Untitled

ANARCHISM; Brief Notes.

Ted Trainer

Unfortunately the term "anarchy" has become commonly used to mean chaos and lack of order or rule. It is also a term that stands for a philosophy government; i.e., a set of ideas about the best way for humans to organise a society.

Among anarchists there is a confusing variety of ideas but centrally important is a strong rejection of any notion that people should be ruled by superior authorities with power over ordinary people. Anarchists believe that people should rule themselves via direct and participatory systems, such as town meetings in which everyone has a vote. They do not believe that we have to give power to experts, politicians and bureaucrats. They are pessimistic about what happens when power is given to a few people. Thus anarchists are strongly opposed to having a state or a central authority. People can and should control their own collective affairs via local participatory democracy.

Anarchists therefore do not accept representative democracy, because it does not involve all people in directly governing themselves. Anarchists are especially opposed to the state, seeing it as extremely powerful and dangerous. It can legally kill people, demolish your house to build a freeway, and make war. Only the state can afford to build battleships and organise armies, and legitimise the killing of others.

Anarchists are optimistic about the capacity of ordinary people to come together cooperatively to organise and run a satisfactory society. They believe that when there is a need for organisation, such as after a natural disaster or revolution, people will quickly work out what needs doing locally and take action. They refer to this as "spontaneity".

Anarchists say that large tasks such as managing a railway system or flood control for a valley can be organised via meetings to which delegates are sent from local communities, without giving any power to a central organisation. Thus they think in terms of "federations" of autonomous small communities. These might hold frequent assemblies of delegates from various communities to handle tasks that overlap borders. Anarchists would not set up a superior authority with power over the communities, to handle such problems. There can still be a role for experts, and "bureaucracies which might oversee a railway system for instance, but the power would remain with the citizens’ assemblies.

Anarchist principles are most applicable in situations where there is small scale; i.e., local communities where it is possible for all to be directly involved on their own government. Anarchists are optimistic about the readiness with which people will become involved and contribute to public life spontaneously if they are given the opportunity. There have been historical cases where ordinary people were remarkably able to take the initiative and organise satisfactory local systems, for production and security. (For example during the Spanish Civil War, and in the Paris commune.)

Anarchists in general accept Marx's analysis of capitalist society but they emphatically reject the Marxist's willingness to endorse centralisation and authoritarian practices, e.g., to believe that the state must organise and control society and that leadership by a strong powerful party apparatus is necessary for revolutionary social change. There have been violent conflicts between Marxists and anarchists.

We are probably entering an era of severe resource and ecological limits. This seems to make anarchism the appropriate social philosophy, because the limits will make it impossible to run big centralised states and international economies, e.g., involving much trade. The most viable form of social organisation will probably involve small local communities running their own affairs in participatory ways.

Marxists and Anarchists seem to have quite similar ideas about the form that society will take in the long term, i.e., a "communism" in which there are no classers, no structured relations of power or privilege, in which things are done cooperatively, all are cared for, and in which there is no "alienation" and all can have a good quality of life.

The major criticism of anarchism and in favour of the Marxist vision might be that humans are not capable of self government and need to be ruled by strong leaders, and experts.

Marxists and anarchists have major differences regarding the transition from capitalist to a better society. Marxists believe that fundamental social change from capitalism is not possible without the leadership of a strong, centralised and determined revolutionary party, and that it will involve violence because dominant classes never voluntarily give up their privileges. This is a plausible position and perhaps the anarchist view is rightly criticised by the marxist as being naïve. Anarchists are more inclined to work to build new social systems here and now within the old society, towards the day when we have replaced it. This is called "prefiguring". (Note that this is not about working within the systems of capitalist society, such as parliament, to reform that system; it is about trying to build an entirely new social system beside or within the old.)

The anarchist strategy relies on education and example, and holds open the hope that a peaceful transition is possible. It assumes that ideas and values have to be changed before significant structural change in society becomes possible. Marxists see these changes as taking place after the revolutionary party has seized power. Anarchism also gives one the possibility of experiencing and enjoying post-revolutionary social systems and relations here and now, whereas the Marxist can only look forward to this in the far distant future after the revolution. Marxists say the anarchist vision of fails to grasp the significance of power and ideology in capitalist society. They see the dominant class as having such an effective hold on power and ideas that it is implausible that simply spreading examples and arguing about the better way will win many people to it…and if we started to make a difference capitalism would easily crush us.

For a more extended discussion of these debates about strategies for change see Chapter 5 of What Should We Do? Build Ecovillages!, Ted Trainer.