On the Feasibility of Anarchism

The political philosophy if Anarchism is not something that we hear much about these days, especially not in the United States. When we do hear the word 'anarchy', it is often misused by the speaker to mean "wanton violence," "chaos," and "confusion." In fact, these misuses have become so common, that many dictionaries now list them as actual definitions of the word 'anarchy.' With these additions of definitions having been accepted into most popular dictionaries, it is important that it is established what is meant by "anarchy" and "anarchism" in this paper.

'Anarchism,' - in the sense that it will be used throughout this essay - is defined as: "The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals." ¹ 'Anarchy' will be defined as: "the absence of any political authority."

Even with these definitions established, a great many people do not take anarchism seriously. Many people immediately disregard anarchism as immature, and unrealistic; that it couldn't work. In fact, of all things I hear about anarchism from people who aren't educated on the issue, "anarchism would never work," is the most often heard phrase I hear. It may come as quite a surprise, then, to hear that not only has anarchism worked (even on a large scale) ⁶, but that it is working just fine right now in countless places.

I aim to convince you that the political philosophy of anarchism should be taken seriously, and not be written off so quickly. I will not try to convince you whether or not living in an anarchistic community is desirable, or try to make you become (or avoid becoming) an anarchist. I simply desire to show you that anarchism has worked, is working, and can continue to work, and that this political philosophy ought to be taken more seriously and not be written off so quickly.

Anarchism is a political ideology that presupposes that people can organize themselves without the need for a state, and which views voluntary cooperation as the means to organize society and create order and freedom (not license). Its closest relative is Libertarian Socialism. However, Anarchism goes one step further than Libertarian Socialism and seeks to abolish the State. Anarchism, as a political philosophy, seeks to eliminate "exploitation of man by man." Thus, trade unionism has often been the basis for social anarchist movements.

This is not anarchism in its derogatory sense, which portrays a philosophy of license and disregards everyone other than one's own self - the "bomb-thrower" image often portrayed by un/mis-informed media. This derogatory image of anarchism is very inaccurate, for taking power over another person (or people) - whether is be by use of force, capital, or persuasion - is the antithesis of the philosophy of anarchism. A social (dis)order in which those who have the most physical power (i.e.: guns, ammunition, etc.) end up being the ones who rule over everyone else is not properly referred to as "anarchy", but "stratocracy."

The philosophy of anarchism requires not only that people work to liberate the exploited/oppressed, but also that they must refrain from exploiting/oppressing others.

In order to show that anarchism ought to be taken more seriously, I will refute/clarify the most commonly heard arguments/misunderstandings against anarchism.

"In a non-hierarchical society run on voluntary cooperation, many important things wouldn't get done. Who would volunteer to do the dishes, run the waste management and sewer treatment facilities? Who would volunteer to make and repair roads? Nothing would get done because without the bosses around, or the threat of force or starvation/homelessness, no one would do anything. There would be no schools, no one would work in the factories, and our economy would fall apart."

This is less a misunderstanding of anarchism than it is a misunderstanding of human beings. This argument would work fine if the population of the world consisted of only teenagers (notorious for just such behavior). But in the real world, the dishes get done because they need to get done. If 10 adults were cooperating together to run a restaurant, do you really think that the whole lot of them would fail to volunteer to do the dishes (or take out the trash, or do any other necessary chores)? Of course not!

Furthermore (and to take this out of the realm of the abstract), the anarchists of the Spanish revolution of 1936 - without bosses, rulers, government or coercion of any kind - ran free-schools where every child could go and learn. The waste management, factory work, road repairs etc. all continued to get done⁶. In many cases, the factories began producing more than they ever had before, while the workers of the factories got more in return than they ever had (not having the capitalist owners or Soviet communist state around to take home the majority of the profits that they themselves had created).

"In an anarchistic society, without any police enforcing laws of the state, no one would be safe. The only reason someone isn't trying to kill you right now is because of the police. Without the police and the State, everyone would run around stealing, killing, and raping each other... only the strong would survive. Whoever had the most guns and ammunition would end up in control of society."

