What is Anarchism? Common Misconceptions!!

It is a great testament to how misunderstood anarchism is when all one has to do is research the words synonyms. For example, according to Microsoft Word 2003, the synonyms to anarchism are; disorder, chaos, lawlessness, revolution, mayhem, and rebellion. Anarchism is about self-government not mass government. Anarchists do not advocate chaos, disorder, or mayhem; in fact, they believe that the opposite will happen with the extermination of government. According to Baradat (and others) “because of it’s reliance on human self-government, anarchism is the purest form of democracy” (132).
During the Industrial Revolution, wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few and power was centralized in government, in turn, making the general population unhappy. They were being exploited and did not feel as if the state was doing what they could to protect them. Therefore, leading to the founding of an ideology that was based on the idea that society can and should be organized without a coercive state (Oxford 14). Anarchists generally reject any form of institution that requires conformity to an accepted behavior. Consequently, this includes governments, schools, and religions. “Essentially, anarchists believe that human beings have outgrown the need for government—if indeed, they ever needed it in the first place. Government, it is assumed, was created to facilitate human development, but instead it actually impedes people from fulfilling their potential” (Baradat 132). Anarchism depends upon the liberal view that people are not inherently evil. Unfortunately, there are Jeffery Dahmer’s and other such evil people present in the world; thus, nullifying this optimistic view of humanity.
Anarchists vary in theory about as much as a typical woman changes her mind. However, they do divide into two basic types, social anarchists and individualist anarchists. The social anarchist believes that governmental controls, that stifle people, should be eradicated to allow each person, regardless of social/class status, to realize his or her full potential. There are also two principal categories of the social anarchists, the pacifist and the revolutionary. Then there is the individualist anarchist, who believes in the eradication of all government because their belief in survival of the strongest is what comes before all else. They contend that governmental welfare programs help the weak at the expense of the strong, which they deem unjust. In Political Ideologies, Baradat states, “Anarchism is, indeed, the purest expression of individualism in politics” (136). Anarchism is not about chaos or disorder, but the exact opposite of that.
Social anarchism is probably the best-known type of anarchism. This is because there happened to be more authors on that side of anarchism, making it more accessible to the average person. Baradat claims that William Godwin was a pacifist (social anarchist), but there is contradictory evidence to this. Mark Philp asserts,
Political Justice condemns all government interference with individual judgment. He claims that over time history has seen gradual progress as knowledge has developed and has spread and as men and women have liberated themselves from their political chains and their subordination to the fraud and imposture of monarchical and aristocratic government and established religion.
Individualist anarchists argue that government is superfluous; this is what Godwin is saying in his book Political Justice. Research would indicate that Godwin was more of an individualist anarchist that a social anarchist. However, a case could be made that any anarchist is a social anarchist do to its definition that anarchism wants to free the people from governmental control, perhaps the “why” is different but, nonetheless, the “what” is relatively similar.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first anarchist to call himself an anarchist. He was also a pacifist (social) anarchist as was Leo Tolstoy. Proudhon believed that government should be eliminated and the workers should all join voluntary associations. These associations “would dispense the necessary services usually provided by the government” (Baradat 137). Their lack of a violent call to action is what made Proudhon and Tolstoy pacifists. Baradat asserts his understanding of Tolstoy,
Tolstoy considered the state illegitimate on the basis of its presumed method of development: the use of force. […] he argued, even if the state might have been necessary at one time to create the atmosphere in which religion, education, culture, and communication could develop, society clearly had evolved beyond its previous dependence. 139
This passive resistance approach was not widely liked because it did not lead to action; many did not foresee it bringing about change in a timely enough manner.
Mikhail Bakunin was a revolutionary anarchist. “Bakunin rejected all forms of human conformity” (Baradat 140). The most noticeable difference between a pacifist and a revolutionary is, not so much their ideas, but rather their tactics for seeing their ideas realized in society. Revolutionaries believed in the use of violence/force to bring about the necessary change, in their eyes, to create a state-free society. Kropotkin, Malatesta, and Goldman were all activists, in their time, inspiring assassinations, protests, and other such drastic engagements. Interestingly, these highly volatile individuals all became quite passive in their old age.
On the other side of the political spectrum are the individualist anarchists, who believe only the individual is of any importance. They contend that what is important is the individual’s ability to reach the greatest possible personal advancement. Baradat explains, “a very real danger is concealed in this approach to modern politics. Although a measure of self-reliance in indisputably healthy, we do not live in a society in which people have only slight relationship to each other (145). Stirner claimed that government and religion were just “artificial props” causing the strong to sacrifice for the weak. Rand exerted that the only worthwhile accomplishments are the ones that are implemented for purely selfish reasons. However, as defined by Baradat, “[individualist anarchism] can isolate people more than any other political theory” (145). Therefore, leaving the possibility open to creating an extremely lonely society.
It remains clear that the ultimate objective of anarchism is human liberty. Can society function if every individual is completely free? Can society function if society controls every facet of itself? These are questions that will never be answered efficiently, unless an anarchist revolution takes over the world. Which will never happen because people like stability and although anarchism preaches stability, society would not be immediately stable; it would be something that could only be attained after the passage of time. Alternatively, the idea of anarchism sounds enticing, but the reality is, although there may be many good people in the world, there remain enough bad people to make it unable to function, as described by anarchism.

Works Cited
Baradat, Leon P. Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking: The Perennial Questions. San Francisco: Pearson Longman, 2004.
Philp, Mark, "William Godwin", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
.

Hopefully this helped to enlighten those who attribute anarchism to anarchy that they are, in fact, two different things. I am interested in people's feelings on anarchism, as well as, if this blog helped you in any way to see anarchism differently.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison

Ceila

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •