What is Anarchism? "...Just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. " See: http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA1.html#seca11 I just realized something today... some people's assumptions about Anarchism are quite similar to the common misconceptions about Unschooling: People assume without a forced curriculum kids just sit around all day doing nothing What do you think? Pro: "Well of course no one should have authority over anyone else..." Con: "...But it could never work." Couldn't it work? Has it ever worked before?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anarchism has worked on large scales. Every revolution starts out with anarchist tendencies, which is to say that the people of the land and/or industries usurp control and mannage their lives and resources themselves, and to their own benefits, which has been to the collective benefit. In the 1917 Russian revolution, the self-organized factory councils In an area of the Ukraine in 1917, Nestor Makhno organized the masses of peasants into an autonomous region of seven million people, fighting for the lands they worked on and seized during the initial revolution. For years, the principles of libertarian communism were applied, self-management was put into force as far as possible and these groups respected the principles of equality and fraternity. "When the Makhnovist partisans moved into an area they put up posters reading: 'The freedom of the workers and peasants is their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants themselves to act, to organize themselves, to agree among themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they themselves see fit and desire... The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel ... In no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern.'" (-from "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin) Even the Makhnovist army was organized on a libertarian, voluntary basis, with officers being elected at all levels and rules of discipline drawn up by commissions of partisans then ratified by general assemblies. Between the years 1918 and 1921, the Makhnovists had to fight Bolshevik treachery, Austro-German forces and the soviet red army, finally falling to the latter. In Spain, anarcho-sydicalists got involved in revolutionary trade unions, unified under the CNT (confederacion nationale de travaillage) with a membership of over 1 million workers by 1918. Anarchist and communalist tendencies also had deep roots in the countryside, helped by many decades of anarchist propaganda. Before the actual revolution of 1936, the CNT held congresses to determine the guidelines of the anarchist society to come. In particular, the Saragossa congress's recommendations were astounding in their commitment to self-determination and direct democracy, their tolerance of regional differences and diversity, their analyses and acceptance of the cultivation of the mind, body and spirit, their humanitarian approach to crime and punishment and many other points. "The CNT foresaw that spiritual needs would begin to be expressed in a far more pressing way as soon as the emancipated society had satisfied material needs." Even concrete economic issues were addressed for the transition to a new, socialist economy, where production and exchange would be organized through levels of federations and councils whose authority and directives would come from below. In 1936, the leftist Popular Front party defeated the Spanish Right and the masses took it as the beginning of a revolution. They didn't even wait for the government to be formed before they set political prisoners free, farmers ceased to pay rent to the landlords, landless workers occupied and cultivated lands, people called for worker's control, municipal self-management and the nationalization of key industries. The military staged a coup in the west under General Franco and a civil war ensued, which was eventually lost by the Republican side. During the war, the anarchists faced (once again) treachery from the soviets (only aiding the communist militias with arms) and the republican government (which violently seized worker's control in favor of centralization), and blockades from the navies of western governments such as the US, Brittain and France. Now I know I've been going on for a long time here, and if you're still with me then I thank you. What I'm getting at is that anarchism or, more moderately, socialism has been tried on large scales, and has worked marvelously, with measurable increases in the wellbeing of the people. There are many specifics that could support such a statement, but which I leave out for the sake of brevity. And these three examples I've writen of are not the only ones: the Paris communes of the great French revolution, the French general strikes of 1968, the social gains of the Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions. The situation in the industrialized west today is very different from that prevalent before World War 2, as it is different from the cultures of poorer nations today where the people (arguably) have less to loose and more to gain through resistance. Add to that the changes in technology, especially in transportation and communication, and the world looks very different from the sort of primitive and small-scale organization that one might associate with anarchism. But though socialy and culturally we're mired in a situation that maintains inequity and insanity in the world, these things change over time and in ways we can't predict. Hopefully, over time they will change(how is another big question, of course), and our work, ingenuity and technology can be put to the service of the general wellbeing. -all for now, jeff well, speaking of overanalyzing things... i really like the idea of anarchy. but, in our (america's) current culture, there are too many unenlightened violent assholes out there for it to work. like, say we just up and ditch the entire concept of (our current) government. i think all hell would break loose. because, as of now, there are too many firearms that are/would be too easy to get, + too many people with the milkfed suburban blues. bad combination. however, if there was some way to raise an entire generation on the idea of anarchy from birth, i think it would just go without saying that killing people isn't a very productive action. i don't think human beaing are naturally violent. i just think that's the way we've all been raised. i think we've had the ability to grasp the concept of peace ever since the human brain became fully developed. but, the majority of the human race continues to be violent and prejiduced, just because that's the way it's always been done. so maybe eventually we will grasp it, as a whole... the hundredth monkey theory at it's best. maybe. because we'll eventually come to a point where it's either that or self destruction. but... for now, i don't think it would work.
