan
Well I disagree that what I discuss in this hub is anything less than what anarchism simply is, "classical" or otherwise.
Anarchism is nothing more or less than a voluntary system of society in which people are free to interact with one another without coercion and as equals. That doesn't mean that people are necessarily going to be more violent to one another, nor does it constitute chaos and disorder. The people who benefit from a hierarchical structure within society are the ones who would have you believe that social order is impossible without social control, because that's how they maintain those type of unequal relationships.
In terms of your hub, I would highly suggest either editing it down to a manageable size or splitting it into several parts within separate hubs. It's just way too long. That's not a criticism of its content (I'll do that as a comment), just a suggestion so people will actually read it.
So glad to fall upon this hub. Great explanation. I am so sick of government and all its abuses and feel we "common folk" can do much better on our own without them. I think it a shame that the clan and tribal systems which, for the most part, seemed to work just fine for millennia have been wiped out and replaced with the garbage we have now for government.
I didn't realize my views were similar to anarchists but then, I didn't really fully understand the label. I just want to be left alone to live my life without the intrusion of government telling me what I can and cannot do and what my morals are to be all the while they themselves do not have to abide by the same standards they set for the rest of us. Thanks for an enlightening read. Bookmarked and now following.
Thanks Susie. Unfortunately, a lot of people have misconceptions about Anarchism and the perceived necessity of government. Of course, much of that is by design, because those governments don't want you to know that there are alternatives.
It's rather obvious that many, many people are sick of government waste and abuses. The problem is though that most of those people just want to replace that group of people (i.e. the current government) with another group of people (i.e. a different political party or ruler), instead of just controlling their own life.
A lot of people will agree with your views simply because everyone likes to be his own boss. But realistically describe to me a situation where everyone would be everyone's boss. Who will make the laws and who will follow them? Who will be responsible for the roads and security? How will the weak be protected from the strong. How will the historical inequalities be settled? Or shall we be served by the garden of eden?
I don't need to describe some imaginary scenario where all that happens, because there already are plenty of historical examples of societies existing, prospering, and enjoying great levels of security and equality without established governments. A great example of that is outlined right here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
The members of that society would make the laws and, unlike a heirachical society, everyone would be expected to follow them.
I'm not even sure what "a situation where everyone would be everyone's boss" even means, but nothing about Anarchism precludes two people from forming a business relationship, so long as it is a voluntary agreement.
As far as roads, the only thing the government does is employ private businesses to build them with our money. So nothing would prevent us from doing that ourselves and probably in a much more efficient and cheaper manner. In fact, private roads were extremely common throughout America prior to the mid-20th century and many parts of the country almost exclusively relied on privately built roads well into the 1950's.
I understand that you wouldn't want to make some imaginary scenario about an "anarchical society" but I would also not want to imagine that there exists an Island somewhere on this planet where there is no form of state. In what you intend to describe at best is called "decentralization" the devolution of powers to local coucils or comittees or people and that is not anarchism!
Anarchism is a society in which people are free to voluntarily associate with each other in a non-coercive and equal manner. The nature and structure of those interactions can represent many different forms, dependent on the desires and needs of the people within a given society.
That doesn't change the basic concept of Anarchism and that's exactly what I've described in this hub and elsewhere. What exactly is your idea of Anarchism, if it isn't what I've described?
Incidentally, I didn't say I didn't want to make an imaginary scenario of an Anarchist society. I said it was unnecessary to do so, because there are plenty of real historical examples to use. But in fact, we don't need to go back into history or to some remote island to find examples of people existing without a statist structure. Currently in Chiapas, Mexico, there exist 32 autonomous municipalities, protected by the Zapatistas and governed, via self organization, by the indigenous residents of the area.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates for the rejection of any form of governance. One can not talk of anarchism and governance in the same sentence. You give the example of Chiapas in Mixico. Chiapas is one of the 32 states that make up Mexico. Maybe we have to describe what a state is.
Anarchism is utopian. A state without laws and devoid of any system of governance.
Not one statement you made there is at all true. Anarchists don't oppose rules, organization, or laws and there is nothing utopian about it. They reject the coercive nature in which laws are dictated and enforced in a heirarchical society and advocate for voluntary interactions within a society.
Those are some fairly common misconceptions about Anarchism and one of the main reasons I wrote this hub, which you obviously didn't even bother to read, since they are discussed within the first several paragraphs (including the distinction between "governance" and a government).
