Some thoughts on the real meaning of anarchy

From Random Hipatia

I have heard much about the violence and chaos in New Orleans being described as a state of anarchy and those who are purpetraiting these violent acts are described as anarchists. I believe them anarchists is fundamentally insulting to anarchists of all types, as well as being factually incorrect. Indeed, the popular idea of anarchism as a violent state of disorder, where individuals are a law untrue themselves is far removed from the actual facts behind anarchism itself.

What then are we to make of Anarchism? First, we have the problem that it is often mislabeled on a one dimensional political spectrum that seems to know of “left” and “right”. The fact alone that there are anarco-capitalists on the right as well as being labeled the “other” form of revolutionary socialism on the left says much to the idea that in fact anarchism belongs on an entirely separate political dimension.

What then is modern anarchism really about? By and large there are some important distinguishing characteristics shared in common. The first is the idea of shared human equality. The second is the rejection of involuntary hierarchies, and third is the related concept of voluntary association.

To be lawless in the manner claimed in New Orleans, or that others choose to describe as anarchists, one must believe oneself is somehow or in some way superior to others. That is not an anarchistic belief, though this idea is commonly found in non-anarchistic political and religious groups. To be individual and assume one’s rights are above all others is not anarchism, it is selfishness, and is not a successful trait for a would-be anarchist to survive.

To the contrary, anarchism itself promotes cooperative associations and mutual dependency based on mutual respect of others. Whether one talks of survival, or of other endeavors, everyone involved must find some way to work together, and in this anarchism most often stresses the cooperative nature of such relationships rather than the competitive ones.

Nor does anarchists necessarily abhor structure. The difference is that such structure is not created from above, but is elected and formed by consent from peers on a voluntary basis. Nor are such structures fixed, for leadership that fails can and will also be replaced by those who are being lead.

Consider then the economics of anarchism and labor. In today’s world, capitalists have created a labor market in human flesh. In this economic structure, one does not choose who one will work with, but rather finds oneself in a job with co-workers that are selected from the same labor market.

However, even worse, the capitalists then force co-workers to complete with each other, in the process of exploiting the maximum value from each individual laborer. The backstabber may get promoted, and so the involuntary and competitive nature of labor prevents real co-operation from occurring. In fact, while each worker remaining may be utilized to the maximum, the actual work of the collective whole is often less than the sum of the parts.

A anarchistic economic entity also starts from the bottom. An anarchistic work crew not only will choose to associate with each other on a voluntary basis, but choose their own foreman among the best of themselves. Such a system may offer higher levels of organizational hierarchy, but these are created as needed from peers, rather than defined and appointed from some arbitrary authority above. An anarchistic entity then is often something alin to a democratic meritocracy, where those who are proven most capable are the ones who’s individual authority can rise, but always only with the consent of peers.

It is likely here in labor that both anarco-capitalists and anarco-socialists originate and diverge. For the anarco-capitalist, perhaps loosing sight of the larger goal of universal solidarity by promoting an exclusive group over others, sees the greater shared efficiency and productivity of cooperative voluntary associations rather than competitive ones, and chooses to seek advantage over traditional hierarchical capitalists in their own market. For the true marxist, the question of equality and worker ownership no doubt come to the forefront, for that is one of the natural intersections of many traditional anarchistic ideals and later marxist ideology. Where marxism fails in my opinion is in loosing sight of the ideal of direct worker ownership by using state power as an intermediary to achieve socialism. However, I also believe anarchism and socialism, while strongly related in many important areas, are also separate and distinct.

Most people, however, only associate anarchism with the absence of any government authority. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, “a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups.” My favorite definition though is that chosen in the use of the term “Libertarian Socialism.”

Rather than say that anarchists do not believe in or “respect” government authority, I think a much more accurate definition is that anarchists tend to believe a traditional state, and the associated monopoly on power that then occurs, is itself a fundamental perpetrator of inequality. I do believe the state, or some form of national authority as such, can co-exist for anarchism, but certainly not as an exclusive monopoly on power or unchallengeable authority, but rather as sepcific agencies made for very narrow and specific practical purposes where formed by a voluntary association of it’s citizens, and perhaps for specific purposes and functions that often have limited and very specific duration as well.