A lot of misconceptions are thrown around in the public and private sphere regarding the philosophy of anarchism. Most people associate anarchy with chaos, which is not reflective of what the truth really is. It is thus imperative that we delve into the history of anarchist thought. The currents of anarchist thought—there are many—that interest me have their roots in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism.
I tend to agree with the important anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never to recover—although later, Rocker altered his beliefs. The ideas have been reinvented continually; I think in part because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been prepared by many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call down the wrath of every major power system. Stalinism, fascism, and western liberalism–most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions—all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did. This is an indication of its significance.
So what is the philosophy of anarchism, you ask? It depends on what branch of anarchism you refer to. To answer the question in its broadest generality would be to lose concreteness and jump in to the worm hole of vagueness and illegitimate abstractness.
I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies, and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed. Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas. In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. Anarchist ideas—challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself—are appropriate at all levels.
As I understand the term “anarchism”, it is based on the hope—in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that—that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on. Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival or by material reward, a kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don’t know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed—there are many possibilities—to overcome this crime. What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let’s try it and find out.
The post Anarchism appeared first on Culture Shock.