I gave an example of self-governed regions within the area of Chiapas, Mexico. We would be much better served discussing what autonomy means in relation to that reference, since the Chiapas state government has no control within any of those regions. The Zapatistas are and have been completely independent of the Mexican government (on any level) since 1994.
If you would like to discuss what Anarchism actually means, I can point you to plenty of resources online.
I am not oblivious of what you have stated. Particulary when you state that anarchism opposes a certain segment of society to arbitrarily exercise power. In any society there three main ways of attaining power. That is, through usurpation, representation or elective and absolutism or monarchism.
In a representative society people have the right to elect their governments and that to me does not translent into anarchism. In anarchism people are in total rejection of any form of rule call it leadership.
You're right that Anarchists reject rulers. That's the entomology of the word Anarchism, which comes from the Greeks words for no rulers. What you are very much wrong about is that there can be no leadership without ruling over others. People can hold positions of leadership without the threat of force against others, should they choose not to accept their decisions.
As I said there are numerous forms of Anarchist societies and many of them involve elected representatives. The one inflexible distinction that makes it an Anarchist society is the voluntary nature of that representation. Members of that society have the ability to recall and replace those representatives immediately, disregard any personal edicts those representatives might issue, and ultimately remove themselves from that societal group without suffering negative repercussions as a result of that decision.
We can argue about whether living under Anarchist principles is possible or if coercive force is necessary within a society. But we aren't going to change what Anarchism means in order to do that, even if a lot of people are confused about what that meaning is.
I hope you are talking of confusion in light of the variant interpretations and perceptions. We can also agree that when we talk about leadership, we are not obstructed that it happens in a vacuum. There are key ingredients under leadership; that there exists a sphere of influence, people or subordinates and that there are guiding rules or principles as terms of reference.
You will agree that in no imaginary society can all people be in agreement in all matters of concern. This kind of situation calls for "an agreeable position" against which, restrictions are put in place. What an "anarchist" may term as 'coercion' in the actual sense is 'orderliness.' Let us imagine a society where a parent was voluntarily to take the child to school but under unforeseen circumstances the parent refuses. What justice would be left to the child? Wait for a Good samaritan to come by? For whatever answers you might come up with, I can only guess that they will point at the utopian nature of anarchism.
In your submission you talk of a voluntary nature of leadership, the ability of the people to hire and fire their leadership. That ability is being exercised under many "democratic", "socialist" and "capitalist" societies. That ability is not exclusive to and does not translate into Anarchism. You gave an example of Chiapas, unless we are talking of two different places. But there exists a "Government" of Chiapas somewhere in Mexico. Maybe we shall find it easier to discuss what Anarchism is not than what it is.
Compulsory schooling is an entirely different subject and we could easily discuss the reasons that parents have been forced to send their children to government run schools. It has nothing to do with Good Samaritanship and very little to do with that child attaining a practical education.
In regards to the actual issue being addressed, there are many ways in which order can be maintained within an Anarchist society. Many of them were already discussed in the link I provided earlier and they are no more Utopian than the notion that we can allow one segment of society a monopoly on the use of force and also authority over others and not expect them to abuse it.
In terms of leadership, there are plenty of ways that people can and do assume leadership roles without having to force their authority upon others. This link contains numerous examples of spontaneous organization that is consistent with Anarchist principles: http://www.panarchy.org/ward/organization.1966.htm --- The idea that there can't be social order without social control is incredibly false and there are tons of examples in everyday life that expose that falsehood.
The fact that some forms of government also allow for limited levels of self rule and voluntary association doesn't change the fact that Anarchism requires it. Because I can vote for a different master within a certain term of years, doesn't make me free, nor does it hold those masters accountable during the years in between. Whether that leadership has the right to initiate force in order to force compliance is what determines whether that association is voluntary or coercive.
In regards to the Autonomous Zapatista Municipalities within the Chiapas region in Mexico, as I've already stated several times, the Mexican government has no authority over them on any level including the government of the state of Chiapas. The Chiapas state government (as well as the Mexican federal government) doesn't exist in those 32 municipalities and hasn't since 1994.
