.png)
Anarchism, as a concept, has many preconceived notions and rhetoric attached to it. The word ‘anarchy’ is used to describe chaos, disorder, and violence – none of which are particularly flattering adjectives to describe the organisation of society. However, as an ideology, anarchism is more nuanced than how it is often perceived. Anarchism encompasses a broad church of philosophies and movements, with major factions including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individual anarchism.
These various branches are united by central beliefs. Anarchism is essentially an extreme scepticism of authority, as it believes authority or power is never self-justifying. Therefore, any form of exercised authority or domination must prove its legitimacy. Anarchists believe that all forms of authority which cannot justify themselves should be dismantled.
Rational authority is held by experts or those skillful in a particular area – they have the legitimate authority to make recommendations, but cannot force people to follow their advice. Irrational/illegitimate authority is wielded by institutions such as the state and multinational corporations, and imposes an oppressive hierarchy which is detrimental to humanity. Instead, everyone should have autonomy over their own lives and make equal contributions to group decisions.
Check out Naom Chomsky's explanation of Anarchism
Noam Chomsky, a self-described anarchist, argued that it is the responsibility of those who exercise power to meet any challenge to their authority with a legitimate defence. It is the responsibility of those in the status of submission, however, to make this challenge in the first place. He recognised that, through propaganda and indoctrination, it has been historically difficult for individuals to recognise their own subjugation. For example, in deferential feudal societies, many peasants didn’t challenge the oppression they suffered at the hands of barons and landowners, but instead accepted their role within society. Modern institutions, such as the police and welfare state, which individuals perceive to benefit and protect them are, anarchists argue, wielders of illegitimate authority and therefore should be dismantled.
The biggest modern institution of which anarchists are critical is the state. Anarchists are anti-statist: they oppose the idea that the state, or government, has a right to control or influence the social, political, or economic lives of citizens. Individual freedom is valued, often, above all else. Any state must involve the imposition of a hierarchy, and anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy because they allow those at the top to coerce individuals of a lower status. Further, the state exists contrary to rationality, altruism, and cooperation – the building blocks which anarchists believe form human nature. Emma Goldman, the influential anarchist and feminist writer, described the state as a ‘cold monster’ – immoral and its sole purpose being the protection of the ruling class’ interests and its own territories. The liberal theory of the ‘social contract’, developed by thinkers such as John Locke and Rousseau, asserts that citizens concede individual freedom to the government in exchange for protections by the state is rejected by anarchists. They argue that this contract can’t exist as the state only pretends to care for its citizens, as when challenged it deploys violence against them in order to protect its illegitimate authority.
Another recurring theme throughout anarchism and its strands is anti-clericalism: an opposition to religious authorities. This is a good example to demonstrate how authority, as anarchists believe it, extends beyond the obvious example of the state. Ideas and those who promote them, in this case clerics, vicars, imams etc., can enforce hierarchy and inequality. In the case of religion, those who adhere to the dictated codes of behaviour are placed at the top of the hierarchy and those who do not languish at the bottom, destined for hell. Similarly, religion has historically acted to uphold class inequality, as the working classes are numbed to their unfavourable conditions on Earth with promises of a future paradise.
With these key beliefs in mind, let us look at two of anarchism’s major strands: individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism. Individualist anarchism has much in common with right wing libertarianism, and has often been described as taking classical liberalism to its logical, anti-statist extremes. Individual anarchists value individual freedom above all else, and regard society as a loose grouping of autonomous individuals. The state, which imposes laws, taxes, military conscription etc., must be abolished. In this stateless society, individuals will behave rationally and voluntarily cooperate with one another to achieve their own specific goals. For example, Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism which proposes a totally free-market capitalist economy, absent any state intervention. According to English anarchist thinker William Godwin, this is the end goal of human rationality, freedom, and equality.
Collectivist anarchism, however, stresses the importance of the collective over the individual or the state. Some describe it as ‘stateless socialism’, and it uses its optimistic view of human nature to advocate for common ownership which satisfies natural human cooperativeness. Small-scale voluntary communities would replace the state, which poisons humans into behaving violently and individualistically against their nature. Capitalism and private property are to be abolished and placed into the common ownership of the communities. Individuals would however own the product of their own labour. Collectivist anarchists support revolutionary change to achieve their goals, in contrast to individualist anarchists who advocate for a more gradual change.
Anarchism is therefore a complex ideology, characterised by a deep-rooted cynicism about authority. Clearly, anarchist thought has much more to offer than its popular perception first suggests.
Comments