Anarchy in Iraq?

After the fall of Saddam's dictatorship, a wave of looting
erupted in towns and cities across Iraq. The media was
outraged, often more concerned about stolen property than
the civilians wounded and murdered by the US invasion. It
was proclaimed that Iraq was falling into "anarchy." This
is unsurprising, if annoying, for anarchists. It is
worthwhile to explain why the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq is
not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism.

Kropotkin once said that "without disorder, the Revolution
is impossible" and he was right. Every revolution has been
marked by "disorder," by strikes, riots, looting and so on.
However, in social revolutions such periods are short
lived. Inspired by ideas and hope for the future, the mass
of people quickly go beyond the destructive phrase of
popular revolt and start the construction of a new world.

So Kropotkin argued against the idea of "one-day
revolutions" and the idea that a revolution could occur
independently of popular struggle and mass movements. A
"structure based on centuries of history cannot be
destroyed by a few kilos of explosives," he correctly
stated. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle
at the heart of society, not the product of external
shocks. "To make the revolution," he argued, "the mass of
workers will have to organise themselves. Resistance and
the strike are excellent means of organisation for doing
this." Thus it was "a question of organising societies of
resistance for all trades in each town . . . against the
exploiters . . . of federating them . . . Workers'
solidarity must no longer be an empty word but practised
each day between all trades and all nations." In the
struggle against oppression and exploitation, we not only
change the world, we change ourselves at the same time. So
it is the struggle for freedom which creates people capable
of taking the responsibility for their own lives,
communities and planet. People capable of living as equals
in a free society, so making anarchy possible.

Therefore, what happened in Iraq is not an example of
anarchy. As George Barrett put it, the strength of the
state lies "in the superstition of the people who think
that it is right to obey [it]. So long as that superstition
exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head
of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have
grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves."
This means that "if, then, by some external means" the
state was destroyed then people would "rebuild the old
society." However, if "the people develop their ideas of
freedom, and then themselves get rid of the last stronghold
tyranny -- the Government -- then indeed the Revolution
would be permanently accomplished." Like Kropotkin, he saw
anarchist revolution in terms of working class people self-
organisation and direct action, with the capitalist class
"abolished by the people so organising themselves that they
will run the factories and use the land for the benefit of
their free communities, i.e. for their own benefit . . .
The only thing then that will be put in the place of
government will be the free organisations of the workers."

This has not happened in Iraq. Rather, the government has
been destroyed by quite a few kilos of explosives.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, chaos rather than anarchy
resulted. It cannot be denied that
the looting is, in part, a reaction to inequality and class
society. It is a form of wealth redistribution. Nor can it
be denied that some of the looters see their actions as a
form of justice. "Every single item that we take is the
blood of the people," said one. However, it is not the end
of private property, simply a change in who claims to own
it. This can be seen from the irresponsible attacks on
hospitals and other resources that should be held in
common, not squandered by breaking them up and destroying
them.

Aware of this, anarchists are not in favour of looting as
such. Anarchists, to quote Luigi Fabbri, "do not think of
expropriation in terms of some sort of 'help yourself'
operation, left to personal judgement, in the absence of
any order. Even were it possible to predict as inevitable
that expropriations, once disorder sets in, would take on
an individualistic complexion . . . anarchist communists
have no intention of adopting that sort of an approach as
their own." In other words, collective expropriation must
replace individualistic looting. Instead, he pointed out
that the working class has its "own, free institutions,
independent of the state" (such as federations of unions
and co-operatives) to achieve the end of private property
and that "during the revolution other collective bodies
more attuned to the needs of the moment will be set up."

And this is the problem in Iraq. There has been no popular
movement that created the framework of a new society while
fighting the old. Rather we have people who, in the main
(and so far), have not seen beyond statism and capitalism
taking advantage of a break down of the state and its
protection of property. Can we be surprised that chaos
ensured?

Now the Iraqi people have three choices. They can accept
the rule of the US, either freely or be forced to. This
seems the most likely, although it will be imposed by force
upon a population which, while anti-Saddam, is also anti-
US, its occupation and the wealthy, westernised Iraqi
exiles it wants to rule the country. Or they fall behind
some new nationalist gang aiming for state power. This is
less likely. Or, finally, they can start to construct their
own ways of getting society back on its feet in a way that
will be in their interests. This is the anarchist solution
and would result in a true anarchy, a society of free and
equal people co-operating together freely.

Impossible, it will be asserted. Far from it. No society
could survive without its libertarian elements, elements
which often come to the fore in periods of intense struggle
and change. Every struggle and revolution has seen
anarchist ideas and practices develop spontaneously as
people draw the obvious conclusions from their own
experiences, They have seen free, self-managed,
organisations develop whenever the people have freedom of
initiative. The French revolution had its sections and
communes, the Russian revolution its soviets and factory
committees, the Spanish revolution its unions, collectives
and co-operatives. These were the bodies that turned riot
into revolution, expropriating capital for the benefit of
all and allowing society to be run from the bottom up (at
least for a time). So in terms of what anarchism is, we
don't need to speculate about how Iraq shows the failure of
anarchism. Its necessary preconditions do not exist. The
historical examples of anarchism in practice show how very
different real anarchy is.

The creation of new socialist and libertarian institutions
is, therefore, always a possibility. The Iraqi peoples'
experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions,
the awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy
and powerful few and to disempower the many. That while it
is needed to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is
not needed to organise society nor can it do so in a just
and fair way for all. This is possible. There is a history
of Shoras (workers councils) in Iraq, so many have an
example of working class self-organisation that can be
applied. So we cannot dismiss the possibility that the
chaos in Iraq may be replaced by true anarchy, the self-
organisation of a self-managed society.

Unfortunately the odds are stacked against this. The Iraqi
people have had their state destroyed for them and are now
subject to an occupying power. So although developments
towards real anarchy are possible, it is unlikely to
happen. But we can hope. And if this does happen, the Iraqi
people will have to defend their freedom from two enemies.
Firstly, the US/UK occupation forces. These have no
interest in seeing a functional grassroots democracy be
built from below. And, secondly, those in Iraq who seek to
maintain inequality in wealth and/or power. Without a
conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are
likely to be used, abused and finally destroyed by parties
or religious groups seeking political power over the
masses.

During these events the US occupying power has made its
priorities clear. While letting essential services like
hospitals and priceless historical treasures be looted, the
US army secured oil fields and defended only two government
ministries (namely of Oil and of the Interior). When US
officials boasted that oil production would restart soon,
people across Iraq were wondering when the same would be
said of their water, food and electricity supplies. But, of
course, this war was not about oil so this must be a
coincidence.

Nor should we be surprised by the fact that the US is
reintroducing the old regime's police force. They did the
same all across Europe and the Far East after defeating the
fascists, where they replaced popular anti-fascist
committees with fascist politicians and businessmen. We can
expect to see the Baath state resurrected, but with a new
leaders at the top. And who knows, perhaps this policy of
tolerating chaos and looting is part of a plan to "win
hearts and minds," to get people used to the idea of a US
dictatorship presiding over Saddam's police force as the
alternative would be chaos?

And, lastly, it is doubtful that the US and UK government's
tolerance for "public disorder" in Iraq will be applied in
regards those seeking meaningful regime change at home.
Number 10's recognition that oppression and exploitation
produces resistance and rebellion will not be applied here.
We will be expected to obey the state like good citizens
and be punished if we step out of line. After all, we live
in a democracy. It's not like the government simply ignores
the wishes of the population in favour of pursuing policies
that only benefit the few at the expense of the many and
the planet we live on...

For more information on Anarchism, visit "An Anarchist FAQ":
 http://www.anarchistfaq.org