It's obvious that you are having a hard time getting over the fact that the Mexican state of Chiapas is named for the Chiapas region that it is located in. In spite of that, the Chiapas region itself derives its name from the Chiapaneca tribe of Native Americans who lived there as early as 1400 BC, which was about 2800 years before the Spanish ever stepped foot in Mexico (which derives its name from an Aztec word)and from whom many of the Zapatistas are directly descended.
So your argument is that we can have a society where people agree all the time? Sorry that couldn't respond to all that you have raised for fear of repeating myself.
I've never said anything close to that or remotely implied that such a society is necessary. In fact, I've pointed you to several references that discuss non-governmental dispute resolution options.
That false assumption(s) is probably why you have continually repeated yourself, in spite of being completely wrong every time that you have rephrased the same misconception of what Anarchism is.
Ha ha. Wow. I have read down through this entire thread(and it's a long a$$ thread).
I can't help but completely agree to everything you have stated. It makes sense in its simplicity. Maybe it's me, but people by nature love to complicate matters. Perhaps the opposition to the reality of this system lies in that somehow? Must be jaw-dropping to many that a functioning society without government can be just that...a functioning society, as we've all been shackled by our preconceived political notions for so long(or lacking in education on the subject matter). Quite educational material you've got here, it makes me want to research further. Very good read. Thank you.
Thanks TruthAwake,
It is kinda amazing, and at times frustrating, that people are so wedded to the idea that people can't coexist within a society unless somebody is holding a gun to one of them's head.
I'd say that people by nature are generally lazy. That gun to their heads serves as the motivation that gets them out of bed each day. In a lot of cases, the idea of leading oneself and taking full responsibility for their actions seems intimidating and tedious. In a society that demands instant gratification for everything(America specifically), is it any wonder?
Most would rather sacrifice liberty for convenience...at least until they wake up to the fact that they're really indentured servants (at least one could hope). What to do about THAT. Sigh...
Yeah, there are several factors involved, not the least of which is laziness and a desire to avoid personal responsibility.
The biggest factor though is fear. The governments of the world ensure their continued existence by convincing the vast majority of people that everyone would be running around killing and robbing each other, if not for their presence.
excellent hub! Especially with the classic Against Me! I am an anarcho syndicalist myself. If you haven't, you should check out submedia.tv . They post a lot of great free commentaries/documentaries for the cause. Fear is a great weapon that the governments of the world use against us anarchists. Just like the red scare, we are labeled as "radical terrorists"; when in reality, they are the terrorists. If you don't pay your taxes; tell me, are you AFRAID of something bad happening to you? That is the definition of terrorism.
@ Blackconception:
Thanks for passing the site along to us, will check it out! Documentaries are awesome. And taxes are definitely fear mongering. It's all about control (of course).
@ Eyeam4anarchy:
A huge example of playing on fears for control, which has been used since the beginning of time- religion. It is also a great divide/conquer method, because it segregates the people. Don't know how you feel about that, but I firmly believe it's one of the best and trickiest methods implemented. Church and state were unified for the longest time, for a reason.
Yeah bc, taxes essentially amount to the old protection racket that the Mob (basically what the government amounts to) is so fond of. Paying taxes is "voluntary" but they'd hate to see all your nice stuff get seized and/or you end up in prison. So you should make sure you pay them.
TA, I agree that religion has often been used as yet another tool to control the masses. However, I have known people who are genuine in their beliefs, including some Christian Anarchists. They are in the minority, but as long as they are consistent in their beliefs, I'm fine with them. Catholic Worker is a great example.
i have a friend that has been telling me about anarchism, and its been making me feel real comfortable to beleive in what hes talking about and im very interested in knowing alot more. so when i read this thread i learned what i needed to. i honestly hate the government and its ways to try and help society when half the people that get welfare or stupid shit like that dont even deserve it. i have so many family members and kno so many people with food stamps and stuff that do not even deserve it but the government is wayyy to stupid to realize what they are giving away all the time. people should be raised to be with the people they want to be with and to be respectful. we are always criticized just for smoking pot or fighting or even wearing crazy clothes or having mo-hawks. its fucking ridiculous that the people in the world that need to be heard and understood do not have a chance because of there drug addict familys. people need to become one, help eachother out, give eachother a ride if its raining, not ignore the person thats having a bad day. the smallest things like giving someone a bud of weed can go so far in this world. and a big reason of that is the fucking religious point of views that miollions of peopole are brainwashed into. only the strong and intelligent can realize this. anarchism is all about people doing what they need to, in order to live a good life.
i dont really kno if this is correct but thats the way i feel this world should be like.
