This ended up being a collection of short summaries of the research I did which ended up being far more in depth into all the topics I mentioned. I wanted to publish these short summaries to be used as a stepping stone into further research.
I find that amongst the general media there seems to be a deep-rooted, and most likely quite intentional, misunderstanding of this ideology. It seems to represent- to a large majority- a world full of chaos and death. A dog eats dog world in which only the fittest and the very best survive. People seem to miss the irony of this as they sit at home watching Besoz and Musk get ever richer whilst those living under the poverty seem to die. Anarchy I believe has been purposefully misrepresented by the media and the political elites because for people to truly understand it, would be to place modern society and the status quo in danger. Education is the best weapon against the ruling class.
So, what is anarchism?
Disclaimer: every piece of media you consume has been mediated, meaning that it is constructed in a way to consciously, or maybe not, portray the beliefs and objectives of the producer. Nothing can truly be unbiased. Therefore it is important to read multiple sources on a subject before making your own opinion and consider who is presneting it when reading an opinion. I am not going to pretend to be unbiased, I very much have my own opinion, I am simply hoping to be another source when you are forming your own.
Understanding the meaning and etymology of the word can truly reveal its meaning. Anarchism stems from the Greek ‘anarkhos’ meaning ‘without a chief’ and over the centuries has developed into the word we know today. And so we can imagine that the ideology is in fact a political belief that advocates for society without a leader. But it goes further than this. Anarchists believe that any forms of involuntary hierarchy (that is to say a form of structure sociaty imposes on us giving people disproportionate power) is injust and should be abolished. People should live as equals. This means that not only would government and the monarchy be abolished, but also the structure of corporations and even families. It sounds extreme to begin with, and for some people it always will, but regardless of your opinion it is important to consider why people believe this and the benefits, as well as drawbacks it may bring. Establishing that anarchists are sceptical of the state and all forms of establishment would be reducing the ideology drastically. It has strong ties with the anti-capitalist movement and tends to link neatly with the socialist movements which have been historically tied together. Anarchism views that most aspects of society are based around these unfair hierarchies, such as racial hierarchies, class structures, and more. They aim to liberate all people and create a society in which we all live as equals. For some this is tied with revolution, other evolution, some believe in abolishing the contemporary forms of market, but regardless of the nuances, the overarching theme is that society should be equal. How is one individual or group more qualified to tell all others how to act and what to do?
A significant argument presented for the support of anarchism, is that we could consider that communities in human pre-history lived in what some think to be an anarchist society. There were no leaders or formal establishment but rather people living in large communities, hunting nor for themselves, but for everyone. There were no distinguished roles or wages given for doing them. People simply did so because that was the ‘right’ thing to do. And people happily did it for everyone.
Anarchism is often considered to be either chaos or the ideology of naive teens in the nineties. But in reality is has existed since pre-modernity, across the world. After established communities with institutionalise authority became the most common method of organisation, we saw the rise of anarchist scriptures and thinkers. Notably we see Zhuang Zhao, Laozi, and even some Tragedians such as Aeschylus, and Sophocles. They used the myth of Antigone (who attempted to bury her brother and as a result is buried alive by her uncle- the king). This was used to demonstrate the conflict between state’s authority and the personal autonomy we are born with the right to. This was further argued by thinkers such as Socrates and many stoics who prefer societies based on unofficial and ‘friendly’ relations. These thinkers across the globe shared the similar basis which makes up anarchism: there are no inherent hierarchies and the organisation of society as it is contains contradictory statuses.
But after the fall of pre-modernity and the Empires- that is to say when we moved into the ‘Dark Ages’, Europe hardly held these radical beliefs. Instead we saw that anarchist (or pre-anarchist beliefs) were held more in the Muslim world. These were societies with predominant ascetic (free from indlugence of any kind) religious movements which gave way to more anarchist and radical beliefs and then movements. This was mostly due to the advocacy of an egalitarian society by figures such as Mazdak (an Iranian reformer).
But as settlements grew, and some began hoarding more than the rest, it became a battle of each person for themselves. It was no longer about doing things for the community, but trying to make sure that you stayed above it. The standards of living were abismal and people were desperately trying to get themselves out- they couldn’t afford to be thinking about their neighbours. Despite this segragation and division of labour, in the 19th century there was a spike in the anarchist movement. People were seeking, actively, for the emancipation for the working class. The industrial revolution and poor conditions of citites (notably London) brought class consciousness to the forefront of the lower classes. People saw their exploitation and the success of people at the expense of their own. Anarchism, and socialism in general became an empowering movement for the working class.
In the modern era, Anarchism began to grow in popularity, until the end was marked by the Spanish Civil War. The French Revolution brought to light more partisan groups advocating for a society without a state, and both Pierre-Joseph Proudon’s ‘Theory of Mutualism’ and William Godwin and his moral argument against the legitimacy of the state, espoused the ideas of anarchism which dominated the century. But what is Mutualism and what was William Godwin advocating.
