Skip to content or view screen version

Anarchism: the A word

Uri Gordon | 04.07.2011 12:30 | Analysis | Other Press | Social Struggles | Sheffield | World

Mindless, violent thugs, hell-bent on sowing chaos.’ That’s the kind of press anarchists often get. Uri Gordon provides a more sympathetic take on a growing yet still little understood political movement.

I must have been eight or nine years old when I first heard the a-word. I don’t remember the context, but I do remember asking my mother what ‘anarchists’ were. She said: anarchists are people who want to destroy everything, and rebuild it all from scratch.

To her credit, my mother’s answer was quite generous: at least it included the part about rebuilding. It did get me thinking that anarchists had good intentions, that they wanted to ‘destroy everything’ not just for the hell of it, but because they thought ‘everything’ was unjust and dysfunctional. Her definition was neither accurate nor very nuanced, but there was a grain of truth to her association of anarchism with the notion that society needed to be changed at a very fundamental level, and that such change couldn’t happen through piecemeal reform but instead required a thorough transformation from the ground up.

I think I was lucky; imagine what most kids hear in response to the same question.

In 1910 American activist Emma Goldman wrote: ‘Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals.’

A full century after Goldman penned her inspiring words, there remains the same need to dispel misconceptions about anarchism, bred of the unholy matrimony between plain ignorance and vile slander. Chaos, suffering, destruction, tumult, strife – these are things that anarchists have never called for. Yet most people imagine anarchists as people who do actively desire such things, people who must be either evil or insane.

But actually there is nothing very surprising here. As Goldman noted in the same essay: ‘In its tenacious hold on tradition, the Old has never hesitated to make use of the foulest and cruellest means to stay the advent of the New… Indeed, as the most revolutionary and uncompromising innovator, anarchism must needs meet with the combined ignorance and venom of the world it aims to reconstruct.’

This has led many who endorse anarchist values to shun the label itself. Some activists will call themselves ‘libertarian socialist’, ‘anti-authoritarian’, ‘autonomous’, or nothing at all, just to avoid the a-word and its bad PR. But there are also those of us who carry the label with pride, and tirelessly repeat what it really stands for.

Direct action – a core principle

What, then, do anarchists want? The answer is simple. Anarchists want a social order without rulers or hierarchy. Anarchists want freedom and equality for all. We want a world with no borders and no social classes, no gods and no masters, where power is as decentralized as possible and every individual and community can determine their own destiny. We believe in independent thought, international solidarity, voluntary association and mutual aid. This is why we seek the abolition of capitalism and the state, which place economic and political power in the hands of a tiny minority. It is why we resist patriarchy, white supremacy, compulsory heterosexuality and all other systems of domination and discrimination. And it is, I suspect, why so many teachers, corporate journalists, clergy, business people and police work so hard at hiding our values from the general public.

What also distinguishes anarchists is a strong commitment to being the change we want to see in the world. This approach, sometimes called ‘prefigurative politics’, is evident in decentralized organization, decision-making by consensus, respect for differing opinions and an overall emphasis on the process as well as the outcomes of activism. It is also the motivation for our constant effort to deprogramme ourselves and overcome behaviours and prejudices that are sexist, racist, homophobic, consumerist and conformist. As anarchists we explicitly try to be and live what we want, not just as end goals, but as guides to political action and everyday life.

This relates to the core of practical anarchist politics – the principle of direct action. Anarchists understand direct action as a matter of taking social change into one’s own hands, by intervening directly in a situation rather than appealing to an external agent (typically the government) for its rectification. It is a ‘Do It Yourself’ approach to politics based on people-power, mirrored by a total lack of interest in operating through established political channels.

Most commonly, direct action is viewed under its preventative or destructive guise. If, for instance, anarchists object to the clear-cutting of a forest, then taking direct action means that rather than petitioning the loggers or engaging in a legal process, they would intervene literally to prevent the clear-cutting – by chaining themselves to the trees, or lying in front of the bulldozers, or pouring sugar into their gas-tanks – all acts which can directly hinder or halt the project.

