Anarchy
Anarchism seems to be defined many ways by many
different sources. Most
dictionary definitions define anarchism as the
absence of government. A leading
modern dictionary, Webster's Third
International Dictionary, defines anarchism
briefly but accurately as, "a
political theory opposed to all forms of
government and governmental
restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and
free association of
individuals and groups in order to satisfy their
needs." Other dictionaries
describe anarchism with similar definitions. The
Britannica-Webster
dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a political
theory that holds all
government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and
advocates a
society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and
groups." William
Godwin was the first proclaimed anarchist in history and
the first to write
about anarchism. Godwin published a book called Political
Justice in 1793
which first introduced his ideas about anarchism, Godwin was
forgotten about,
however, and after his death Pierre Joseph Proudhon became a
leading
anarchist figure in the world. His book What is Property?
incorporated
greater meaning to the word anarchism; anarchism became not only
a rejection of
established authority but a theory opposing ownership of land
and property as
well. Anarchism fully blossomed as a defined theory when
Russian anarchists
Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin
(1842-1921) started to write and
speak. Bakunin had a major influence in the
world and introduced anarchism to
many people. Kropotkin was one of the many
people inspired by Bakunin. Kropotkin
wrote many books on anarchism,
including Muitual Aid, Fields Factories and
Workshops, and The Conquest
of Bread, and greatly aided in the evolution of the
theory of anarchism. As
the 20th century emerged anarchism began to peak and the
definition of
anarchism became concrete with the growth of new anarchist writers
and
movements. The execution and imprisonment of eight anarchists in Chicago
in
1886 sparked anarchism's growth in the United States. The
"Haymarket
Eight" flourished anarchists such as Voltairine de Cleyre and
Lucy Parsons.
Parsons was born into slavery and later became an anarchist
and an ardent
speaker and working class rebel; the Chicago police labeled
Parsons,
"...more dangerous than a thousand rioters." Although the
word
anarchism is understood by many in its classic sense (that defined
by
dictionaries and by anarchists of history), the word often seems to be
misused
or misunderstood. Anarchism, because of the threat it imposes upon
established
authority, has been historically, and is still, misused by power
holders as
violence and chaos. The claim that anarchism is chaos was refuted
long ago by
Alexander Berkman when he wrote: "I must tell you, first of
all, what
anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not
robbery or
murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to
barbarianism
or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of
all that." So,
what is anarchism? All of the pro-anarchy sources I found say
that, basically,
anarchism is a political philosophy that embraces democracy
and freedom, and
seeks to destroy all forms of coercion and oppression. The
root of human
oppression is seen as authority and inequality. This is why
they think it is the
perfect ideological guide for destroying poverty,
racism, and sexism. All these
oppressions are systems of power based on
hierarchy. Hierarchy means top-down,
like a pyramid. Hierarchical
constructions of power create positions of relative
privilege and relative
oppression. Capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy
(male supremacy) are
also top-down constructions of power. Anarchism
conceptualizes power
differently. Instead of power over, anarchism proposes
power with,
cooperation. This means that social systems and institutions should
be based
on cooperation and compromising. Power would rest in individuals and
the
collectives they freely associate into. Anarchism revolves around five
basic
principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual
aid; 5)
diversity. Equality can have many different meanings. In regards to
the
anarchist political philosophy, they speak of equality in reference to
power.
This doesn't mean they want a new society based on a totalitarian
vision of
everyone looking and acting the same, in fact they see strength in
diversity.
Instead they mean that everyone should have equal access to
power, to determine
how he or she wants to live his or her lives. It appears
the best way for equal
power to be institutionalized is through different
forms of democracy. Democracy
is a vague notion, but in general it seeks to
empower everyone to have an equal
say in decisions that affect their lives.
This is only useful if it extends to
all areas of social life. Capitalism is
undemocratic, in my opinion, especially
when combined with racism and sexism.
Free Association is the idea that
individuals should not be forced into
social arrangements against their will. In
the world today if you are born
into poverty, most likely you will die in
poverty. In America, children
cannot expect to live at a higher standard than
their parents. In an
anarchist society collectives-or organizations, would be
created for every
purpose humanly desired, of people freely associated with
equal power to
determine its future. This vision extends to all forms of social
arrangements
- from your neighborhood, to your city, to a neighborhood
restaurant, etc.
When people work together they can accomplish much more than
when they work
against each other. I do believe that social organizations should
embrace and
encourage this. It may seem like common sense, but when you look
around, all
you see is how we are constantly pitted against each other. So
anarchists do
not seek to stifle creativity and individual excellence, but hope
to spread
it out, and allow everyone to chase their dreams. Diversity in this
sense, is
the key to survival in the future. The modern drive to standardize
everything
and apply the assembly line to all aspects of social life has left
many
alienated and hopeless. Instead of trying to make reality conform to
state
bureaucrats conceptions of order through imposition of their
authority;
anarchists believe that social organizations function more
effectively for the
people involved in them if those same people have the
power to shape them in
ways they desire. So anarchists support diverse forms
of democracy, family
organization, production, dancing, loving, eating,
whatever. Oh yeah, and being
free. Here are my thoughts (they may, at first,
seem to be off subject, but in
the end you’ll nderstand why I begin the way I
do): At the moment we live in a
society in which there are two major classes
- the bosses and the workers. The
bosses own the factories, banks, shops,
etc. Workers don't. All they have is
their labor, which they use to make a
living. Workers are compelled to sell
their labor to the boss for a wage. The
boss is interested in squeezing as much
work out of the worker for as little
wages as possible so that he/she can
maintain high profits. Thus the more
wages workers get the less profits the
bosses make. Their interests are in
total opposition to each other. Production
is not based on the needs of
ordinary people. Production is for profit.
Therefore although there is
enough food in the world to feed everyone, people
starve because profits come
first. This is capitalism. There are other classes
in society such as the
self- employed and small farmers but fundamentally there
are workers and
bosses whose interests are in opposition to each other. For
workers needs to
be fully met we must get rid of the bosses. But this is no easy
task. The
bosses are organized. They have the media on their side. They also
have the
State and the force of the army and police that go with it. The state
(i.e.
governments, armies, courts, police, etc.) is a direct result of the
fact
that we live in a class society. A society where about 7% of the people
own, at
least, 85% of the wealth. The state is there to protect the interests
of this
minority, if not by persuasion then by force. Laws are made not to
protect us,
but to protect those who own the property. If you haven’t already
guessed it,
I don’t care much for capitalism. I think it is very
deceiving how we are led
to believe that the state is run in our interests.
"Don’t we have elections
to ensure that any government not behaving itself
can be brought to task?" you
ask. Democracy is about putting numbers on a
piece of paper every four years. We
are given a choice all right, but between
parties who all agree with the system
of a tiny minority ruling the country.
So, is it possible for anarchy to exist?
At the moment capitalism would
collapse without the support of the working
class. We make everything, we
produce all the wealth. The sad thing is, most of
the working class does
believe America is being run in our interests. So, my
answer is no; I don’t
think anarchy will ever come to be in America. The above
paragraphs may make
you think that I am now a anarchist. If so, I have misled
you. I am against
the way our nation is run today, but I do not think anarchy is
an applicable
alternative. Anarchy sounds as if we could actually live as an
utopian
society. It is a nice dream, but will never be reality (at least not in
my
lifetime). When people are free, they are uncontrollable. I like the idea
of
having groups of different people, with equal power determining how the
nation
be run, but there needs to be control. I think the only way to come
close to
having an utopian society, is if someone comes up with a way where
we can
balance both freedom and control fairly, distribute it equally, and
get the
working class to believe it will work. Who knows? Maybe someone
actually will
someday.