The dominant public opinion, most of the times associate the anarchists with office bombers, robbers, pistoleros and mindless vandals ignoring that most of them reject violence as the basic form of struggle. In fact there are many anarchists who do not believe that people’s perceptions can change through violent confrontation. However, day after day, our society gets more and more introvert as this gloomy economic and political situation cultivates a climate of fear and isolationism. Just a few months ago, the City of Westminster police advised that “any information relating to anarchists should be reported to the police.” In the same country, after the riots of August, a website was created where individuals could give information about the rioters to the authorities (witch-hunting) [1]. These tactics, of course remind us a lot of Gestapo’s actions against Jewish minorities during the mid-war era, dictatorial surveillance similar to which we can find in Pinochet’s and Ceaușescu’s regimes, but generally it is a reflection of a mass conformity and political apathy that plagues the British society, the results of social alienation caused by the extreme adherence to workerism, productivism, economism and consumerism, (the capitalist imaginary). [2] [3]

In the anarchist movement there are numerous pacifists (a characteristic example, the Tolstoyan peasant movement in Russia), peaceful protesters, individuals who – because they dislike the violence of the system – became anarchists. For many anarchists violence marks the start of a vicious circle which demonizes the movement and victimises the power. Civil disobedience, dialogue, suggestions, counter-proposals and information can achieve more than 1000 violent conflicts. The anarchist movement, also, has a huge tradition of non-violence and anti-militarism [4]. By taking a look through history we see that the anarchist movement was one of the least violent political and social movements. Most of the past and current political systems consider the army, the police, the prisons, the mental hospitals and the tactics of censorship as integral parts of them. Making a comparison with Stalinism, Maoism and the mountains of the dead they left behind, capitalism (exploitation of poorer countries, two world wars, colonies, imperialism, pollution, genocide, social alienation…), if we compare these systems with the example of the anarchist revolution in Catalonia [5], the Paris Commune and various other autonomous communities that the anarchists had set up in various parts of the world, it would be enough to understand if the anarchist movement is really violent or not.

De-constructing some more myths created around anarchism

1) Anarchy is order: Anarchism does not propose a world of total disorder, does not proclaim a society without, say, at least a minimum of rules. It refers to a society where no individual can use absolute power upon another (which means less social injustice, less economic inequality, more changes to promote egalitarianism and fairness). An anarchist society is not a chaotic society. It is a society where its institutions do not operate under the orders of a dominant class (politically and ideologically dominant). As Niccolo Machiavelli used to say “Princes and governments are far more dangerous than other elements within society.”

2) Anarchism has been characterized as an “utopian vision”. The main reason that anarchism is described as an “unachievable dream” is because many (conservative thinking, mainly, people) believe that a world without police and army (without Law Enforcement) is impossible. Most of the times they arrive at meaningless arguments regarding the “negativeness of human nature”, meaning that an external force is needed “in order to prevent violation of the rights of an individual by another”, a violation rooted in the “greedy nature of man” [6], according to them, ignoring other factors that cause physical and mental reaction to an individual or a group of individuals, such like social injustice, exclusion, oppression and alienation. As Voltaire said “”If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”, (it is not certain, however, if this quote belongs to the French philosopher or if it is dated back to older intellectuals, such like Plato). Nevertheless, this statement despite being vulgar and provocative carries some truth. It largely reflects the perception of our society “What would happen if there was not any authority (God or state)?” “Everything would be out of control…” But in fact, anarchism does not propose a society without a minimum of rules, as it is mentioned above. It only seeks to replace central authority with local cooperatives (localisation vs centralization). These cooperatives could be, for example, democratically operating organisations, (direct democracy without representatives and leadership) where each local person would be able to speak, suggest, be listened to (there is no elite platform), will be respected but together is obligated to listen to others opinions and follow the final decision based on the majority vote or consensus (depending on the circumstances). To those myopic conservatives who claim that a society without state violence or capitalism is inevitable, we would respond that oppression, exploitation, war, consumerism, pollution, is the reality they are defending.

3) Many others argue that “since anarchists are against the state why then they oppose to laissez-faire policies for less state intervention?” Here we should try to clarify that the main reason anarchists fight against austerity measures is they are defending the access of individuals to social benefits rather than the state itself. The state is a tool to exercise political power, and at the moment, this power is concentrated in the hands of the few (oligarchy). Hence, the access to social benefits is not created by this tool (it would be pretty much naive to support the opposite). This access is nothing more but the results of a series of social struggles that took place during the past centuries, struggles for fairer wealth distribution, more rights, more democracy and egalitarianism. Thanks to these struggles, nowadays there is access to universal health care, to free education etc. However, this attitude of mass conformity cultivated within the last two decades contributed to lack of political conciousness and action, which left the way open for politicians (the servants of the dominant classes) to restrain some of these basic rights.