But direct action can also be understood in a constructive way. Anarchists who propose non-hierarchical social relations, or an ecologically responsible economy, undertake to construct and live such realities by themselves. Building alternatives from below, anarchists are involved in many projects, collectives and networks which are intended to be the groundwork for a new society within the shell of the old. Leading by example, anarchists seek to demonstrate in the most practical terms that ‘another world is possible’.

A movement reborn

The anarchist idea is as ancient as the institutions it resists; the notion that people can live together without a class of rulers or concentrations of wealth inspired the earliest slave rebellions as well as religious heretics throughout the ages – including the early Christians. Modern anarchism, for its part, emerged with the workers’ movement of the 19th century, and at least in southern Europe, was the political orientation of its overwhelming majority. The first writer to call himself an anarchist was the French social theorist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who also declared that ‘property is theft’. Anarchism became clearly defined as an independent movement with the 1872 split in the First International between the workers’ representatives who followed Karl Marx, and those who followed Proudhon and the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin. Unlike the Marxists, who expected to overwhelm capitalism through parliamentary elections (or, later on, by seizing state power), anarchists called for abolishing the state and capitalism simultaneously. Whether they were peasants staging an uprising or militant unionists building up to a general strike, anarchists consistently steered a revolutionary course towards stateless socialism by stateless means.

Anarchism had its ‘golden age’ during the early decades of the 20th century. These saw massive peasant and industrial union activity in almost every country of Europe and the Americas, as well as the liberation of much of the Ukraine during the Russian civil war of 1919-21, and much of Catalonia during the Spanish civil war of 1936-39. But the physical elimination of most of the European anarchist movement by the Bolshevik and Fascist dictatorships, as well as the American ‘Red Scare’, effectively wiped anarchism off the map.

It is only in the recent decade or so that anarchism has experienced a full-blown revival on a global scale. This was largely the result of the rediscovery – since the late 1960s – of anarchist values and tactics by numerous social movements which did not use the label. Activists also progressively came to see the interdependence of their agendas, manifest in ecological critiques of capitalism, feminist anti-militarism, and the interrelation of racial and economic segregation. Contemporary anarchism is rooted in the convergence of the radical ends of feminist, ecological, anti-capitalist, anti-racist and queer liberation struggles and agendas, which finally fused in the late 1990s through the global wave of protest against the policies and institutions of neoliberal globalization.
Maturity and playfulness

Today the anarchist movement is a mature global network of activist collectives, involved in any number of struggles and constructive projects – from resistance to mining in Indonesia and anti-nuclear action in Germany, through solidarity with Palestinians in the West Bank and communal farming in France, and on to climate campaigning in Britain and labour struggles in South Africa. Anarchists also participate in, and are often the main organizers of, projects and campaigns which have a much broader appeal – research groups who monitor the corporate world or international institutions, local economic initiatives, women’s health collectives, non-profit bicycle workshops, public art projects… The number of anarchist publications, bookfairs and websites is rising every year, as is the geographical, cultural and age diversity among anarchists themselves.

Another feature of anarchist action is its creativity and playfulness. Inspired throughout its history by avant-garde movements from the surrealists to the Situationists, and more recently by a diversity of global cultures and subcultures, anarchism today displays more humour and fun than perhaps any political movement in history. Activists will often stage street theatre displays, art exhibitions and elaborate hoaxes; they might come to a demonstration dressed up as turtles, pink fairies or business people; and they will certainly pay attention to the beauty as well as the productivity of their eco-farms and community gardens.

Yes despite all these features, most of the public is only exposed to anarchism when some of its exponents employ confrontational tactics in mass protests – smashing the windows of banks and corporate outlets, blockading political and economic summits and, in some countries, fighting police and/or neo-Nazis in the streets. Whether these tactics are still effective or have turned into theatrical rituals is debatable. I, for one, believe that the occasional public display of organized rage and well-targeted disruption contributes to the vigour and dynamism of the ongoing social struggle. Also debatable is whether this gives anarchists a positive or a negative reputation. Here, it is worth noting that many people who complain about confrontational action in their own countries are quite supportive of similar or even more militant tactics when they occur in Libya, Bolivia or Iran. Are they merely not-in-my-back-yard pacifists? Or do they believe that their right occasionally to elect a capitalist politician gives their governments more legitimacy than a dictatorship should enjoy? Anarchists certainly do not.