This, again, is a misunderstanding of human nature more than a misunderstanding of anarchism⁷, but it does raise a good question. Can people feel safe in an anarchist community? What would happen if someone tried to beat me up or kill me? Why, people would protect you of course⁸! Just call for help and anyone and everyone around will help you. If they are too small/weak/timid to help you, they will go get other people who will! People don't like to see other people get hurt, and the need protect ourselves from rare (but real) physical violence is necessary no matter what form of organization we use. In a hierarchical, government-controlled society we use police to provide that protection (and in so doing, we also often make it illegal for citizens to help others in distress if they are not police officers themselves). In an anarchistic community, that protection comes from your neighbors, family, friends, and nearby strangers. Forming groups of trained men that stand around a phone waiting to be called to go help break up fights is not a violation of anarchism's principles, either.

In anarchist cultures, although there are no laws against rape, murder, assault, etc. (as there are no laws - period), these actions are still harshly looked down upon, and the perpetrators are often in fact persecuted. Remember, anarchist philosophy supports freedom, not license. I can testify that I have felt safer as a stranger in 100% of the anarchist communities I've visited than I have walking down the streets of San Diego with Police on every corner.

Without the State, how would we protect ourselves from foreign countries that would destroy us? After all, the State controls the military, and it's the military that protects us from other countries that would come and take us over and make us slaves or change our culture. (AKA, who would protect us from others?)

Anarchist communities have dealt with the impending invasion of foreign countries the same way States do: they form an army and fight! These armies consist of volunteers, who go to the front lines and fight for the community they believe in, able to withdraw as they please. The Spanish anarchists had just such armies. Those called "Commanders" where elected by the volunteering troops. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, and no salutes. One unit, the Durutti Column, consisted of 8,000 men at the peak of it strength⁶.

Well, this all sounds very good in theory, but it isn't realistic. Anarchism would never work in reality.

Anarchism has worked in the countryside of Andalusia. Urban anarcho-syndicalism has worked in Catalonia (even in Barcelona). Anarchism has worked in the Ukraine, and Korea. Anarchism worked in Zaragoza. There are anarchist movements in Africa², Brazil³, China⁴, France, Hungary⁵, Greece, Mexico, Russia, Spain⁶, the United States⁷, and many other places around the world. There are anarchist movements within Buddhism, Christianity⁷, Islam, Judaism, and pagan faiths⁷ (each claiming their religion promotes or demands anarchism). This all says quite a lot for a conscious political movement that is not much older that the United States of America.

In conclusion, I hope you see can that anarchism is a realistic and viable option for organizing people, communities, and populations. Anarchism is a sophisticated and complex social philosophy that seeks to create a peaceful, sustainable, safe, and non-coercive society without a government or any other kind of institutionalized authority. It is far from an 'immature' ideology, as is exemplified by the fact that so many mature, intelligent people consider themselves anarchists. Photographer Henri Cartier, MIT professor of linguistics (and Nobel Prize Winner) Noam Chomsky, feminist, author and critic Germaine Greer, social historian Howard Zinn, author Edward Abbey, author and speaker Murray Bookchin, author and philosopher Robert Anton Wilson, film-maker John Milius, author Ursula K. Le Guin, graphic novelist Alan Moore, UFC fighter and champion Jeff Monson, actor, film director, writer and comedian Hans Alfredson, and Hip Hop musician Emcee Lynx - just to name a few.

Anarchism, whether you find it desirable or not, is indeed a realistic and workable political theory and should not be underestimated or ignored. Though a more exhaustive set of refutations could have been made with more space, I believe I have been thorough enough to show that - though they are rarely heard publicly - coherent rebuttals of common arguments against anarchism do exist. Though popular media often refuses anarchism fair representation, history tells its success stories and offers itself as her voice.

¹"Anarchism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 14 Mar. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchism>.

²Frantz Fanon. Toward the African revolution: political essays

New York: Grove Press, 1988

³John W F Dulles. Anarchists and Communists in Brazil, 1900-1935

Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973

⁴Scalapino, R. and Yu. G.T. The Chinese Anarchist Movement

Berkley: University of California Press, 1969

⁵Julio Carrapato, Paul Sharkey, Kate Sharpley. The almost perfect crime: the misrepresentation of Portuguese anarchism

London : Kate Sharpley Library, 2004.

⁶Joseì Peirats. Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution

London: Freedom Press, 1990.

⁷Eunice Minette Schuster. Native American Anarchism

Port Townsend, Wash.: Breakout Productions, 1999

⁸Emma Goldman. Anarchism and Other Essays

Hard Press, November 9, 2006