by yvgrvny. 22/10/05
"No man has the right to rule others". ~ Denis Diderot 1713-1784
A common perception about anarchism is that it is an 'extremist' ideology which is not really rooted in anything of substance. It is just the moanings of a few marginalised rabble, or the daydreamings of utopian idealists. Or it is people "just doing what they want".
And of course we all know 'anarchy' means 'chaos'.
The purpose of this short tract is to look at the common-sense nature of political anarchism and its intersection with various currents of popular thought which are not generally considered to be strictly 'anarchist'.
While it's true that anarchism is fundamentally about the struggle and self-liberation of the working-class [1] it did not evolve in a political vacuum; it has a definite historical and theoretical tradition. As such it has certain things in common with other political strands which, at first glance it would seem completely opposed to.
Anarchism both as a political theory, and as a practical form of organising can be seen as the synthesis of the best aspects of 'popular' forms of government; liberalism, republicanism, socialism and perhaps (shock-horror) even conservatism! It could be said that Anarchism has a sort of love-hate relationship with these other ideologies; although it stems from the same historic foundations, these are all, compared to anarchism, "found wanting" due to the simple fact that they all result in various forms of concentration of political, economic, or social power. When power becomes monopolised by a few people it is not conducive to a free and just society. The ultimate goal of anarchism is to 'strike at the root' of power - not that we believe 'power' itself can be extinguished, but rather that it can (to varying degrees) be diffused into the hands of the many; in which "parasitism and special privilege have no place." [2]
The track-record of the human race is not too good on this score. Historically 'the people' have alternated between the two poles of tyranny and freedom. Although there does appear to be some form of evolution of ideas, it would be a mistake to believe that humanity is on some path of natural evolution towards a free society.[3] We will only be free if we continue to struggle for it. Although at various times - usually in times of insecurity - people have foolishly turned toward tyranny and even actively supported their own repression, they have eventually realised it for the huge mistake it was.
Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself.
Although some post-modernist mystics might disagree, (yes, it's all a figment of the imagination!) most practical people would assert that there are most definitely better and worse forms of government. This is a historical fact backed up by the statistics of misery and death at the hands of numerous authoritarian regimes.
Few would argue that it is just as good to live under a fascist or theocratic dictatorship as under some variety of democratic liberalism. A libertarian socialist (anarchist) society would be better again. Of course people can argue against anarchism in theory, but ultimately it is not a matter of right/wrong, it is a matter of opinion.[4] When opinion changes and people realise that the current institutions no longer fulfill their purpose, they may overthrow them and replace them with new ones better suited to the current circumstances.
Political (or social) anarchism is fundamentally concerned with the legacy of freedom and the notion of the 'good society'. Our goal as anarchists is simply to push society in the direction of liberty. Although a complete anarchist 'utopia' may never be a reality, this does not mean we shouldn't strive for it within the practical bounds of what is achievable. To not do so would simply be to live as slaves.
From a recent historical perspective, anarchism is the logical continuance of that rich tradition called the enlightenment.[5] It builds on the foundations of history acccording to what has 'worked' and attempts to improve on it. In this sense anarchism is unashamedly 'populist' in nature. It is not a complex set of theories which is debated by a few elites but is already present in that great mass of people who struggle toward freedom; popular notions already established such as individual liberty, the right to dissent, mutual aid, solidarity, co-operation, direct democracy, federalism, regionalism, internationalism, the strict limiting of powers, egalitarianism, the 'common-wealth', anti-authoritarianism, justice, etc.
All of these ideas exist in Australian society today to varying degrees. While none of them are specifically "Anarchist" they could become, if successfuly combined, elements of a 'political anarchy' - i.e. a self-managed society; rule of the people, by the people, where all have an equal say on how resources are used and on other issues which concern them directly.
A self-managed political anarchy is certainly not a new idea, but it is a BIG idea. In the words of Alexander Berkman; "..the finest and biggest thing man has ever thought of."
#
[1] "The class struggle created by the enslavement of the workers
and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism.." ~ The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists
[2] Diego Abad de Santillan, quoted by Chomsky in 'Notes on Anarchism'.
[3] "Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Malatesta
[4] "Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular." ~ David Hume's Principles of Government
[5] "With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order." ~ Chomsky