Is anarchy synonymous with mere disorder?

The questions that we must first consider are ‘what is anarchism?’ and ‘what is not?’  Anarchism, nihilism and terrorism are notions that are often mistakenly equated.  Anarchy for most of the people means chaos and disorder.  Yet chaos is clearly very far from the intent of men like Tolstoy and Godwin, Bakunin and Kropotkin who were the ones that established anarchism and whose social theories have all been described as anarchists.  For them “anarchy is not bombs, disorder or chaos, robbery and murder.  It is not a war of each against all”.  For them anarchism means that people should be free to do the things they want to do.  Furthermore that people should have a chance to choose the kind of life they want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.  In their mind all men are brothers and they should live like brothers in peace and harmony, having the same rights and liberties.  All anarchists accept the proposition that man naturally contains within him all the attributes that make him capable of living in freedom and social concord.  Bakunin defends his notion of freedom as “an unfettered utopia built on the ruin of all churches and all states”.  

Before analysing how an anarchy society would be like it is important to see what anarchists believe that the functions of governments are.  According to anarchists the essential function of government is that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, of defending the oppressors and exploiters, and its principle characteristic and vital instruments are the policemen, the tax collectors and the soldiers.  Conventional governments, no matter what their constitutions and laws, violate the person and spirit of man.  They limit citizen’s freedom and impoverish them materially and spiritually. Therefore in the anarchist view, “people are deluded when they suppose that order and justice are created and regulated by law and powerful institution.  Such order is mere appearance, behind which actually is the chaos of men struggling to subjugate and hurt each other, to gain the expense of others.  Such justice is a sham, called righteous by those able to dominate while making law serve their own interests.  This is what Proudhon meant when he said that government is anarchy – the anarchy of disorder and the rule of force”.

The anarchists have all denied political action and have declared that the state must not be taken over, but abolished, that the social revolution must lead, not to the dictatorship of any class, even the proletariat, but to the abolition of all classes.

In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent, anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three principles, liberty, equality and solidarity, which are independent.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity and dignity.  If someone else dominates people, they are denied the chance to think and act for themselves, which is the only way to grow and develop their individuality.  Liberty, for anarchists, means “a non-authoritarian society in which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves.  The implications of this are important.  First, it implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is one in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to ‘convince’ individuals to do anything.  Second, it implies that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy.  Finally it implies that anarchists’ opposition to government means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government”.

Equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist.  There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross inequalities of power, wealth and privilege.  For in such a society only a few, those at the top of the hierarchy, are relatively free, while the rest are semi-slaves.  Equality is established by the spontaneous organisation of work on a communal and freely basis.  For Bakunin it is the fact, rather than the form of government that is the origin of the evil.

Finally solidarity means mutual aid, working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests.  Solidarity is the link between the individual and society.  For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.

Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association.  They consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values of liberty, equality and solidarity.  Anarchists argue that a society ruled by government can not be orderly, that government creates and perpetuates both disorder and violence.  The basic anarchist vision is one of a society where all relationships are those of social and economic equals who act together in voluntary co-operation for mutual benefit.  In terms of this vision it is not possible for people to be directed in learning how to live this way, they must learn the new life by making and living it themselves.  Not only is government not needed for the transition by directing the change, it would prevent it being realised.

Anarchists believe that individuals are able to maintain social order and justice without the intervention of external authority.  This they believe can be done by individual and joint voluntary action.  

With the abolition of government and social wealth put at the disposal of everyone, immediately all antagonism between peoples would disappear and there would not be any cause for war.    Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction.  With the abolition of private property the government, which exists to defend it, would also disappear. If it were to survive it would constantly attempt to reconstitute in one form or another a privileged and oppressive class.  And the abolition of government does not mean and can not mean the dissolution of social bonds.  Quite the contrary co-operation, which at present is contrived and operates to the advantage of the few, would be free, voluntary and directed to the advantage of all, and therefore it would become all the more widespread and effective.

If laws are the instruments by which rulers of a state dominate the others there will be no law in this sense in an anarchist society.  But there will be certain rules of society, publicly stated and considered binding.

The basic rules of society turn out to be the basic moral rules common to almost all societies. They outlaw such things as murder and violence against members of the society, dishonesty and injustice and promote respect for the freedom of each member of society and respect for him as an end in himself.  

A crucial question that arises is how much freedom would individuals have in such a society.  Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to do whatever he likes because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.  There are some individuals who are genuine criminals, the robber, and murderer, who will have to be dealt with.  Whether we protect ourselves individually from such criminals or by organising private defence agencies, according to anarchists, these issues must be settled by anarchist societies when they are faced with the problems.  Anarchists believe that free people will find ways to secure protection and justice for themselves.

“Like all great ideas, anarchism is pretty simple when you get down to it – human beings are at their best when they are living free of authority deciding things among themselves rather than being ordered about”.

The ideal of anarchism is for mankind to live together in free association without war, crime or poverty.  Anarchism seems to have a solution to all of mankind’s problems but this is true only theoretically.  Anarchism presupposes that people will live peacefully and that they will find reasonable solutions to all the problems that will appear.  If people could find solutions to their problems then courts would not exist to the societies that we live in now.  The need for a bigger authority is the one that created courts.  Why would people find solutions in anarchy when they can not find the same solutions in democracy or any other constitution?  Anarchy also fails to answer to the question how will the criminals be dealt with.  “The point to be understood is that people will find ways to secure protection for themselves when the need arises.  It is not for us (the anarchists) to program how they must do it”.  If anarchists cannot answer such a crucial question, which is the one that all people think when anarchism comes to their mind, they can not be considered to have an alternative offer that will give solutions.  Anarchists base their theory to the fact that people will be ideal, something that is almost certain not to happen.  If people were ideal then all the constitutions would be perfect and would achieve the same with anarchism.  If anarchism would ever be established in any country of the world, it is almost certain that disorder and chaos would follow.  If it were possible for anarchism to work then it would have when it was tried and more countries would adopt anarchism today.        

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• George Woodcock Anarchism: A history of libertarian ideas and movements,                                                                    Penguin Press 1986
• Paul Eltzbacher Anarchism, Fifield 1908
• Errico Malatesta Anarchy, Janus Press 1985
• Colin Ward Anarchy in action, 1973
• P.A. Kropotkin Selected writings on Anarchism and Revolution, 1970
• W.C. Hart Confessions of an Anarchist, 1906
• George Crowder Classical Anarchism, Clarendon Press 1991
• Paul Avrich Anarchist Portraits, Princeton University Press 1988
• James D. Forman Anarchism: Political Innocence or Social Violence?,    1975
• Robert Hoffman Anarchism, Atherton Press 1970
• James Joll The Anarchists, Methuen 1979
• Irving Louis Horowitz The Anarchists, Dell Publishing Co 1964
• Arthur Lehning Michael Bakunin Selected Writings, The Trinity Press 1973
• J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman Anarchism, New York University 1978
• Brian Chapman & Allen Potter W.J.M.M. Political Questions, Manchester University Press 1974
• H. Buehrig Essays in Political Science, Indiana University Press 1967
• Robert Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell 1974
• Glenn Tinder Political Thinking, Little Brown and Company 1979
• Alexander Berkman Prison Memoirs of an anarchist, Schocken Books 1970
• Richard Bellamy & Angus Ross A Textual Introduction To Social and Political Theory, Manchester University Press 1996

INTERNET PAGES