All the neoliberal demands for less state intervention, have nothing to do with actual stateless politics. Under a neoliberal political system, the police and the army will not disappear. Instead they might get upgraded in order to protect private property from those who will suffer the consequences of this economic cannibalism; privatisation of public services means that the access of some individuals to social benefits will get limited. This, of course, affects even worse low incomers, while some of them might have no other choice but to resort to “illegality”. (A very characteristic example is Greece where the economy is collapsing and the government has implemented fiscal austerity policies. But instead of sorting out the situation, unemployment is rising dramatically, as well as poverty while the government has spent more than 5 million euros to upgrade its police force. Only in the last demonstration in Thessaloniki, there were almost 20.000 riot policemen in the streets, in a city of just 1.5million citizens). The anarchists are opposed both to state ownership of public services (the so called “state monopoly”) and private ownership together. Instead they propose a system where these services would operate at a local level, horizontally and democratically (controlled by the local people only).

More on anarchism and violence

As explained above, anarchism is the least violent movement (historically proven). However, it is true that within the anarchist movement there are individuals who support violent conflicts. No matter how small their number is, these are the “anarchists” who will attract the attention of the right wing media. Refusing to see the negative sides of the anarchist movement would seem like a form of ostrichism, as the meaning of a theory cannot be understood in isolation from the practice to which it corresponds. Finally, to the question, if there is violence within the anarchist movement, the answer is yes, there is. (That’s why it was mentioned above that anarchism is the least violent movement and not a non-violent at all, or better say it, a movement that embraces pacifists but also a small number of pro-violence fans exists). Nevertheless, the mainstream media, do everything possible to demonize the whole anarchist movement (if not the whole anti-capitalist movement) by associating all the anarchists with the actions of the few, actions that are in fact reactions to social conservatism, exclusion and oppression (ideological, psychological and, sometimes subliminal).

In short, some anarchists, see power as something external to movements and society, they only see it in the state and capital. From here stems the view of many anarchists who say they do not want to take power, but aim to abolish it. This consideration is somehow abstract and naive because power exists in every social relationship. It should be shared equally to everyone or will be surrendered to few heteronomous institutions (we will discuss more, below, the concept of autonomy and heteronomy, as an evolution to the revolutionary theory). Based on the concept of direct democracy (“all power to the assemblies’), a concept that has been adopted and used by many anarchists, power is shared in equal parts for all citizens. However, many anarchists have cultivated a totally problematic (and unclear) view on democracy. They do not distinguish the differences between direct democracy and parliamentary liberal politics to which they are opposed. Therefore, this makes them see (political) power as something completely negative that should be abolished. This misconception (which, in fact, is a contradiction) fosters the logic of “I do not share anything with anybody, and if so, I give myself the absolute ownership of every action”, an attitude that results in extreme individualism and cultivates a narcissistic egoism “the end justifies the means!” The association of a revolutionary action with such nihilistic tendencies, not only as a product of the postmodern “culture” could be described, but it is also a sophistry, a reactionary position that with its disadvantages obscures and “erodes” the mode of thought and being.

The roots of anarchism and the evolution of the revolutionary theory to the concept of autonomy

The First International, or alternatively called “The International Workingmen’s Association” was an international organization which aimed at uniting all the left-wing socialist, communist and anarchist political groups and trade union organizations that were based on the class struggle concept. It was founded in 1864 in a workmen’s meeting held in Saint Martin’s Hall, in London, during a period of harsh rebellions that followed the widespread Revolutions of 1848. Karl Marx was a member of the IWA as well, and with his ideas achieved to influence the workers struggle against the ruling bourgeois. Typically, both anarchism and Marxism, as well, are products of the working class movement, the inheritor of Renaissance and, later on, the American and French Revolution. Hence, they are both products of the same era, but what makes them differ is that while anarchism has absorbed all the revolutionary socialist principles, it rejects the “dictatorship of proletariat” of Marx, which in fact shows that it tends more to liberalism rather than to statist socialism. (By some intellectuals it has been described as libertarian socialism). This difference resulted to a split in the IWA, as after the Paris Commune (1871), Bakunin (notably in his book Statism and Anarchy) characterised Marx’s ideas as ultra-authoritarian, and predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would soon end up to become a new ruling class, which has actually happened. Nowadays, given the failure of Marxism, anarchism influences the revolutionary movement quiet a lot (whatever at least has remained of the revolutionary movement of the last centuries); even those who do not define themselves as anarchists, adopt many of their beliefs (less police repression, less army spendings, more investment on education, more democracy and de-centralization).