~carsie http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/critics/critics.html i think anarchy would not only work best in small groups, it would only work in small groups. see NBTSC, which is relatively anarchic, and would never work in a group of say, 10,000. i think hundreds of commune type places run with anarchy would work well. on the other hand, the second some insane asshole got the idea to try and conquer everyone, (s)he'd have no problem. maybe hundreds of little communities protected by a large (whatever the opposite of anarchy is) country. or maybe a minimum government. interesting to think about, but very hard to put into practice. marina I disagree, somewhat. For anarchy to work, everyone does have to realize that they have no global power. That's not to say that it can't work on a large scale... just that everyone has to stand up for a few basic concepts (No, you do not attack my neighbor, because if you did, you might attack me), and the rest works itself out. Anyway, I think that anarchy is often poorly understood: It's not a lack of laws, it's a lack of written or universal laws. The laws people follow under anarchy are the Darwinistic ones, the laws that survive the test of time, the ones that everyone agrees on because if they didn't agree, society would break down. Anarchies would have to be mostly peaceful, because if not, it'd be a power struggle, and therefore not an anarchy anymore.
yes, i agree. i was thinking complete anarchy, no rules at all. if you add a couple sociological laws of nature, then it would definitely make sense on a larger scale. good point! marina What are Darwinistic laws? What are natural rights? What are social rights? The only right that has any meaning is that which can be secured and enforced. You can have police and a judicial system enforce them, you can have a despotic military regime enfore their rights, or you can participate in cooperative human relationships in which people voluntarily respect each others' rights. Anarchists are not blind idealists, they realize that people are imperfect, largely in the fact that they will be corrupted by power: they will mishandle, misuse or abuse it. So, anarchists contend that we shouldn't give anyone power, so that they couldn't use it to manipulate or coerse others. There will always be problems and disagreements, but most people, most of the time will choose peaceful solutions. There will also always be problems that can not be solved to everyone's satisfaction (such as when two people want exclusive rights to the same thing), but there's no reason to believe that the state's "justice" actually solves anything, except in that it can enforce its verdict (read: club you into submission), meanwhile using its power to advance its own interests. You're right, Ari, that people would have to stand up for a few basic concepts: primarily those of tolerance, non-coersiveness, bottom-up authority (aka non-hierarchical), direct, participatory democracy, self-determination and perhaps a few others. This is traditional libertarianism (not the same as the libertarian party), its opposite being authoritarianism. With a few presuppositions, people could live with cooperative self-determination and society could evolve and change, aided by the fact that no group would enjoy the special support of the state. This is what I believe is "social Darwinism". People and groups would not be allowed to gain entrenched means of power. -jeff Just a point of clarification: I think in this definition of "social Darwinism, you're closer in ideal to some kind of natural law. Social Darwinism has been instituted throughout history to justify, or rationalize the "superiority" of the ruling class. This rationale basically follws the "I'm richer therefore I deserve to be richer therefore there is something better about me than about those I rule" model. Natural law, on the other hand, is presided over by human nature itself, although it has also been attributed to gods or ethical judgements. This too, is tricky in terms of anarchism because it presupposes subordination of the masses to a greater power, or anthropomorphic ruler. Anarchism is ideally instituted in a situation where there is NO authority figure to potentially oppress or manipulate the people, and it's hard not to have concepts like "natural law" or "Darwinian fitness for survival" in communities without having certain individuals who feel like they have the power to "interpret" these laws to their own benefit, in the process creating another heirarchical power structure. I'm no hard core anarchist, but I'm definitely sympathetic to the anarchist viewpoint. Anarchy stands for individual responsibilty and communal understanding, turning our monetarily-based institutions of government on their heads. Anarchy promotes human rights, in that it does not assume one wealthy life is equal to at least several poverty stricken lives. Most imporatnt of all, it is direct action oriented, which empowers people outside of already established power. "Destruction of property" is directly opposed to "destruction of humanity" in anarchism because the "property" belongs to those that drain power and life from their