Anarchism Ideology
Anarchism IdeologyAnarchism is a label used by movements and ideologies which generally have in common the rejection of authority which does not regularly justify itself. The most important source of authority a century ago was that of the private property owner, whether landlord or industrialist, over his subjects. That's why most Anarchist beliefs seem concerned with the workplace. To a large extent, this is still correct. However, to focus only on the workplace is to exclude other equally important concerns. Anarchists invented FreeSchools for example.
Saying that Anarchism is about some particular organization of government masks the meaning of government within the context of rejection of all authority. In a modern society, you have a group. And this group chooses a Leader. And this Leader has Authority. That's not how it works in Anarchism. What should happen is that the group chooses a delegate or ambassador who goes to a congress to talk with other delegates and has no authority. So periodically, the delegate comes back and discusses things with the group. If they agree with him then he's sent back to approve whatever motion. If they disagree with him then he goes back to argue the group's case. If they're displeased with him then they kick him out and replace him with someone else.
This is the process used by the Chiapas Indians, and it is the exact opposite of a military structure where the leader is expected to "control" his subordinates.
The Anarcho-Syndicalist view appears to be "government by organizations of workers." These organizations would typically be organized by craft or interest, making them similar to guilds or modern unions.
Only if you're talking about very militant unions. Bureaucratic unions merely create a secondary hierarchy to which the worker is subject to.
And finally, AnarchismIdeology is something of an oxymoron. There is no Anarchist party because Anarchism is about DirectAction (eg, demonstrations against capital globalization) so you don't have to believe in any ideology in order to be an Anarchist.
[Why does Ideology imply the need for a party at all? And to say that anarchism is about DirectAction might be a bit simplistic, anarchism is also about revolutionizing yourself and your everyday life. -- Daniel]
Links:
Contrast libertarianism [from TheLibertarianParty] with anarchism...
[From TheLibertarianParty page...]
The only thing that can come out of an ideological argument between libertarians and an anarcho-syndicalist (AnarchoSyndicalist) is vicious warfare. -- anon.
Finally, don't say things designed to make others mad. Practice civility and understatement. -- WardCunningham (GoodStyle)
I'm not convinced that the ideology of TheLibertarianParty and that of anarcho-syndicalist-s are all that incompatible. They seem orthogonal - they address different issues.
[Quoting RichardKulisz from LeftAndRightWingPolitics page...] "Right-wingers are committed to capitalism. Left-wingers are committed to an alternative economic system. The defining characteristic of capitalism is private property. Libertarians are capitalists through and through. Anarchists in contrast are anti-capitalists. Libertarians may like to style themselves as different from liberals and conservatives, they may even think of themselves as fundamentally different, but the political spectrum is much wider than merely liberal to conservative. Compared to anarchists, libertarians are closely related to liberals and conservatives."
[Simultaneously:] they're not only incompatible, they hate each other. Except for when libertarians are trying to co-opt anarchism.
All variants of right-libertarianism assume private property and the free market as givens. IOW, they are capitalist. Anarchism as a movement has always been anti-capitalist and ideologies underlying anarchism have always been against private property. As an anarchist, I see more compatibility between right-libertarianism and fascism than I do between right-libertarianism and anarchism. This is a considered opinion based on the fact that both of the former are characterized by the extreme authoritarianism and unconcern with justice inherent in a strict adherence to private property. The fact that right-libertarianism grossly oversimplifies human nature means that it will always devolve into fascism in practice. -- RichardKulisz
I gotta agree with this. The idea of absolute ownership, central to capitalism, is so close to western theology and so far from reality that it must lead to corruption in the same way that any totalizing ideology does. And corruption leads to fascism as the "only solution". -- TomRossen
I just realized that the example I wanted is under my nose: the DMCA. This is a totalitarian response to "piracy", which is itself a response to the idea that somebody who has nothing to do with the creation of a work can come to own all rights to it (cf. Michael Jackson and the Beatles' songs). -- tr
Right and left wings need definition. Many consider authoritarians like Stalin very right wing, as their definitions concern concentrations of power in minority hands.
'Capitalism' contradicts itself in that it preaches competition, while simultaneously approving of ownership. The dominance of the latter leads to the current plutocracy.
Anarchism, at least theoretically, is not against authority per se. Instead it specifies that structure should only be in place for as long as it is appropriate. Instead of ownership, we have the concept of license. So authority may be licensed, but is not embodied in the entity except maybe in a Vegetable King environment (which is to be encouraged IMO). Unfortunately evolution tends to reinforce stability, so anarchism can only occur counter-entropically i.e. dynamically. Until we all have energy to spare and believe it, this is unlikely to happen.
-- RichardHenderson.
Richard - what's a Vegetable King environment? -- tr
After a fixed period, the 'king' is chopped into pieces and ploughed into the earth. -- rh
Oh yeah - as Thomas Jefferson said, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of ... uh ... turnips. -- tr
Bored at a relative's house, I was channel surfing on tv, infrequent activity for me, and I came across Pamela Anderson's VIP show. The main villain on the show was an "anarchist." One of his lines was, "I believe I can do anything, and I can do anything to you." He was pointing a gun at the star. It was truly appalling. -- MarkDilley
No accounting for nutters. Most of them claim to religious affiliation, so I suppose it's only fair that a few claim to be anarchists in the Bakunin 'chuck a bomb' mode.
The most terrifying thing about anarchism is not its goals of a free and equal society, nor is it its violence. The most terrifying thing is that anarchists use direct action to effect direct change, that anarchists are engaged with the world they live in and participate within it. This to me is the essence of anarchism from which everything else follows. The antithesis of anarchism then is not authoritarianism or even totalitarianism, but representation in the same sense as 'representative government' and 'proportional representation'. We live in a Society of the Spectacle as Guy Debord correctly stated, and so long as we are mesmerized by it, we are rendered safe and innocuous. In this sense, the anarchist is exactly like that movie villain, extremely unsafe and dangerous.
And on a different note, it's a sad day when I sympathize with Carlos Ortega, the scum that led Venezuela's rich elite's sabotage of the oil industry in a bid to overthrow the socialist government. It's sad because the only reason the government could come up with to put the scum away was 'rebellion' and 'armed insurrection' instead of inventing a new crime of 'advocating dictatorship' or 'supporting totalitarianism'.
EditText of this page
(last edited December 17, 2005)
or FindPage with title or text search