"Effectively actual freedom is what I call autonomy. The autonomy of the collectivity, which can be achieved only through explicit self-institution and self- governance, is inconceivable without the effectively actual autonomy of the individuals who make it up. Concrete society, the living and functioning one, is nothing other than the concrete, effectively actual, "real" individuals of that society" (Cornelius Castoriadis - The Rising Tide of Insignificancy p.393)

The concept of autonomy, as expressed by the Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis, claims that every society creates its own institutions, which means that every society is founded upon a basic conception of the world and man’s place in it. This conception produces a set of values that will be regarded as “dominant values” and will determine the so called “social imaginary”. The capitalist “imaginary” is based on the accumulation of wealth, while the “imaginary” in the feudal societies was the accumulation of “royal titles”, in a theocratic society is “God and his laws”… As long as every society creates its own imaginary, it goes beyond “class struggle” which in the end is a creation of the society itself pointing out its heteronomy. Within a class society, the issue is not to give power to one class upon another. This simply reproduces the dialectical relation between Master and Servant and recycles the social class composition. Further more, Castoriadis in his book “The Imaginary Institution of Society” claimed that the capitalist order today is not similar to what it was 100 or 200 years ago. Hence, the concept of class struggle, which even anarchists adopt, is not revolutionary anymore, it does not focus on the root of the problem and even more it is based on economic analysis, which means that it reflects the perception of an A reality and not of an actual reality. The ruling class is not the same as it was then, the political and social power structures differ significantly, and also postmodernism has “homogenised” all cultures coming from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Hence, we cannot openly accept everything of a concept that refers to a situation 50 years ago as a proposal for today. Thus, Murray Bookchin and Bob Black were right by stressing that the concept of class struggle adopted by Marxists and some anarcho-marxists, or even anarcho-syndicalists is meaningless and in fact it is another backwards consideration. The revolutionary issue today should be focused on the creation of a mass interclass movement to which the post-anarchist theory and the wide social anarchist philosophy responds very well, however, it does not go so deep as the concept of autonomy, which we will outline below. Hence, the concept of social and individual autonomy could be taken as the next step.

The relation between anarchism and autonomy presupposes some explanation what autonomy really is.

Autonomy (h) n. [ autonomous] is the social system within which the masses of people act knowing that it is themselves and not some external force that determines/leads them (the ancestors, tradition, God, laws of history, climate, biological structure, language, the “destiny of Being”, the “system”, the “State”, “capitalism”, the “media” etc.). They create the institutions and meanings of their society and they are responsible for what happens in the world. Precisely because of this knowledge, they can set their own laws and institutions and despise them whenever they deem it is necessary, without recognizing any totems and taboos. The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy: the invocation to expertise, the idea of the necessity of great leaders, based on the belief that our laws are the product of external forces and not our own.

Autonomy is not merely a political, strictly speaking, system but a social form, a method of social and mental existence, related to all aspects of society. The essence of this type is that it strives for the maximum possible release of the radical imagination of a person and of the institutionalized social imaginary. As there is political autonomy, similarly there is economic autonomy, philosophical, sexual, artistic, etc. The reduction of the idea of autonomy in the narrow political or economic field is a form of heteronomy.

Determinism and misconceptions

Some say “democracy will never be perfect” and we must accept the situation without looking for “extreme and utopian” solutions. However, the question that derives from here is the following: do we live in a democratic society? Or even more, do we deem this political system we have today as democratic. Castoriadis claimed that our current political system has nothing to do with democracy, but instead it is a liberal oligarchy. Since all the decisions are taken by powerful centres such like Wall Street, the European Union and not directly from the majority of a population, then we cannot talk about democracy.

Thomas Hobbes and his followers consider morality as something determined by an external force, a force that does not rely on the society but stems from somewhere else. Such like for a Jewish of the Bible the question “is the law right and fair” has no answer because “the law is given by God, consequently everybody who despises it, is a sinner, a heathen or an unbeliever, hence everybody has to obey this law or will receive eternal punishment”. Hobbes has simply replace the laws of Church with the State, which means that individuals can find salvation only through a central authority which defends the laws of market (the invisible hand of market that knows everything and repairs everything). Similarly here for a neoliberal, there is no answer to the question “is the law right”, because the “laws of market” are above all, hence, productivism and workerism are their basic values, to the extend that all other social relations are considered as secondary (we see here how a society can become alienated by dominant principles that do not focus on the values of solidarity, freedom, egalitarianism and equality, but in profit and narcissistic individualism). Autonomy and the revolutionary movement respond to this metaphysical approach supporting that if the laws derive from ourselves directly and not from an external force, this does not mean that this is a reason not to respect them. “If God did exist, he would have to be abolished” (M. Bakhunin). On the contrary, direct democracy allows everybody to be heard, which means that ideas, perspectives and actions come together in a direct democratic society. Here we understand the importance of direct democracy. Direct democracy is not a purport but a mean, an ability to understand how we, ourselves, are able to create laws. In direct democracy, all decisions are taken d i r e c t l y by ourselves (whether through popular assemblies, or other entities). A citizen is able to participate not only in the implementation of the decisions but, above all, in the making of them. Direct democracy works as well as a method of self-development: considering that some of our choices are wrong, we are able to intervene and decide again, (the access to decision-making is open at any time). That also means we have the opportunity to challenge the laws on a constant basis and yet obey them to the same degree. Direct democracy aims to equal sharing of political power to all citizens in equal parts, hence, it can help us to avoid societies with extreme class divisions; economic inequality is a consequence of political inequality. A brief example of direct democracy in assemblies is the paradigm of the ancient Athenian society. [7]

