I’ve received some great email from people this month, and the discussions with them have been very revealing. I really can’t think of a more valuable way of examining your own beliefs and philosophies than discussing it with another person, especially one who thinks differently than you. It requires you to formulate your convictions concisely and logically, and the other person frequently can point out holes and inconsistencies that you completely miss in thinking about things yourself. This is certainly true with Anarchy, because for me, who has only been reading Anarchist literature for about a year, I tend to get caught up in the propaganda, and read almost exclusively the proponents of a theory, when trying to learn about it. Now, I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, because how else are you to learn the basics of an idea, but we must never forget to read or study opposing viewpoints, and critiques of our theories, for they are sometimes more revealing.
Andrew Yoder, my roommate last year, and I used to discuss philosophy quite often. I don’t go to the school anymore, so we really haven’t talked much, but his insights about my first article (Why Anarchy?) were telling, because I had overlooked many things that should have been addressed. David Eden, mentioned in the last article (The Capitalist Market) did this as well, and I realize now that I should have explained better my definitions and terms before throwing them around.
We’re looking at Anarchy, and over the next few articles, we’ll discuss the feasibility of Anarchy, look at opposing socio-political theories, and come to some conclusions about exactly what we mean by Anarchy and whether this idea will even work. Hopefully (for this is just as much a journey for me as for you, the reader) we’ll come to a positive conclusion. I’d really hate to start on this voyage, only to be driven to reject Anarchy after serious examination. Also, let me make it perfectly clear that both you and I are in this together, and I really don’t want to have to do this by myself, for fear my thoughts are not consistent. Therefore, I ask that you write, if only to say a word or two, about your personal thoughts on what’s being discussed. Only with our collective input can this topic be fully examined. If you are the least bit interested in learning what Anarchy is about, and not only throwing it around as a term, let us embark on this together.
Anarchy: A Definition
Exactly what do we mean when we speak of Anarchy? There seem to be as many definitions of this as there are individuals who practice it, so we need to look at the bottom line—the rudimentary form of Anarchy. What is its _essence_ and what makes it so? To do this, I suppose, it would be best to look at different versions of Anarchy (following its evolution over the past few hundred years), and what they meant. David Eden, mentioned above, offers three distinct progressions of Anarchy:
1) In modern terms the "First" anarchism is that of Proudhon and his contemporaries. It is important to see what it represents. Basically, the reaction of the petty-bourgeois to the encroachment of capitalistic society.
2) Anarcho-syndaclism. The best anarchist tendency. It realizes the importance of both workers self emancipation and the crucialness of an organization to lift class consciousness. However since it's focus is often purely workplace-based it is often ill disposed to react to more "social" issues such as nuclear disarmament and the rise of fascism.
3) The modern anarchism most closely associated with punk has two major streams. A modern form of syndicalism...Class-War anarchism. Actually quite good but often ever glorifies the Lumpen-prolateriat and fails to realize the potential left in unions. The second: D.I.Y practice is essential to the health of punk, as with the cooperative ethic that goes with it. Yet as a force for social change ( not just a sub-cultural mechanism) that goes beyond limited forms of charity and "friendly" small business it is yet to prove it's self.
These are very insightful observations in my opinion. They bring us to a closer definition of what Anarchy truly is, because they help us see how Anarchy has been changed and shaped over the past two or three hundred years. Anarchy started as a reaction to Capitalism, and though change has occurred over the years with both theories (anarchy and capitalism), this conflict has always remained. Why? Because the essence of Anarchy is cooperation, and the essence of Capitalism is competition—opposites! There simply is no way to work around this conflict (save a brief, and pitiful, attempt at an anarcho-capitalist trend, which failed miserably). Hence, the Anarchist will always be against the Capitalist, because they are, in essence, exclusive in nature.
From the above, we see certain tendencies and trends to Anarchy, but exactly what is it? What is its essence, its nature, its being? Anarchy is, above all, the idea that all of us as individuals would realize a personal freedom and unity given that we are not stifled by regulation or rule.
This, unfortunate for Anarchy, is an extremely large assumption to make. It leaves open critical questions to such things as human nature, political theory, and the metaphysical principles of ethics and values. To claim that mankind is inherently good, and that it is outside conditions which pervert and corrupt him cannot be proven and is hotly debated within most philosophical circles. It is far more dangerous to claim that mankind, even with its good nature, could possibly get along given the right conditions. This seems impossible, unlikely, and even illogical at times. Could it be that Anarchy is nothing but wishful utopian thinking? Could it be that Anarchy is a reaction to the class oppression and inequality which has swung unrealistically to far? More likely still, perhaps Anarchy is nothing more than a cry for help amongst an oppressed people—as Marx said of religion, merely "Opium for the people."
In the next installment of this essay, we’ll look at how Anarchy could possibly work as a political and philosophical idea. We’ll answer the above questions, and attempt to justify Anarchy as a reasonable and rational theory. In future installments, we’ll then look at why we should choose Anarchy over the two other political isms—Capitalism and Socialism. Please feel free to write me (aalance@student.nnc.edu) on this; I would very much enjoy reading your reaction, comments, and suggestions.
