Anarchy

One common use of the English word anarchy is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder", otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is referred to as a state of anarchy using this definition, since it is in a state of "chaos".

However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an "anarchist society", that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. Few anarchists would point to Somalia as an anarchist ideal, or even as an example of "anarchy" in the first place. They would argue that the warlord system that is dominant in Somalia is ultimately another face of despotism, characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers. Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..." -- that may or may not be true of "anarchy" in the sense of disorder, but anarchists do not believe that it is true of "anarchy" in the sense of anarchism.

Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. The details of the political, economic, and social organization of an anarchist society vary among different branches of anarchist political thought, as do the proposed means to achieve a society organized along those lines, but all anarchists oppose capitalism and the state.

Historically, the word "anarchist" has been applied to political opponents as a derogatory term with the meaning of "advocating chaos". For instance, the Levellers of the English Civil War and the Enragés of the French Revolution were referred to as anarchists by their opponents. These leftist parties advocated social equality and universal suffrage. Still today, social movements may be dismissed as "anarchist" without further comment, and the term still inspires in many an image of a black clad "mad bomber", terrorist, or other troublemaker. Although such anarchists do exist, anarchists also include a number of intellectual and philosophical anarchists, including many who abhor the use of violence.

Conceptions of an anarchist society

Many political philosophers justify support of the state as a means of regulating violence, so that the destruction caused by human conflict is minimized and fair relationships are established. Anarchists argue that pursuit of these ends do not justify the establishment of a state, and in fact many argue that the state is incompatible with those goals. Much effort has been dedicated to explaining how anarchist societies would promote these values. While anarchists recognize that the use of violence is ultimately an individual decision, some have proposed mechanisms by which an anarchist society could influence that decision.

Anarchists who have renounced violence in all forms have the simplest answer. Since the state relies on violence to enforce all of its laws, even those that promote its own survival such as taxation, if a large proportion of a society ceases to provide moral or material support to any use of violence, then the state would inevitably collapse, resulting in anarchy. Since this view of anarchy presupposes the renunciation of violence by the bulk of a society, the problem of discouraging the use of violence is not an issue. From this perspective, the main challenge facing anarchists is not to devise institutions, but to convince individuals to renounce the use of violence.

However, other anarchists believe that violence is an unfortunate but inevitable part of human existence. These anarchists emphasize that violence is only justified in self-defense, though the definition of self-defense can vary widely. Various institutions have been proposed to ensure that aggressive violence is met with an overwhelming response. These institutions seek to encourage the community to intervene on behalf of the wronged person, or at least not intervene on behalf of the aggressor. For civil disputes, juries or mediators may be called upon to rule on the dispute. Refusal to submit to the decision of the jury or mediator would reflect poorly on that individual.

Larger conflicts would be addressed with larger organizations. Confederation is a popular model for such organization. Any such organization would have a “bottom up” structure, recognizing the right of individuals and small groups to leave the larger group at any time. In such a situation, it is unlikely that everyone in a country would decide to participate in the same organization. Anarchists hope that this would result in the co-existence of multiple associations with individuals changing their associations as the saw fit. Robert Paul Wolff represents those who argue for a unanimous consent democracy.

Anarchist social organization

By rejecting existing political structures, anarchists also reject many of the practices that have been designed with the intent of promoting social cohesion. How anarchists propose that an anarchist society would replace these practises varies widely. Some anarchists believe that the society only needs to be concerned with the use of violence. Others believe that more extensive rules of conduct are necessary, but that these should be enforced by passive punishments, such as economic or social exclusion. Still others take a deontological stance on the issue, arguing that the practical tasks of promoting social cohesion are beside the point, and that anarchism is a moral imperative that should be pursued regardless of consequence.

Anarchist economic organization

Anarchists advocate the use of collectives and co-operatives for organizing small-scale production. These units would be co-ordinated by voluntary associations that could range from market arrangements to tightly co-ordinated confederacies. An example of a large-scale communist system is "The Industrial Commonwealth" proposed by the Industrial Workers of the World.Template:Fact Workers, through their unions organized by type of product, would democratically govern productive output. The model assumes that benefits arise by organizing workers based on the type of good produced (health, agricultural goods, communication, domestic labour). Means and tools of production would be held in common, through the possession of relevant unions. The Industrial Commonwealth was initially focused on the six sectors of Agriculture, Transport, Construction, Manufacturing, Government Services and Non-Government Services: a model which omitted to recognise particular industries like domestic labour or sex-work. The contemporary model of the Industrial Commonwealth more explicitly recognises this work.

In terms of its model of social change, the new "Industrial Commonwealth" economy was to grow within the belly of the old capitalist one. As unions became more powerful, and more workers worked in worker controlled industries, society would be gradually transformed by a constant struggle.

