"Man was born free and is everywhere in chains." The nature of Anarchy.

On the State and Government.

Opposition to the state is central to anarchism.  However a definition of the State is required here.  The state is usually associated with its main organs – the administrative bureaucracy, the police, and the military; from an anarchist viewpoint the judiciary and the church may also be seen as adjuncts of state power.  The main anarchist analysis of the state was formulated in the 18th century.  Nicolas Walter commented in the journal Anarchy: “The anarchist literature weighs heavily on the present, and makes it hard for us to produce a new literature of the future.  And yet, though, the works of our predecessors are numerous, most of them are out of print and mostly out of date”.  In discussing the state another major theorist, Kropotkin provides insight.  He indicates history as vital to understanding the concept of the state.  “Men have lived in societies for thousands of years before having known the state.  For European nations the state hardly dates from the 16th century”.  The fact that societies existed well before state oppression suggests the possibility of returning.  Also, even though the state may evolve and change its form, essentially the freedom of the individual has not.  As Kropotkin continues, “it comes from France having remained as much a state as it was thirty years ago.  The holders of power have changed their name; but all the immense scaffolding of centralised organization … they remain”.  The Anarchists deplore in particular two organs of state control: The military and the police.  As De Tocqueville stated: “no one seemed to have had the faintest inkling that the protector might one day become the master”.  The police are the arm of the state and the enforces of law which detracts our freedom and liberty.  Leo Tolstoy, a famous writer and anarchist, that one characteristic is common: “that if any man does not fulfil them [law], those who have made these laws will send armed men, and the armed men will beat, deprive of freedom, or even kill, the man who does not obey the law”.  A very pessimistic conception of government is present here while liberalists, conservatives and fascists advocate the need and utility of government, anarchists see it as a scourge on society.  An anarcho-communist, Mikalail Bakunin, wrote, “states can find no other grounds for joint action than the concerted enslavement of the masses who constitute the overall basis and purpose of their existence”.

On Society

Society, is the answer to anarchists, to the key question of how to achieve rational cooperation among individuals – beyond the level of small groups – without resorting to coercion and legimitsing oppression.  Rousseau was quoted at the beginning of this essay; “man is born free and is everywhere in chains” lies at the heart of anarchism, an “unashamed utopianism”.  A belief in the natural goodness, or at least the potential goodness of mankind.  Social order therefore arises spontaneously; it does not require the machinery of ‘law and order’.  Society will not be as Hobbes describes ‘brutal’ and ‘aggressive’ because for anarchists, order is implicit in nature itself: It is not something that needs to be achieved or constructed, but something, that if humans refrain from interfering with, will simply emerge and blossom”.  Society will create the individuals who have strongly internalised values and can live cooperatively without the threat of force.  For anarchists, society is the opposite of the state.  “Society is the repository of all good aspects of social life and organization while the state incorporates all the bad aspects of social interaction.  The state is an incubus upon society – a distorting factor”.

But will it work?

So far the general theory, which can be broadly applicable to most variations of anarchism, has been outlined.  It seems straightforward to assume that government and law, in their very essence, consist of restrictions on freedom, and freedom is the greatest of all political goods.  A conclusion that would simply follow is that law and government must be abolished if freedom is our goal. There are however many theoretical and practical weaknesses to this line of thinking which will be examined in this section.  These weaknesses range from the problem of political participation to neglecting the history of state evolution and its necessities in modern society.  The assumptions on human nature are problematic for anarchist theory.  Anarchists believe that human nature is inherently good.  If allowed unrestricted freedom in a society, humans would work to mutually benefit each other.  However human nature is not a fixed quantity, but rather something that varies (within limits) according to the social and political context in which members find themselves.  As history has shown, human nature in a large amount of people is definitely not something that could be labelled as good.  Also, what one grouping of society may find as good, another may regard as bad.  This is present in religious conflicts that have occurred over time.  Critics are correct in their labelling of anarchists as naive because the only time an unrestricted society could have existed as anarchist describe, is in primitive communal tribes.  This has also lead anarchists to be labelled as nostalgic in their theory.  To believe that societies could function today without some form of regulator is a direct appeal to the past.  The process to attain an anarchist society is ambiguous.  As April Carter explains:

The nature of anarchist theory means that in any important political crisis, individuals who seek to influence events by accepting a leadership position – for example in a government – are open to charges of gross inconsistency or treachery to the cause. 

Also, the problem of difference of opinion between anarchist theorists poses a hindrance to changing society.  Are anarchists prepared to sink their differences? – Or ally themselves with the popular movement?  Is it action or principles?  Even when a revolution has occurred, anarchism faces a major contradiction.  It will be no doubt, that the type of anarchist model will meet opposition from other anarchists.  A compromise will have to be struck and in the event that it is, the only way to make it formal to give clear outline is to enshrine it in law.  Anarchists will once again find themselves living under expectations.  Whether anarchism will produce more than suggestive ideas for a theory of politics, or whether a specifically anarchist movement will ever achieve success are both open to considerable doubt.  But the criticisms do not stop here.  There are serious questions about economic coordination of production.  “A large measure of self-sufficiency may be possible in an economy made up of peasant farmers and artisans, but not one composed of high technology industries”.  It may be possible to break down complex technological processes in such a way that each unit can be managed efficiently by its own workers.  But the more this is done, the more each unit becomes dependent on its suppliers and/or customers.  Coordination becomes increasingly vital, and there appears only two ways in which it can be achieved; by the market and by central planning.  No anarchist has devised a coherent third alternative to apply to modern industrial society.  On the issue of law and order, anarchists claim (Kropotkin and Bakunin) that sanctions would be enforced by society on the person who breaks common convention.  For example, in the case of property theft, it may be the case that the person is restrained from others (and in last resort) being excluded from the community.  One problem however, in the absence of a uniform body of laws, people do not know where they stand.  They may be unsure which activities are prohibited and which ones are not.  Anarchists are “still yet to formulate a realistic and attractive account of the state-less society”. No matter how restrictive or ‘evil’ the state may be, it does not follow that it should be abolished unless there if a preferable alternative.  Even later anarchists envisage a network of largely ultra self-sufficient communities.  But the specialisation required by modern industrial production implies a much greater a much greater interdependence of productive functions between different manufacturing units.  As George Crowder explains:

