Anarchism

Anarchism rejects any type of hierarchical government or authority. It believes in “free association,” which means humans coming together voluntarily to solve problems, rather than being forced by the state.

I’ve always wondered how someone committed to anarchy would create a society, since conflict is bound to develop – you can’t possibly survive with a “true” anarchy, can you?

In an essay entitled How Anarchy Works A Guide To Organising Anarchy, someone (I don’t think he ever gives his name) writes this:

Of course, forming groups around shared interests doesn’t prevent conflict between groups, but since the escalation of conflict can upset the social equilibrium in unpredictable, potentially harmful ways, everyone is incentivised to prevent escalation and adjust to find compromise. In the absence of legal order implied by anarchy, mutual responsibility informed by our mutual interdependence will guide our action. Since there is no authority to impose a set of rules and punishments, conflicts are resolved organically as they emerge. It’s not that there aren’t consequences, quite the opposite in fact, it is just that consequences are not predefined. Free association creates a social environment of constant negotiation and consultation where needed to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

I’m still a little confused about this. It’s basically saying “conflict won’t happen because we’ll work it out.” But that’s a very utopian view of the world. Another page on that same site entitled Justice, Primitive and Modern: Dispute Resolution in Anarchist and State Societies, simply list a bunch of fairly mainstream mediation and resolution techniques (e.g. “mediation”).

Another explanation comes from Albert Parsons who published an anarchist newspaper in the United States in the last 1800s. He wrote:

The Anarchist […] believes that all political laws are enacted only to force men to do those things they would not naturally, or if left untrammeled. Therefore he considers all political laws as violations of the laws of nature, and the rights of men […] He believes that all governments tend to more laws, instead of less, and that therefore all governments ultimately become despotisms.

The difference from Libertarianism seems to be simply be one of degrees. A Libertarian also believes in free and voluntary association, but concedes that some authority is required to resolve disputes and work toward the common good. So it’s a spectrum, and anarchists have gone complete to one end of it, where Liberatarians stopped short.

In the United States, there was an “anarchist period” toward the end of the 19th century. However, in every context I’ve seen, an “anarchist” was someone who was fighting against something in particular. I’m not sure I’ve ever read or heard about someone who wanted to bring down all government, rather they just wanted to bring down a particular government they didn’t like.

There are been some anarchist societies in the world, but not many, and they didn’t last long. One of the problems with anarchism is that even if you work together peacefully and productively with everyone inside your society, there are a bunch of people outside your society that might not share your principles. They often constitute an economic or military threat. Protecting against that threat requires institutions (e.g. a military), and institutions require authority and funding, which means taxation, etc. To survive, a society tends to bend toward hierarchy and authority.

Why I Looked It Up

I’ve just always wondered.

I grew up in the 80s, and “anarchy” was a trending word among disaffected youth. My first exposure to it would probably have been Anarchy in the U.K., the song by the Sex Pistols. I also heard the same vibes in songs by Green Day and Rage Against the Machine. I remember t-shirts from high school that promoted or mentioned “anarchy” in some way.

Also, years ago, I read about The Haymarket Affair which was an 1886 Chicago bombing which many believe was executed by an anarchist. The bomb was thrown into a crowd of police during a labor protest. Many of the suspects were described as “anarchists.”