An Argument for Anarchism
Of all the political and philosophical persuasions, one of the most misunderstood is anarchism. I hope, in this article, to distill some of the most basic elements of anarchism for easy understanding, to dispel some persistent myths and to ignite in some a spark of excitement which will guide them on a quest for a deeper understanding of the subject. Let’s take a look at the meanings of the Latin root words that compose the word anarchy. The prefix “an-" means “without”. Anaerobic, for example, means without consuming oxygen. Many common words use the “an-“ prefix, denoting a lack of something. “Archos” means “ruler” or “leader”. Taken together, anarchy means, literally, “no ruler”. In and of itself, an understanding of the word’s meaning does much to dispel the specter of fear surrounding it. There is no reference to chaos or to destruction, simply a statement meaning “no ruler”. What does it mean to say “no ruler”? Most simply, it means that each person chooses for himself, without outside control. For most of us, this happens many times a day. Deciding to eat a tuna sandwich over a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, for example, is an anarchist action. No ruler tells you which to choose—you choose on your own, given your preferences and your ideas on what will be best for you. In its bare essence, my distillation of the philosophy of anarchy is complete at this point. It can simply be put thus: Anarchy- any behavior of an individual which is undertaken without instruction from a commanding external source. However, I don’t want my article to be too short! And I can almost hear the “yeah buts” echoing across the gulf of time and space. Let’s delve further into specific examples. How is it possible that there has been such confusion over the meaning of this simple term—anarchy? How is it that “no ruler” has been inferred to mean “chaos”? Does “no ruler” lead inevitably to “chaos”? Let’s consider a hypothetical example. You decide to plan a picnic with some close friends. You invite your friends to join you. You don’t “rule” your friends by doing so, or command them to attend under threat of retaliation. You do relay that such an event may take place, and encourage your friends to take part. Many agree to attend, although some do not. Those who do not agree to attend may express apology for not attending or simply ignore you. Those that do agree to attend make arrangements for the most convenient time and place, and each decides what they will contribute. You have some ideas, and you suggest them. But you are no “ruler”, and so your suggestions are just that—suggestions. Many are ignored, although some are accepted. Some friends have little to offer but companionship, but it’s still likely they will be quite welcome. Others have more resources, and decide to bring food and drinks, or blankets and radios. On the day of the picnic, you eat with your friends, haggle over what music should be played, and even play a spontaneous game of Frisbee one of your broke friends brought. There aren’t any rules to the Frisbee game, but everyone feels like it was a well-played match anyway. You go home tired from running and catching, full of food and drink, and with lots of fond memories of your friends. Perhaps your other friends who did not attend will be there for the next one! In this hypothetical example, for which you can substitute one of your own similar experiences, we see that “no ruler” did not lead to “chaos”. Perhaps there was some disorganization and two people brought potato salad or some conflict arose over what songs to play, but these were handled in committee style and overall there was a sense of order--although there was no “ruler”. We see from this example that anarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to chaos. It may lead to chaos, but not inevitably so. Is it likely that the presence of a ruler will considerably diminish the chance of chaos occurring? I purport it does not, and to strengthen my assertion, I invite you to consider one of the most chaotic of human endeavors: the battlefield melee. War. At the planning stage, war is highly structured and ordered, from the top down. Dates and times are set, exact numbers of troops are commanded and deployed and armed. None of the soldiers are allowed to express apology at not being able to attend, or simply ignore the invitation to battle. They are commanded under threat of retaliation to attend. Each brings exactly what they’re ordered to bring, and each shows up. However, as soon as the event begins, chaos of the highest magnitude breaks out! All the movements that looked so uniform on paper break down immediately in the clash of force. This fact is so well documented I need not spend time proving it—it’s beyond the scope of this essay. However, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of first hand reports are readily available for anyone seeking to prove/disprove my assertion. Thus, in the war example, we see that what begins as order quickly devolves into chaos. In the picnic example, what began in disorder is allowed to evolve naturally into an order of its own, unique to the situation and the participants. It is my feeling that there is a profound truth in this understanding: that forced order breeds true chaos, whereas organic disorder leads to an evolving natural order, unique to each situation. I would suppose that if soldiers were allowed to come to battles only if they wanted to, and bring whatever items they chose, there would be fewer battles. And the soldiers that did show up would probably be a lot more effective, being self-motivated and devising organic, spontaneous battlefield tactics utilizing specific talents of individuals and the equipment at hand that each felt most comfortable with. I propose that this was the case during the American Revolution. The British were commanded to show up upon pain of retaliation, while the American combatants were free to choose on an individual basis whether or not to fight, and, if so, how, where, and when such fighting should take place. Thus, even for the war hawk, anarchy provides some very useful functions. It does not, however, lend itself to a strictly heirarchical organization. Above, we explored the functions of forced order, organic disorder, true chaos and natural order and their relationships to the anarchist philosophy. Anarchy is shown to be quite functional in producing order