Democracy means the effective participation of all the people in power and this participation requires the development of responsible citizens with personal critical thinking. One such development requires the absolute reassurance and expansion of individual freedoms, and above all, the development of an education that, at the maximum, is an education of free men, and at the minimum, contributes to the preparation of professionals and technicians.

(Cornelius Castoriadis: Times (Καιρός), Translated from Greek)

.

[1] In order to avoid some inevitable misunderstandings, we are referring to the events of 2011 England riots only as an example of circumstances. We do not claim neither support that these riots have anything to do with anarchism and we do not approve any destruction of homes/shops/businesses that belong to ordinary people who are struggling to make a living.

[2] By the term imaginary, Cornelius Castoriadis means that societies, together with their laws and legalizations, are founded upon a basic conception of the world and man’s place in it.

[3] Castoriadis explains the phenomenon of conformity and alienation in his book “We Are Rensponsible for Our History” * (p.13,14), supporting that the Western individual is trapped within his/her private sphere and tries with various consumer “goods” to conceal the lack of meaning on his/her life. Manipulated by politicians or disheartened by the political situation, he/she chooses to abstain, becoming a passive consumer of the media and accepts blindly whatever is given as “new”… Today’s society is a society of teleconsumerism, meaning that people more or less consume TV spectacles. You can find more on his work The Rising Tide of Insignificancy

* There is no English version, yet, of Castoriadi’s work “We Are Rensponsible for Our History”

[4] 1) Antimilitarism and internationalism are beliefs commonly found in the anarchist movement. It derives from the First and Second International. Whereas pacifism is opposition to violence in general, antimilitarism is mainly opposed to war and any sort of armed conflicts between states and militarism in general. Historian Paul B. Miller stresses that ” anti-militarism aims at reducing the civil power of the military and ultimately, preventing international war” (From Revolutionaries to Citizens: Antimilitarism in France, 1870-1914 by Paul B. Miller. Duke University Press, 2002)

2) Anarcho-pacifism emerged shortly before World War II in the Netherlands, Great Britain and the United States supporting Campaigns for nuclear disarmament. Alex Comfort, a British anarcho-pacifist and member of the anti-nuclear organisation Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament considered himself as “an aggressive anti-militarist,” believed that pacifism rested “solely upon the historical theory of anarchism.” (Rayner, Claire (28 March 2000). “News: Obituaries: Alex Comfort”. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-08-23.)

[5] Read George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia who fought in the Spanish Civil War alongside with the antifascists and libertarian Marxists of POUM and describes the anarchist Catalonia as a great effort to build up a fairer society.

[6] Conservatives and liberals most of the times tend to blame “human nature” for the world’s decay, cultivating thus a deterministic logic that “police repression is needed in order to prevent peace in a world where conflicts are inevitable”: (“The condition of man… is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”, says Thomas Hobbes, as well). Certainly, we should never ignore that it is the current political system and the dominant values of the capitalist society that forces individuals to follow this specific lifestyle (to want to consume more), a lifestyle which is based on economic growth, a growth that results to further injustice, exploitation and environmental destruction. Murray Bookchin has responded very well to this (check: Death of a small little planet: It’s growth that’s killing us). Similarly Castoriadis stated the following: “ Man is not born with a sense of his life already laid out. [...] Biological “need” or the “instinct” of self-preservation is the abstract and universal presupposition of every human society and of every living species in general, and it can tell us nothing about any one of them in particular. […] So once a theory postulates that the development of the productive forces has been a determining factor everywhere, it does not mean that men have always had to feed themselves (for in this case they would have remained monkeys). On the contrary, it means that men have always gone beyond biological “needs”” (The Imaginary Institution of Society p. 17)

[7] Here we should note, that not any historical paradigm (whether we refer to the anarchist Catalonia, the Commune de Paris or the ancient Athenian society and so on) should be taken as an example today, worthy to copy it as it was. Any political and social concept created through history that contains an element of autonomy and democracy should rather be considered as a subject for further study.