Anarchism - What is it?
Every month in Te Whanganui-a-Tara / Wellington, the Magnetic Fridge Diary is distributed. The MfD is a folded A3 piece of paper with a calendar of anarchist/activist/community events for the upcoming month, reviews of pamphlets from the local anarchist bookshop and short articles on a theme. It’s been running for a couple of years now, and currently has a print run of 300 which are distributed at libraries, high schools, cafes, universities and other places around the city. A .pdf (9MB) of the April issue is available for download here.
This month, the theme was Anarchism - I wrote a short and simple “what is anarchism” which I thought I’d repost here:
Anarchism - What is it?
Anarchism is the political philosophy that human society functions best based on concepts of mutual aid, direct democracy and free association.
Free association is the term for people who have chosen to associate for any particular cause. Free association is what occurs in any group in which you are a member by choice and choice alone, not because you are required to by law or other means, but because you care about and support the group and the goals of the group.
Mutual aid is a term used to describe interactions based on cooperation rather than competition. Under capitalism, we are compelled to compete with each other to survive - for jobs, for property and for friendships. While capitalism demands we ask why we should help someone, mutual aid encourages us to ask why not.
Anarchists see modern capitalist society as fundamentally flawed - a system where the means of production and consequently the wealth are owned by a small number of people while many more still struggle to get food, water and shelter to survive. Anarchists strive for a world where workers, wom*n, non-whites, queers and others are not systemically discriminated against for the benefit of a few.
Anarchists are for direct democracy. Anarchists often organise according to consensus-based self-governing principles, based in the understanding that we are best qualified to make decisions about our own lives. Anarchists believe that we must all control our own lives, making decisions collectively about matters which affect us.
Anarchists believe and engage in direct action. Direct action is any action which, if successful, achieves the desired result/s in and of itself, without appealing to a “higher power”. Direct action is based on the idea that we should all run our own lives, and that asking someone else to make a change for us, even if the change is made, is counter-productive as it only reinforces the idea that we cannot act for ourselves.
Anarchists are against nation-states and borders. Nation-states are inherently oppressive, and in subjugating the individual for further the welfare of the State in a race of nation-states and global economies, States resort all too readily to violent systematic oppression. Arbitrary lines on a map should have no role in deciding how we live our lives, and any movement for a better society must place the utmost importance on the free movement of individuals.
To find out more about anarchism or to get in touch with anarchists in Te Whanganui-a-Tara / Wellington, visit The Freedom Shop, the anarchist bookstore, in Left Bank off Cuba Mall, or go to Revolting Books, the little anarchist library, at 128 Abel Smith St, Te Aro.
April 4, 2007 at 5:09 pm
What is Anarchism?.Anarchism is basically a crazy totally unworkable collective political system without any resemblance of order.Chaos is what you offer us Asher, the total breakdown of the current system.For what,a better society,not likey.
Your IDEALIC PICTURESQUE anarcho society will quickly develope into a BRUTAL COLLECTIVE DICTATORSHIP more evil and repressive than any previous regime in history.
April 4, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Yip q that really explains the spanish communes prior and during the Spanish Civil War.
More reading and less tin foil hatting in order I think
April 6, 2007 at 7:08 am
Q, maybe you should read up on the subject before spouting cliches. Order is what anarchism offers, chaos is what we have now. And Asher, I think your summantion of anarchism is right on the spot.
April 6, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Yip, so good, I scooped it, you should too
http://www.scoopit.co.nz/trackback.php?id=2066
April 10, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Quick question - in an Anarchist system, how would those who combine voluntarily deal with those who don’t? Say everyone in my newly anarchistic locality decides to get together, pay a tithe, & run a school.
I decide I don’t want to - maybe I don’t have children, maybe I want to home-school them, maybe I want to send them to a private school.
Would I have that choice? In the absence of a central Government enforcing objective laws, what would protect the voluntary association voting to take my money regardless of my wishes to the contrary?
April 10, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hi Duncan,
Your question demands a few different answers - Dependant on differing anarchist theories.
In their utopias, various anarchists suggest many different options for what to do with money - some promote a gift economy, others barter-based economies, others money-based economies and plenty of other suggestions. Of course, in a global anarchist utopia, some or all of these could exist in various communities around the world.
In a gift or barter economy, your question becomes moot, for obvious reasons.
As for money based economies, where your question is certainly relevant, I’ll attempt to answer that here:
Essentially, you could do what you like with your money. If you don’t like the school (which would no doubt be almost unrecognisable compared to modern schooling) then you would indeed be free not to contribute to it financially, and to have your children educated at home, or in another school that you had set up with others (on the basis, again, of free association). Or, of course, not to school them at all.
The voluntary association that has formed the school in question would have no power or legitimacy to take money from you for a project you did not wish to associate with. Of course, if you wanted your children to attend this school, it would be a different matter - the voluntary association would obviously be justified in asking you to contribute towards something that you (/your children) are benefiting from.
At the same time, you might decide, as part of an anarchist community where many children (even if not your own) gain great benefit from their schooling and thus benefit the community, that you wish to contribute to the school yourself (whether financially or otherwise). But you could not be compelled to do this.
One last point I’ll add is that it seems fairly likely (and certainly desirable to me) that in an anarchist society education/schooling would cease to be something that is seen to be only fit for youth, and rather something that many/most would wish to partake in for the duration of their lives.
For a look into alternative forms of education (both for youth and adults) with heavy anarchist involvement in history, I can highly reccomend checking out the Ferrer schools in Europe, the Modern School movement in the USA and groups like Worker’s Educational Associations all over the world. Many of these are not without their own problems, but I find them fascinating and they certainly made a good start in working towards more libertarian (in the traditional sense of the world), egalitarian, non-hierarchical forms of education.
Hope that answers your question - feel free to ask follow-ups if it doesn’t!
April 11, 2007 at 12:11 am
Well this is the way we should govern ourselves, but because of the natural competitive nature of humans, it would never be a reality. I agree the co-operation is far more productive than competition the reason given above prevent this from occurring.
It is dealing with the greedy criminal types who love to govern us that would be a real difficulty, but would be interested on your take on the problem
April 11, 2007 at 11:54 am
Jericho,
Competition will arise naturally from having multiple providers of the same good and service, provided people aren’t compelled to deal with one or the other. Commercial competition is good, & part of human nature. It has led to the wealth we enjoy today.
April 18, 2007 at 4:17 pm
[…] Anarchism - What is it? ? Anarchia […]
August 9, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Your definition of anarchy is for a particular sub-branch. There are anarcho-capitalists out there too. You probably don’t like them, but your definition rules them out of existence. You’ve got a half-decent definition for anarcho-socialism or anarcho-mutualism. But the space is wider than that. Private property anarchists exist, and shouldn’t be ruled out of court by definition. Check Bryan Caplan’s extensive discussion at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm .
August 9, 2007 at 5:33 pm
As I said to you on Kiwiblog, so-called “anarcho”-capitalists are not anarchists - see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html for a more detailed response.
The definition above is a pretty broad one - I specifically wrote it to encompass all strands of anarchism, from those I agree or sympathise with (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism etc) to those I disagree with (anarcho-primitivism, individualist anarchism).
September 14, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Eric Crampton
The protection of property “rights” requires the legitimization and enforcement thereof from a powerful governing body, which negates the eligibility of anarcho-capitalists to be defined as anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Its merely a euphemism for libertarianism or unfettered capitalism, which directly leads to enrichment and domination of a few over the many as was witnessed in Victorian times or to a marginally lesser extent, today.