Thoughts On Anarchism

There is one particular word that disgusts a capitalist more than “communism”. No, it isn’t “socialism”, as socialism can be mixed with capitalism (i.e. “mixed economies”, New Labour-style Social Democracy). It isn’t “fascism”, as fascism is far too similar to conservative capitalism, or “Neo-Conservativism”, in its nationalist quest for massive hegemony and globalized spreading of its values and idealisms. No, most anti-capitalist ideologies have a subdued effect compared to a seasoned capitalist’s reaction to the word “anarchism”. Anarchism comes from the Greek base for “no government”, and in its simplest definition, means exactly that. Words corporatists and statists alike traditionally associate with anarchy usually revolve around ideas like “chaos”, “disorder”, and “general lawlessness”. Relative is the fact that there are many variations of the anarchist and libertarian ideology, from right-wing corporatism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism, lassez-faire libertarianism” to Neo-Luddite strains (anarcho-primitivism). I will continue hereafter to discuss the left-libertarian tradition, transcribed in the works of people like Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Luxemburg. To accurately introduce anarcho-syndicalist theory, I must give a brief history.
Although nomadic lifestyles and individualism have existed since the dawn of the human era, the modern precursor to anarchism is the theory of Karl Marx, a communist thinker. Anarchists were both heavily influenced and heavily offended by communism. Marxist theory usually follow something like this: a small revolutionary council or Communist Party is to lead the oppressed masses to overthrow the ruling capitalist bourgeoisie, thus ending hegemony. From there, the Party would carry forth an ongoing revolution to create a so-called “dictatorship of the Proletariat” which was to lead the masses into a classless society without need for a centralized government. A number of philosophers and activists followed and interpreted similar to exact versions of Marx’ texts. Still, the most famous (or infamous) faction of Marxism was the Bolshevik Party of Russia. People like Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky fronted the huge 1915 October Revolution against the monarchal aristocracy, installing a dictatorship of the Communist Party. Almost immediately, the autocratic tendencies of the Communists in power lead to the uncomfortable realization of much of the working class in Russia: “the Communist Party has essentially become a Red variant of the bourgeoisie that oppressed us”. The fundamental issue with any sort of bourgeoisie or bureaucracy is the lack of democracy, something that I believe, more than free markets, representation, or anything else, justifies the meaning of the word “freedom”. Put in the context an average American could understand, our government has been rigged into single-ideology politics because whether voting for the Democratic or Republican parties, you are still voting for basically the same capitalist ideology, as third parties have effectively been removed from the system constitutionally to keep things the way they are. This inherent lack of democracy in the capitalist system repeats itself with magnified intensity in Russian Communism: “whether you vote for him or him, you’re still voting Communist”. Furthermore, virtually all traces of democracy are totally absent from Bolshevik Communism. Even after this, State power is all too easily abused due to the sheer amount of responsibilities put on the State. Any hope of a classless society is effectively undone by the organization whose responsibility is to create said society, simply due to the sheer existence and nature of the organization itself. Thus is the fundamental flaw of Marxism-Leninism.
The disgust with both capitalism and Statist socialism can be described in one Leftist movement me and many other people identify themselves with: libertarian socialism, or “anarcho-syndicalism”.
Anarcho-syndicalism emerged from workers movements in both capitalist and communist countries. These anarchists despised the lack of democracy that was indirectly but nevertheless potently heralded by both capitalism and statist communism as well. They believed the abolition of the State and of markets was the fundamental key to the success of a grassroots democratic system, the most direct and pure variation of all democratic situations. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the only inherent authoritarian gestures in society should be the acts carried out after council debates and elections take place. Thus, anarchists advocate a bottom-up society, or direct democracy, rather than the plutocratic practices of a “top-down” society, whether representative democracy or dictatorship, as both propose a bourgeoisie of sorts and therefore compromising means of reaching feasible equality.
Another characteristic of Leftist libertarian/anarcho-syndicalist thought is the belief in a highly integrated, organized society. As anarchism would result in chaos if the direct democracy was practiced on a large, all-encompassing scale, most anarcho-syndicalists propose a society in which every individual organizes themselves into a municipal, urban collective or localized, rural commune. From each individual cooperative, all means that would need to be produced or manufactured would be done by members of the collective working together to achieve a common goal of production relative to the needs of those involved as well as yourself, as everything would be collectively owned by each member of the commune. These collectivist situations would repeat themselves across the region that was participating in anarchism, thus creating a huge network or federation of mostly self-sufficient communes and municipalities. As I have just described, anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean “chaos”, but rather a highly organized, self-governing, non-authoritarian society.
One of the many questions that may erupt from someone who is unfamiliar with what anarchism stands for could be “by removing such essential authoritarian structures from society, would the fate of technology be compromised?” My answer is no, though many anarchists would disagree. I believe that a hyper-advanced, industrialized society could easily function in an anarchist situation because the factories in which technological items would be manufactured or assembled would be governed in a similarly democratic way by workers who decided on quotas that fit the needs of themselves and the rest of the collective. Any missing necessities could be imported from other communes, creating a sort of moneyless “gift economy” among collectives. Thus, worker’s unions could democratically control the production, which would raise morale, and the lack of unfair bosses and regulations would undo any risk of strike proposed by these unions. Anarchists like myself believe that the transition to grassroots democracy in the workplace would increase both productivity and morale among laborers.
Other anarchists, like Kropotkin, the founder of libertarian communist theory, believed in reducing society to the bare necessities, reverting to sustenance farming, and generally abstaining from mass production in general. These beliefs are manifested heavily in the Israeli Kibbutzim, Amish villages, and Countercultural “Hippie Communes”, for example. This theory of downgrading society is practiced in extreme forms by so-called ‘anarcho-primitivists”, who believe society should rightfully be pushed back to the ideal simplicity of a hunter-gatherer tradition, a notion me and most libertarian socialists believe is impractical and highly romanticized. Despite the obvious flaws, many anarchists continue in the primitivist tradition.
Despite the obvious rationalizations of how an anarcho-syndicalist society could work, many continue to pass anarchism off as “immature” and “impractical”. These critics may be surprised at the fact that anarchism has been tried successfully in the past. The first knowing attempt at a leaderless, classless society was the Kibbutzim of Israel, which materialized around 1905, at the beginning of the Zionist movement. Jews from all over the world began flocking to Palestine and setting up leaderless, grassroots cooperatives called kibbutzim. All participants were driven not by ambition but by their shear faith and devotion to God and their work. The Kibbutzim still exist in Israel today.
Another great example of anarchism in practice was the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In the midst of civil war, anarchist power grew, and eventually 75% of Spain’s functioning economy was under anarchist principles. Factories were governed democratically by workers committees rural areas were organized into farm communes. Over 10 million people participated in this anarchist order, with places from barber shops to restaurants being governed by workers and collectivized to the community. Author George Orwell describes the Spanish anarchist situation:
“Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”
Vouchers often replaced money and government was replaced by local councils. A more interesting a fact about this Revolution is that overall production in factories increased 20% from what it was before anarchist values were instated, a fact that, in itself, justifies the theory that democracy in the workplace raises morale, and with more morale, more production.
Eventually, however, this anarcho-syndicalist utopia was stamped out by the opposing Communist forces, which, being backed by Stalin’s USSR, easily crushed the poorly armed anarchist militias. Thus, libertarian socialism in Spain was no more.
To understand anarcho-syndicalism in an American context, take the Green Bay Packers football team. Sure, this example may be a bit unorthodox to theorize around, but the management of this team actually is very relative to the libertarian socialist tradition. The team, Lambeau Field, the equipment, and the franchise are all collectively owned by the people of Green Bay. They also voluntarily work to keep the field clean, with nothing but pride for the team in mind. This is essentially the principle of anarchism, except production is driven by the will to survive and love for your commune.
Today, anarchism can be seen in Amish and Mennonite communities, as well as communes and cooperatives all around the world. Anarchism is an extremely relevant item of political and philosophical and in my opinion will always be existent, as opposition will perpetually exist. Anarchists like myself hope for a day when society can free itself from the shackles of big business and the State once and for all. Then, and only then, can real democracy take place.