cloquewerk ([info]cloquewerk) wrote,
@ 2007-03-01 18:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: calm
Current music:Desmond Williams: "Eastwest Highway"
Entry tags:anarchism, anarchism101

Anarchism 101: Introduction to Anarchism
Anarchism is a set of ideas, ranging from philosophical to political to economic to sociological and further, with the common idea that unequal power relations are Bad Things. Different anarchists say different things about exactly how or why hierarchical structures are bad, how they should be abolished, and even what constitutes a hierarchy, but all1 agree that they should, whenever possible, be avoided. Indeed this is simply the etymology of the word "anarchy", which is derived from the Greek word "anarchos", meaning "without ruler", and not having rulers is essentially what anarchism is about.

As a theory, anarchism had its beginnings in the middle of the 19th century. Anarchistic thoughts can be seen much earlier, such as in the writings of Gerrard Winstanley, and some trace anarchistic writings as far back as the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium (though I haven't read anything particularly anarchist in Greek writings yet). Most agree that four men in the 19th century set out basic anarchist thought: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. They didn't so much invent anarchism as much as give a theoretical basis for anarchist ideas, fleshing out concepts that had been tossed around society for who knows how long, probably since the ideas of social power and authority were first conceived (invented or recognized). They didn't all agree with one another either—Stirner refutes some of Proudhon's writings in The Ego and Its Own and elsewhere. But each influenced later anarchists in various ways, even if only by way of refutations.

While spanning many spheres, anarchism is more of a philosophy, a way of looking at things, than anything else. There is no orthodoxy, as opposed to Marxism, although individual schools might be more or less dogmatic. But as a whole, anarchism can be compared to the philosophy of the Greeks, who saw their actions guided by their philosophies. Anarchism is a way of approaching the various facets of life, social and individual, and it is generally agreed that anarchism is useless without practical applications; most anarchists are activists in one way or another. Many anarchists, though definitely not all, embrace the variety of interpretations; one could only think that, "after the Revolution", there would not be one society but a multitude, all living out anarchistic ideas in their own ways.

Next week: Proudhon's views on property




1 I use "all" in this sense as meaning all who self-identify as anarchists. However, this is not quite true; there is, in fact, a set of ideas called "anarchocapitalism". It is a variant of right-wing libertarianism, the economic ideal of which is a completely free market with no government to interfere with it. All industries, all services, would be privately owned. They take "anarchism" as meaning strictly "no government", where all other anarchists (to my knowledge) take it in the more general sense of "no rulers" or "no authority" of any kind.



(Read 4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]canuckotter
2007-03-02 01:41 pm UTC (link)
(Do you mind if I ask you occasional questions? If you want me to stop, just let me know. :) )

So here's my fundamental question about anarchism... The whole idea is "no authority", right? But then how do you deal with people who actually want to assert authority over others? Suppose someone actually wants to set themselves up with a little fascist dictatorship, and they have a few friends willing to help them. Given a few determined, ruthless people, I'm not sure how any system without an authority can resist the warping that's going to occur. Or am I missing something?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

derek
(Anonymous)
2007-03-06 11:22 pm UTC (link)
Well in an anarchy theirs bound to be the people that are should we say "power hungry" but since their will always be these people their will always be this problem

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: derek
[info]cloquewerk
2007-03-13 01:10 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I agree with you. It's the anarchist's belief that eliminating positions of power is the only real way to minimize (but not eliminate altogether) the effects of power-hungry people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cloquewerk
2007-03-13 12:59 am UTC (link)
Questions are welcomed! (although it might take me a while to respond, heh...) At least I know someone is reading these things... :)

Well there are several ways an anarchist might respond to your question, and I won't pretend to know all of them. Here's my answer though:

My opinion is that, if anarchism were ever to become established in some sense or another, there would probably be no consistent, cohesive system that would include all people. Rather, you'd probably see a lot of different communities, each practicing anarchism in their own way--much like what happened behind Republican lines in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) but even more varied, as anarchist ideas have evolved substantially in the last 70 years. There would probably be regional federations, but they would be bottom-up, not top-down; they would respond to the needs of communities without becoming a governing body, on an as-needed basis if you will. So in a sense there would be no large system (like the modern State) that a single fascist (or small group of fascists) could take over.

If one particular community decided that it preferred strict, fascist-style hierarchy, then I suppose they might be allowed to continue--although why, when free societies exist nearby, someone low down the fascist ladder would stay in such a community is beyond me. But any attempt to exert authority over an overtly anarchist community would undoubtedly be met with much resistance, not just from the local population but from neighbours concerned that the authoritative system could spread.

Let's face it--an anarchist society will require anarchists. That's actually one of the fundamental difference between anarchism (in all of its forms) and hierarchical political systems. I can go into any society, and, with enough force and patience, establish any sort of power structure I want. It may not be ideal at first, but it will function in some way or another. But an anarchist society will only function if the people accept its fundamental ideas. Such is the reason that anarchists espouse the belief that we cannot liberate others--everyone must be self-liberated. Only then will we truly know freedom and be committed to it.

So, in my opinion, until we get to the stage in which the majority is at least tolerant of anarchistic ideas, we aren't going to make any large leaps to a much freer society. It has happened in different places and times for varying durations, and some would say in a (perhaps unconscious) way for much of human history. But that's the subject of a future post. :)

Strong personalities will probably always be a concern in any human society--they are certainly not eliminated in a representational democracy such as ours--in fact I'd say they have more opportunity to grab real power. That's actually why anarchism is committed to the flattening of all power structures: there will always be power-hungry individuals (although it is an inherent assumption in anarchism that they will be a minority), so rather than construct a hierarchical structure which a smart, greedy person could co-opt, anarchists prefer that power be spread to all individuals. A leaderless community is harder to take over than one with a ruler, assuming that there is still communication and solidarity in the community--i.e. not a bunch of isolated groups.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read 4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…