and successful action in endeavors as different as picnic is to war. Why, then, the demonization of anarchy? I propose one possibility: for successful anarchist organization to take place, an initial state of organic disorder must exist. This "order out of chaos" technique is much talked-about, and for good reason. It is necessary for evolution of any society. Thus, long-standing power structures are seen as counter-productive from the anarchist viewpoint. And therefore, at the outset of each anarchist event, every individual must start out from a similar level of personal power, and proceed from that point to define their role. The person who was important in planning battlefield tactics may be much less effective in planning a picnic. Respect and power earned on the battlefield must be left there. Now, the respect and power is passed to the most masterful chef or the most clever Frisbee-game inventor. It is my assertion that laziness is the cause of power structures. People who would prefer to be successful only once and then to ride that success for a long time after will likely propose power structures that maintain their importance long after their actual function is past. In comparison, those who would prefer to excel in their preferred areas and respect superior skill in different areas will likely find the anarchist model to be preferable. Deciding to take a stroll down your neighborhood street at night to smoke a cigarette is an anarchist action. Nobody has dictated for you to perform or not to perform this act. If you happen to live in these United States of America such freedom seems well within the norm, and your anarchist behavior causes no concern. However, if you lived instead in historical Nazi Germany you may very well be breaking a state-imposed curfew and your anarchist behavior could warrant your arrest and eventual execution. Similarly, if you put cannabis in your cigarette while you walked as opposed to tobacco, you may also be subject to arrest in the United States, although execution is highly unlikely. Examining these examples yields certain insights. For one, it can be seen that states impose rules upon individuals primarily to protect the state, not to protect the individual. In Nazi Germany, the curfew was enacted to isolate individuals and thus reduce the threat of groups with competitive ideas from gaining ascendancy in the public realm of ideas. In America, although it’s proven that cannabis is much less physically harmful than tobacco when smoked in cigarettes, the state apparatus has chosen to outlaw cannabis instead of tobacco. The reasons for this are manifold and deserve further discussion; however, not one of those reasons can realistically be interpreted to protect the individual. Supposedly governments are instituted to protect the rights of the individual. Yet we have seen throughout history that this is often not the case. We see that, in practice, states design laws that protect the state as the highest priority, with the preferences of individuals taken into account only so far as to prevent rebellion. And this leads me into another important area of discussion concerning governments and their effectiveness at ensuring peace, order and individual rights. Political scientist R. J. Rummel has revived use of the term Democide, defined as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder." As found on his Wikipedia page, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century which, according to his figures, is a number six times greater than all those who died in battle during the same time-frame. 262 million is a big number on its own, but that refers strictly to hard, open democide that governments themselves have documented. That number does not include casualties in wars, most notably. Nor does it include vast swaths of individuals that died prematurely, if not exactly violently, of malnutrition or disease in countries that were ruled by governments which had taken the vast majority of the resources away from the people they supposedly protect. A small amount of research will expose the actual number of deaths to be staggering--a given since the numbers already listed are staggering. Again, this is a topic deserving its own treatment and beyond the scope of this article. However, the gist of the information is clear—governments are experts in mass killing. And why wouldn’t they be? Governments control armies, navies, air forces, etc.—groups of people trained in only one thing: destruction. Now contrast that with the individuals you know, or with individuals you don’t know, for that matter. Imagine any individual attempting to do so much killing with any weapon you can imagine an individual personally controlling. Even with a nice machine gun and endless ammo, even if people lined up to be shot, the individual would die of old age before coming close to those numbers. And thus one of the foremost arguments of “Statists” is rendered so obviously false as to be almost humorous if it weren’t so macabre: the argument that "without governments people would kill each other". It’s easy to see, if you keep an open mind, that government is in fact the most violent and deadly invention humanity has ever conceived. That government would simultaneously be the most deadly of all human inventions and claim that without itself even greater violence would ensue is an oxymoron of the highest order. There is simply no evidence that man, left wholly to his own devices, would be more violent than man wielding the state. Indeed it seems possible that man would not be able to be more violent, even if this was his goal. These are just a few arguments I have in favor of the anarchist philosophy, but I think they are compelling ones. Some people may wonder what I’m suggesting to replace all of the long-standing social structures that are built on a statist platform. However, that’s a loaded question because it is not necessary for me to propose your ideas or design an unknowable future. Of course I have ideas, but they are ideas for my life. My greatest suggestion is that if you resonate with the anarchist philosophy then deeply internalize the feelings of self-empowerment and self-respect. Understand that you don’t need the “best answer”, just a good answer for you personally, and be willing to let those answers evolve naturally. In the end, a flowing and natural progression is at the heart of the anarchist philosophy. |
anarchist sites |