William Godwin, the infamous English journalist and poltiical philosopher, was a prominent feature in the radical communities of London and is considered the first proponent in modernity of anarchism. He believed that there was nothing inherent to human nature and therefore all “virtures and vices” we engaged in were to do with things we have experienced and this led him to argue with Malthus. In these extensive arguments between the two, Godwin refined his ideas that we should focus on advancing technology so that we as a society can begin to advance our intellect and morals; eventually we would reach a utopia of “voluntary communism”. If we became free from all the constraits society placed on us, such as poverty and work, we could live in harmony with each other but furthermore with nature and our environment. Society, and the state as Godwin knew it, were restraining humanity from its true capacity. Despite all of these views, he was not revolutionary- he himself had the negative connotations of anarchism brought along with the French Revolution; instead he advocated for intellect to overthrow oppression. Control, in his opinion, was not necessary for humans to live in peace, in fact quite the opposite.
We have understood the principles the founder of anarchism held, but what was mutualism, which inspired modern anarchism. It is a school of thought which advocated both socialism, usufructs (property norms), and the free market. It uses Marx’s Labour Theory of Value to repay workers for their goods- functioning on the principle that when a worker produces something, it should be bough of them with something of equal value, and this value is derived from the amount of labour put into it. Despite being associated and propagated by Proudhon we can trace it back to the labour movement in 18th century Britain. Essentially, they did not want workers, or capitalist relations to trick workers out of the full value of what they were worth. They did not believe in unecessary abolition, only that which was not following the ‘principle of reciprocity’. Essentially they advocate for a society in which the focus is giving workers what they earn; this includes owning the means of production invdividually as well as earning the value of their labour over the value of the good.
With a brief overview of crucial thinking in anarchism I wanted to discuss briefly the different sects within the movement, simply because I think it is our differences which unite us and because anarchism can take various forms, some which we may like and others less so.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the first. A ‘newer’ philosophy, it is one that believes that leftist goals will be achieved through syndicalism. Gaining the means of productions to become public domain will only be achieved through syndicalism. Their main aim, one could say the driving force, is to abolish wages and the slavery which comes alongside it, which is considered only a few more radical steps away of what syndicates advocate already. Due to their focus on direct action and cutting out middle-men, they believe that trade unions will allow worker solidarity and a system which facilitates the self-sufficiency of the proleteriat in overthrowing the exploitative class. Again, there is a strong focus on self-sufficiency which they believe is denied to them through the state which solely exists to maintain the status quo and defend private property which inhibits true freedom.
Collectivist anarchist believe both in the abolition of private property and the state, which is achieved through a revolution, however society will then become collectively owen by producers and workers. After the workers collectivise the means of production, money would be abolished and instead labour notes would be introduced. Worker’s wages and salaries would be decided democratically based on their labour’s worth. Buying and selling would be done through communal markets in which the worker’s notes can be used. It is essentially a democratic way of keeping some form of monetary value flowing, but with a more worker organisation than other attempts to collectivise the means of production. It’s main difference from anarcho-communism, is that the latter woud have a house of goods to which everyone contributed and each would take according to their need. Bakunin disapproved of this greatly and this lead to his arguments with Marx.
And then we reach anarchism’s controversial younger sibling. Anarcho-capitalism. More prolific than one might think, but it has its own subreddit and therefore a loyal group behind it. It agrees that the state should be abolished, but instead it is in favour of private property which is enforced by private institutions such as free markets and self-ownership. They believe society will self-regulate if only the state wasn’t intervening and that institutions such as the police and courts would be replaced by companies which consumers choose. They agree more with classical liberalism and the Austrian school rather than traditional anarchism, but have taken various aspects of mutualism into their theories. The foudnation of the whole theory is our ownership of ourselves. We are the only ones to have complete jurisdiction over it and therefore no one else can invade this. The principle of non-aggression. In their opinion the state infringes upon this as property is in someway an extension of ourselves.
Anarchism draws from a wide politcal perspective, like all ideologies, and so it has tense and often complex relationships with other members of the left wing, especially the more radical these comrades become. Post-anarchism for example is an entire ideology which seeks to move away from the traditional left for fear that ti is outdated and too focused on the wrong things. Instead it wants to combat authoritarianism from a new light. However, it is not just the newere sects of the left that disagree with anarchism, and vice versa. Communism and anarchism although often historically seen hand in hand, hever never qutie seen eye to eye. The anarchists criticise that individual liberty takes the backseat in favour of the state, whilst communists simply disagree that anything can be achieved without the revolution (something Bukakin felt strongly about). An issue the left faces is being seen as a hegemony, when in reality the principles that unite us are far less than those which divide. And often times in the face of the enemy we are too busy seperating ourseleves from each other, that we forget we have anything in common at all. This has become more of an opinion based paragraph however I believe it is important to consider that despite the key differences, of which I have only discussed a few, ultimately the left has more similar goals between the differing factions than the right will every have with any of us.