In a future plagued by energy scarcity, climate instability and financial meltdown, anarchist values and forms of organization will become increasingly important. The 21st century may well see the collapse of global capitalism under the weight of its own excesses – but there is no guarantee that what we get instead will be any more humane or equal. Eco-fascism, eco-feudalism and eco-fundamentalism are just as likely. The challenge anarchists and their allies face today is to disseminate their skills and ideas, creating a better chance that the move through industrial collapse will lead to a truly liberated world.

Recommended reading

Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action

Gustav Landauer, Revolution and Other Writings

Daniel Guerin, No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism

Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism

David Graeber, Direct Action: An Ethnography

Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian Politics From Practice to Theory

(Order these from your local Library)

Uri Gordon
- Homepage: http://www.newint.org/features/2011/06/01/anarchism-explained/

Comments

Hide 3 hidden comments or hide all comments

think about the power that operates within anarchist groups

04.07.2011 13:34

We have 100 of years of aggressive consumerism and capitalism. Groups of people are heavily indoctrinated by right wing lies every day of their lifes. How on earth do you propose to defend a revolution against the most powerful nations the world has ever seen.

Anarchist in revolutionary situations are dangerous because they fight against the socialists.
What we need however if we are ever to overcome the powers of capital is
a)LEADERSHIP (anarchists like stroppy adololscents hate the idea of leadership -meanwhile anarchist groups are rife with unaccountable power dynamics -which they fail again and again to sort out)

Before we can get to some idealised society where we all happily engage in "horizontal" forms of power sharing we need a society that is committed to building revolutionary conciousnes and inftastructures to support that. We need a society that can defend itself from counter revolutionaries and right wing media who will be so eager to discredit it. In other words we need some kind of state. Only after the society has committed itself to put people before profit and people are use to direct participation in politics (which the state will need to encourage) can some anarchist ideas be considered.

Meanwhile those of us on the left who are seeking a revolution should be weary of anarchists dreamers,

eyes open


Beware the Slimy Socialist

04.07.2011 14:23

A nice anarchist primer....

@ eyes (wide) open
You have to love the socialists - the authoritarians of the left-wing - with all their talk of listening to their leaders (oh great and powerful, maybe like Stalin). Socialists - like right-wing commentators on IM - love to see themselves as the "realists" who know the score, and only a healthy dose of totalitarian power can we make everyhting better. The 20th Century is a great example of just how wrong both of you (authoritarian Right and Left) are - funny how everyone loves to ignore history.

For a great critique on the rot of the Socialist ideology read: "Listen Marxist!" by Murray Bookchin
 http://www.nasalam.org/bkchn06.htm

KID


How off putting

04.07.2011 17:27

To the many millions of people we would all need to win over to revolutionary ideas for any chance of success is this kind of crap. I am a socialist but not a particularly devout one, I am critical and cynical about everything it is in the nature of most activists and doubt very much that either anarchism or socialism is going to topple and replace the existing system and social order within my lifetime. I probably have more anarchist friends then I do socialist ones and real people ie us don't really give a shit about your petty squabbles and often pretentious banter. I don't have a leader, I think for myself and tbh I have seen plenty of leaders amongst anarchist groups whether they know it or not. The overwhelming majority of people who come to socialist meetings are very libertarian and have so much in common with anarchists it is ridiculous and so is stupid sensationalism like propaganda references to Stalin when talking about socialism who are you Goebbels nephew? I am sick of listening to people who think they are so much more right then others when their core values have so much in common. The Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party are the worst for it although many anarchists are similar one group is maybe about 2% more right than the other or vice versa and yet it seems they are poles apart and members resent and don't talk to each other. Sometimes I feel like the only objective activist in the whole bloody country only a plurality of ideas is going to energise and inspire people to join a movement which may one day change this repulsively unfair, restrictive and down right bleak world we live in. If my anarchist friends saw a post titled beware slimy socialists and knew who wrote it they would think the author was a proper bell end, but then I doubt they would read it because who really does read this stuff apart from leaders, commentators, supposed intellectuals and hard core activists. All usually so ideologically set in their ways it isn't going to make a haypenny bit of difference its about as useful and fun as a 'who's got the best your mum joke' thread on a teenage web forum.