Ok I am likely way too late to this conversation but hopefully I'll get a response from the author. First of all good article. I enjoyed it. The definitions you give for anarchism are essentially accurate based on my own understandings of other anarchists writers. I think most people would find it hard to argue against the idea that a society should be based on the right of non-coercive associations and equal application of the law, or rules, agreements, etc. I think the reason for the approval here is that what you describe is not far removed from the idealized principles (if not practiced) underlying the United States Constitution. Yet their seems to be an implied assumption that community law is not legitimate unless universally accepted. Is this realistic, even in extremely small societies? When factions develop over particular issues, and it is naive to think they never will, is the solution just for the minority to pack up and move on? Sometimes this is not an option and a community has to develop authoritative channels - whether ritual or institutional - for dealing with the reality of social conflict without violence. Sure limits can be placed on these authorities, but there is little structural assurance that their decisions will be accepted by all, leading to splintering, migration, or violence.
It is often an oversimplification to believe that authoritative these channels arise historically simply as a result of central planning and foresight. In late medieval and early modern Europe royal judicial institutions were often demanded by local communities against the desires of rulers simply because the cost was too high to offer the service. The establishment of public services in the 20th century moreover remains an object of attack by corporate elites. These process were not simply conspiracies hatched in little rooms, but complex historical developments that largely came about because local communities tend to develop provincial elites and a class of mediators with other locales. Local communities have also demanded these intrusions to play off of local elites or factions. In other words the forces generating modernity and the state have been the result of local dynamics and conflict as much as imposed "plans" conceived by supposedly far seeing central powers. The reality is most central powers are incredibly short sited and disinterested in providing social justice and services, it is the pressures from the margins that often demand they be otherwise. Now I suppose we could ensure that no local elites ever arise, but you might as well ask a community to always find consensus and remain extraordinarily isolated from other communities in terms of materials and information. Even in these conditions, particularly among the disappearing Amazon tribes, ethnographers have shown that conflict and group separation is a structurally ingrained part of their existence.
Thirdly, the idea that local communities can supply all their own needs would make sense if everyone born in a community never left, died there, and their children followed suit. But this is not what actually happens. Human populations have always been on the move, crossing cultural boundaries, making better lives for themselves, following opportunities, forming translocal networks. Capitalism did not invent this activity, it was as much a part of the ancient and early modern world as it is today. Another way of viewing the local therefore, is as an expression of these complex process of mobility. You point to Wild West communities as examples of successful anarchist communities, but they were no more "outside" the capitalist system of the eastern U.S. than New York or Boston. They were simply the temporary vanguard of this system because their existence depended on markets elsewhere.
Essentially what I see in anarchist thought is a rejection of mass society. The solutions I always hear are always about pairing off into local self-sustaining communities, usually with like minded people. It sounds neat and clean, but the lack of discussion about local conflict dynamics, human mobilities, (and don't forget contingencies like disease which were actually the primary motivation for the first public institutions in Europe) makes it seem pretty one dimensional.