While the day to day methods of accounting and resource allocation for the Industrial Commonwealth have never been proposed, the IWW's suggestion that workers learn how to run their factories indicates that much of the contemporary economy's management and allocation strategies at the firm level would largely be taken over.

Anarchism and Marxism

The International Workingmen's Association, at its founding, was an alliance of socialist groups, including both anarchists and Marxists. Both sides had a common aim (stateless communism) and common political opponents (conservatives and other right-wing elements). But each was critical of the other, and the inherent conflict between the two groups soon embodied itself in an ongoing argument between Mikhail Bakunin, representative of anarchist ideas, and Karl Marx himself. In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with the expulsion of Bakunin and those who had become known as the "Bakuninists" when they were outvoted by the Marx Party at the Hague congress.

Arguements surrounding the issue of the state

Marxism has a very precise definition of the state: that the state is an organ of one class's repression of all other classes. To Marxists any state is necessarily a dictatorship by one class over all others. Within this definition the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can mean anything from the monopoly of force by armed working people's councils, through to a monopoly of force by a party composed of intellectuals claiming to be the leadership of the working people. Within Marxist theory, should the differentiation between classes disappear, so too will the state disappear.

Anarchism has a broader series of definitions of the state, varying from the bourgeois state formation of army, bureaucracy and representative parliament through to an idea of the state as a monopoly of violence. Left wing anarchists disagree amongst themselves if democratic workers councils with a monopoly of violence constitutes a state or not.

While anarchists and Marxists both agree on the desirability of a stateless Communism, they have deep arguments about phases of a revolution between now and that ideal. Many anarchists wish to "smash" the state, replacing it with workers' councils, syndicates and/or other methods of organisation that are not a governmental body as such. Other anarchists argue for political change that makes the state irrelevant, arguing that the state can only be eliminated when people "kill the policeman in their heads." Marxists argue that the bourgeois state will eventually wither away, but they wish to replace it with a new kind of state run by the workers. This Marxist desire is often referred to as "seizing state power." These arguments are often seen as critical, because they involved the autonomy of workers councils, the existence of secret police, and the transparency of justice. As the argument between these conceptions often hides an argument about whose ideas lead the revolution, Anarchists and Marxists have on a number of occasions tried to eliminate each other during revolutions.

The issue of the state, and the idea of seizing the state for a party, brings up the issue of political parties, which also often divides Anarchists and Marxists. In general, anarchists refuse to participate in governments, and so do not form political parties. Marxists, on the other hand, see political parties as tools for seizing power, which they believe is necessary to effect any meaningful political change.

Violence and nonviolence

Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists. Since the 1970s, the punk image of irresponsible youths has also been associated with anarchist symbolism, so furthering the association with violence.

The use of terrorism and assassination, however, is condemned by most anarchist ideology, though there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence.

Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in non-violence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate non-violent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that, as such, violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist tactics.

Other Non-Violent anarchists advocate Marshall Rosenberg's non-violent communication that relates to peoples fundamental needs and feelings using strategies of requests, observations and empathy yet providing for the use of protective force while rejecting pacifism as a compromising strategy of the left that just perpetuates violence.

Other anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force. Malatesta took the view that it is "necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies [the means of life and for development] to the workers" (Umanità Nova, number 125, September 6, 1921).

Between 1894 and 1901, individual anarchists assassinated numerous heads of state, including:

French President Sadi Carnot (1894);

Empress Elisabeth of Austria (1898);

King Umberto I of Italy (1900); and

United States President William McKinley (1901).

Such "propaganda of the deed" was not a popular tactic among anarchists, and many in the movement did condemn the tactic. For example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, claimed to be a disciple of Emma Goldman, but she disavowed any association with Czolgosz.

Goldman included in her definition of anarchism the observation that all governments rest on violence, and this is one of the many reasons they should be opposed. Goldman herself didn't oppose tactics like assassination until she went to Russia, where she witnessed the violence of the Russian state and the Red Army. From then on she condemned the use of terrorism, especially by the state, and advocated violence only as a means of self-defense.

Depictions in the press and popular fiction (for example, a malevolent bomb-throwing anarchist in Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent) helped create a lasting public impression that anarchists are violent terrorists. This perception was enhanced by events such as the Haymarket Riot, where anarchists were blamed for throwing a bomb at police who came to break up a public meeting in Chicago.

More recently, anarchists have been involved in protests against World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings across the globe, which have often turned violent (being described by some as "riots"). Traditionally, Mayday in London has been a day of marching, but in recent years the Metropolitan Police have warned that a "hardcore of anarchists" are intent on causing violence. Anarchists often respond that it is the police who initiate violence at these demonstrations, with the anarchist intent being only to defend themselves. The anarchists involved in such protests often formed black blocs at these protests and some engaged in property destruction, vandalism, or in violent conflicts with police, though others stuck to non-violent principles.

See also

An Anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Spunk Library: www.spunk.org

flag.blackened.net