I apologise for some of the langauge but that is how many actual people speak and you may recognise me at future actions as I'm the one not wearing a mask who's prepared to really stand up for what he believes in.

Very Very disillusioned activist.

General Degenerate


how can we smash capital?

05.07.2011 08:33

I went to an anarchist DIY camp once -some of the people pissed people off by not doing their bit to help with the runnning of the camp, some people wanted to shag and not get up for the morning meetings, some people were pissed off because their voice was not heard, some people assumed leadership when noone had asked them to, It was fluid and DIY and full of real human all interacting in a flawed and sometimes agressive manner. Like human beings always will. At other moments when the camp was working well it was a beautiful space to be.

Without some kind of leadership - in which I mean someone who can enable,get things going, and motivate people (yes people, leadership can be a fantastic skill and the quicker we learn how to motivate, energise, plan and inact (in other words 'lead') -the more likely we are of convincing others to join our cause.

The only way you are going to get through the indoctination of the right wing is by putting forward people who can explain, energise and ingnite people to the neccessity of your cause. i.e LEAD.

I've been to politcal meeting recently which were full of both anarchists and socialist - and it is always the fantastic, passionate speakers that the crowd loves the most. Leadership is a fundemental component of a revolutionary movement -without it anarchist will be setting up squats as social centres and running around in circles for years, a marginal politcally insignificant movement. Now and again the black bloc with chuck a brick through a starbucks. Meanwhile ordinary people will be brainwashed by the murdoch empire.

whether you call it a state or assembly we need a way of organising to counter the most largest,most inhumane and frightening concentration of power the world has ever seen.

eyes wide open


work together

05.07.2011 14:40

Although the anarchist were for a long time during the Spanish civil war allied with the communists they very much fought their own war and were preparing for an ideological struggle after the war. They saw the struggle between communism and fascism as an opportunity for them to bring in an altogether new political message which is evident in a lot their posters. There were many ideological clashes between the Communist,Anarchists and numerous other factions which led to an eventual total breakdown of their colation and the eventual win of the fascists. In a revolutionary situation if there is a power vacum the right will soon fill it. A state is a necessary evil -a tool to provide revolutionary conciousness whilst the new order takes shape. This takes time as people are not use to being consulted about economic and political decisions that effect their communites.

come on


Eyes closed shut

05.07.2011 14:56

We only have to look at history to see how well the 'vanguard' of socialism has betrayed every, and i mean EVERY popular uprising. Krondstadt, Ukraine, Spain and even now in Greece, you Commie / Socialists are trying to get your dirty hands around the neck of the uprising, you need to have control of everything, who has has assigned YOU leaders of anything? do you really think that you are so special that only you have the knowledge to 'manage' a revolution, fuck off you patronising scum! You are the backstabbers of the movement, thankfully as anarchists we are the only ones who see through your lies, you will never be forgiven for your betrayals, we will fight you every step of the way!

You can continue your fanatical control, we will continue dreaming and fighting, if that is alright with you!



Durruti!


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

anarchists

05.07.2011 20:07

anarchists philosophy is outmoded and not fit for purpose as the above ranting embarassingly shows -anarchists actively want to fight against socialists and have a paranoid conception of what control and power is. Weird how much they hate socialists. Most anarchists are quite nice but there events are exclusive.

drrrrr


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

history shows us that power vacums are dangerous

05.07.2011 20:19

have you ever been to an anarchist assembly? HA ha ha ha. They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery never mind a revolution. In fact i'm begining to think anarchists were created by the far right as a way of causing never ending conflict amongst the Left -anarchists do not pose a real threat to the Right as the Right know that anarchist will refuse power, refuse to lead and refuse to fill any power vacum on principal. What anarchist will do in a revolutionary situation is too slag off and criticise any progressive movement that does take power. In this way anarchists are actually a friend of the Right and should never be trusted in revolutionary situations.

antichrist


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Looked up what anarchy means....

07.07.2011 22:47

Sounds pretty grim. Can't find any good examples so really not sure what these guys are going on about. Mad Max bartering for a horse shoe with some grain - sorry but no fucking way.
Any anarchical countries look like they are run by war lords.

Just dont get what this post is about

Ted


Hide 3 hidden comments or hide all comments