Anarchist news dot org
- Chicago Solidarity Demonstration In St. Louis Ends With Arrests After Police Scuffle
On the evening of May 24th, 30 to 40 people converge to voice their anger against the brutal repression of Anti-NATO protesters by the Chicago Police Department. Protesters from around the world met in Chicago the weekend of May 19, to confront the NATO summit. During this three demonstrators were arrested for an alleged terrorism plot, what can be clearly seen to be a case of entrapment, while dozens of other protestors were bloodied and/or jailed. Those of us in St. Louis sought to express our solidarity with demonstrators in Chicago and with everyone everywhere who dares to resist the conditions of this world. Like the flows of Capital, repression knows no boundaries and neither does Solidarity. read more - 14 hours ago
- Beyond Animal LIberation
From Zine Library (pdf) We have posted a collection of writings that critique the animal liberation movement and the corresponding lifestyle choice, veganism. We have spent extensive time working within the animal liberation movement in North America and our critique is highly influenced by our personal experiences. Through study and discussion, we have developed a new understanding of domination, making this a critique not only of the animal liberation movement but also of our previous selves and the ways in which we attempted to deal with animal oppression. Beyond Animal Liberation - by subversive energy read more - 14 hours ago
- Missouri Anarchists Beaten in Jail, Call for Solidarity
We all saw the footage from Chicago. The phalanxes of police officers and frame after frame of bleeding head wounds. Our friends and comrades had just returned from those brutal city streets. Even those witnessing these scenarios unfold for the first time understood the necessity of response. On May 24th 30-40 people answered the call for a Chicago solidarity demo through the downtown St. Louis bar district. The march wound its way from the once occupied plaza through a semi bustling nightlife scene and ran unchallenged for nearly half an hour. During the march banks were tagged with "Solidarity with all who resist", "Burn the Banks" and other phrases. An irate cardinals fan, who was later discovered to be the property manager at one of the banks, set himself against the march by following it, harassing the marchers and communicating with police. In the end, he received several blows to the head before retreating to the safety of the cop line. read more - 20 hours ago
- Decolonizing Anarchism: An Anticolonial Critique
From Sketchy Thoughts There was an "anti-colonial Victoria Day" book launch in Montreal on May 21, where Maia Ramnath presented her new book Decolonizing Anarchism, published by AK Press and the Institute for Anarchist Studies (and available from leftwingbooks.net). What made this launch special, and different from most such events, was that the Ramnath spoke on a panel with Ponni, a radical activist from India, who used her intervention to level a detailed and outstanding critique of the book, from an anti-authoritarian and anticolonial perspective. Given the strength of this critique, i asked Ponni if i could upload the transcript here to my blog. She graciously agreed, though wanted me to make it clear to readers that this is not a "review", it is a talk given at an event, and so is not structured or intended as a written piece would be. Here it is: read more - 27 hours ago
- Scandalous thoughts – a few notes on civil anarchism
From 325 325 receives and transmits: Every so often, cyclically, collective or social anarchism becomes restrictive to some anarchists and an anarchist individualism reasserts itself. It happened at the turn of the twentieth century when some of the great anarchist thinkers began to question some of the more communistic dogmas. It is happening once more, and once more we witness some of the social anarchists writhe in panic as their comfortable dream is disturbed and they wittingly or unwittingly reinforce the stranglehold of the State by condemning their unruly sisters and brothers who appear to threaten the pursuit of what one comrade has aptly described as ‘civil anarchism’. It is a horrible creature, this civil anarchism. A slathering, craven and despotic monster with eyes in the back of its head which tries to be what anarchism will probably never be – palatable to the modern consumer masses. read more - 27 hours ago
- Inside the NYPD Destruction of the Wall Street Library
From Nolan Chart An anonymous anarchist infiltrator in the NYPD provides the cops' explanation of their actions in their own words. - by Dan Clore One of the more impressive accomplishments of the Occupy Wall Street movement was the creation of a People's Library of some 3,600 volumes donated by members and supporters, available for anyone to borrow free of charge. The library included not just political works, but all kinds of reading matter, and included many signed copies donated by authors. It came as a shock to many literate individuals around the world when officers in the New York Police Department, in the course of a surprise nighttime raid on the Occupy Wall Street protest park in November 2011, hauled away the entire Occupy Wall Street Library. Witnesses reported that police officers threw books into dumpsters along with food, drinks, garbage, etc. Only about 1,000 of the volumes were ever returned to the protestors, some 200 of them too damaged to use. read more - 37 hours ago
- The `Anarchist Menace,' Past and Present
From Bloomberg In Chicago on May 19, three men described by police as "self-proclaimed anarchists" were detained for stockpiling Molotov cocktails and conspiring to attack President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters and other targets. During the following weekend's anti-NATO protests, scores of demonstrators -- many of them clad in black and connected with anarchist factions -- were arrested for participating in militant confrontations with Chicago police. read more - 39 hours ago
- Calling all foot loose north american anarcho-syndicalists and class struggle anarchists!
From Libcom.org Calling all foot loose north american anarcho-syndicalists and class struggle anarchists, join the W.S.A. The process for signing up is more or less as follows: 1. Read and agree with our political statement, "Where We Stand" and our Constitution 2. Be in contact and collaborate with WSA members (local group/members if one exists, regional delegate, corresponding secretary etc.) for at least 90 days prior to becoming a member After that, if there no problems and you definitely want to sign up, then... 3. Pay dues read more - 40 hours ago
Ann R. Keye 3 years ago
Spot on!