“A single community could hope to manufacture a relatively complex machine like a car starting only from raw materials, but would have to co-operate with other communities.  Even supposing the will to cooperate on an equitable basis, this would necessitate a degree of coordination of productive activity for which mainstream anarchist thought, rejecting both government and (except in the case of Proudhon) the market, makes little allowance.  Productive as well as distributive, interdependence therefore points to a kind of, degree of complexity, in modern social conditions that places a serious obstacle on the way of anarchists.

As can be seen, trying to establish an anarchist society in a highly urbanised, seven billon plus populated world is in the realms of absurdity.  Anarchists claim that a society based on cooperation, contracts and agreements, unfortunately would be too fragile a notion in which to found a stable social order.  Norman. P. Barry continues, “In fact this is not all a theory of how anarchy might work but rather  a logical deduction of a state-less society from certain dubious propositions about human nature.  If post-capitalist human nature is defined as cooperative rather than competitive, and there is no private property to dispute, than a coercive state will obviously no longer be required”.  In his book “The perfectibility of man”, John Passmore says:

it is quite a thing to say that they (perfecting mechanisms, example; political institutions) will in fact be used to perfect men.  That is what the anarchists point out.  But they themselves rely upon what one can only regard as myths: the myths of man's natural goodness, the myth of rebirth.  Perfection is no more to be expected from the destruction of existing social institutions than from their extension and their strengthening … strike them off, and they will weep for their lost security.

Anarchism in the 21st century.

It would be easy to dismiss the whole idea of anarchism in the 21st century as pure fantasy.  Anarchism after all has not had a major following since the early 20th century, and even then it failed to provide enough momentum for social change and political change.  However, the enduring significance of anarchism is perhaps less that it has provided a basis for acquiring and maintaining political power, but rather it has challenged and therefore given promotion to other political ideologies.  Anarchists have highlighted the coercive and destructive power of state processes otherwise looked over because of the fact of its necessity.  It has, over the last forty years, had an impact on both the left and right, which fostered ‘new’ movements entailing libertarian ideals.  The new left encompassed a broad range of movements that were prominent in the late 1960s and early 70s, including student activism, anti-colonialism, feminism, and environmentalism.  The new right also placed emphasis on the importance of individual freedom, but believes that this can only be achieved by market competition.  Harold Barclay said that “it appears, all we are left with is a politics of perpetual protest”.  Never will anarchists believe that the world is peaceful and individual rights are guaranteed.  If the society to achieved appears to be out of reach it is no reason to give up the struggle.  Anarchists will never conform! They have shown us that belief in freedom and cooperation, which must be a goal for human nature, helps to undermine the “dehumanising and authoritian consequences of state power”.  Karen Goaman and Mo Dodson comment that anarchist thinking today plays a more symbolic and subversive character.  Anarchism has been experimenting with humorous and playful subversiveness to give a more unorthodox approach to politics.  Some examples are the literature pamphlet ‘The Artful Dodger’, The ‘Away with cars’ campaign and the ‘SCUM Manifesto’.  These examples illustrate a line of “symbolic activity which has been sporadic but notably rich in anarchism and fringe and marginal currents allied to it”.  This type of subversive action is in itself significant to the anarchist movement because it highlights the evolutionary track anarchy is taking.

Conclusion.

“Anarchism is in retreat today.  If we fail to elaborate its’ democratic dimension, we miss the opportunity not only to form a vital movement but to prepare people for a revolutionary social praxis in the future”.

Is anarchism destined to the dustbin of history? Is it just a pool of ideas on which other political thinkers and traditions can draw on at will?  To argue that anarchism is irrelevant because it has long since lost the potential to become a mass movement misses the point.  “As the world becomes increasingly complex and fragmented, it may be that it is mass politics that is dead”.  Anarchism has pointed to some very important things that are worth considering.  The first is simply the imperfections of relations of power.  It was Lord Acton that said, “power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  Anarchists were no doubt the first to criticise authoritarian regimes while others tried to keep a distance.  A second point is anarchist ideals of free, unrestricted social relationships.  Every now and then it is healthy to be reminded that following chain of commands blindly, are not always the most fulfilling and productive course of actions.  Today it can already be seen in organizations that have placed all employees on the same level and as a result, mutual cooperation has in fact flourished (software companies are an example).  David Miller believes that this is the direction that anarchists have turned too instead of attacks on the state.  It “seemed more profitable to urge the gradual reconstruction of social life, partly for its own sake and partly so that people may eventually come to depend less on central authority”.  A great deal can be learned from anarchists, both about the abuses of power and about the problems and possibilities of free social relationships.  In the end, anarchism is a theory still worth studying.  

 

---