workers, the larger proportion of humans. If I keep writing, somebody's going to think I'm the next unibomber or something, so I guess I'll stop. But, just think about the implications of a humanitarian based revolution, as opposed to a profit driven one. Think about the farmers in Equador fighting against Dole Bannanas,the WTO, and the USA. Think about the Zapatistas, Malachai, and the 600,000 kids in Iraq who've died as a result of economic warfare. Revolution is just a change in proirities. -beckina Read the writings of OscarWilde, particularily his essay about Individualism and Socialism. :) He's a pretty interesting anarchist. - Christy WOW-you all have made amazing points and have said so well but i have a QU could you live with out anyone telling what to do.If we don't give any one power than what do we have to aspire to?Some people are born leaders they can't help but take charge. nothing i'm saying really makes sense but if you do understand can you AN me - corey (girl I think it's definitely possible to have leadership without having destructive kinds of power structures, like heirarchy in the form that we know it. I see leadership as something more like being at the center of a complex network rather than at the top of a pyramid. Leadership is necessarily for the led, so the led have to understand that they are not slaves to a strucutre that is imposed on them. If anyone's interested in a project I'm doing (basically a sustainability activism network), you can email me at dryad_girl at hotmail.com. ~beckinazordak So are you saying Anarchy is like the basic concept of Democracy? What the mojarity wants? Mob rule so to speak? -Spike No, not "mob" rule, but yes, representative of the majority. Maybe a little background would help. Anarchy's gotten a bad name because of the fact that our society is built on a very specific foundation, in a very specific and static form. The specific powers that be find the anarchistic idea of natural revolutions and change in power structures as extremely threatening. Like all things that people don't understand, "anarchy" it is labeled "chaos" as a way of disempowering it. There are several factions of anarchist thought, but the one I'm most interested in is based on the way us humans lived for over a million years before we started manipulating our environment for "wealth" about 12,000 years ago. I should put in a little disclaimer here, because I know many anarchists who see it in a completely different way, so this is my own inclination. So anyway, we lived in small groups of about 25-50 people, of all ages. Each had a specific role in the community, and as each was important to the tribe's well being, there was no heirarchy, but only definitions of roles. People got what they needed, but not much more. They had a lot of excess time instead of excess stuff. In the overwhelming majority of societies, patriarchy, property and heirarchy (in terms of manipulation, not in terms of responsibility in roles) developed after people started accumultaing wealth through agriculture. Since then, we've been layering more and more and more modification of our natural behavior to suit the gain of excess stuff (for comfort and to put off death), which in itself has resulted in more modifacation, leading to a positive feedback cycle. So how does modern anarchy fit in? The superimposition of a power structure on individuals has proved a disfunctional experiment. (The proof of this is in our living circumstances: we are making our habitiat impossible to live in. Our population is heading toward our habitiat's carrying capacity at full speed...)Anarchy is a voice for people in general, but most specifically for those at the bottom of the pyramid. In allegorical terms, these are the people in contact with the ground. They feel environmental effects first, and it has to filter up through all the social strata to reach the top of the pyramid. Why not listen to the ground folk? Why not advocate everyone being in contact with the ground? If those in power are most removed from the environment by that excess stuff they have, they have delayed reaction time to respond to their constituents' problems. The scary thing about our present situation is that our environment is changing exponentially, as is our population, and the top of the pyramid is still reacting like it's 1945. Most of our politicians are barely starting to aknowledge global warming, and it's been significantly measurable since the mid 70s. So, modern anarchy advocates horizontal interaction, not vertical, and this is concensus, because on a horizontal plane, every job is equally important. No one counts for more because of what they have, but only for what responsibility they take. If they take responsibility that they can't fulfill, they are useless in that capacity, and will have to find something else that they can do. It's all a matter of survival. NBTSWikiWiki | Recent Changes Edited 21 times, last edited on December 10, 2000 by 134.10.23.143. © 2000 NBTSC Webmasters |
or nothing educational anyway; and people think without authorities, without a government, that there would be no stable social structure and no productivity. Hmm. Reanna
