Where is anarchy

Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Anarchy, derived from a Greek word meaning "having no ruler," is a belief system that rejects governmental authority in favor of self-governing or community consensus that has become a synonym for chaos and the breakdown of civil order.

Anarchism is a political philosophy in opposition to the rule of government and the establishment of hierarchies. It developed fully in the 20th century, but its roots as an epithet for extremism go back further, at least to the French Revolution. Self-described anarchists have formed fringe groups in tumultuous political times, such as the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War.

As a political belief system, anarchy breaks roughly into two separate schools of thought. One rejects all government authority in favor of a belief in the individual's liberty and the right to self-govern. The other rejects government authority in favor of a belief in collectivism or the primacy of the group over the individual. Anarchy is also used colloquially as a term denoting societal breakdown and collapse.

While the common critique of anarchy is that it results in lawlessness and chaos, anarchist philosophy's adherents suggest that societies can remain intact and even thrive under alternatives to traditional hierarchies. As noted, there are two major schools of thought in anarchism, the individualist anarchists and the social anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism, meanwhile, represents a surprising variant of anarchism. Among the individualists was Isaiah Berlin, a 20th-century British political philosopher, who described a concept of negative liberty, which focuses on the right of the individual to be free from constraints, in this case by the state or the larger society.

Individual anarchism has influenced many bohemian movements, including the "Yippies" of the s and the punk rockers of the s. Social anarchists, by contrast, focus on the concept of positive liberty, which identifies freedom as not merely liberty from outside interference but the fulfillment of the individual's full potential when power and resources are shared equally among all members of a community. They favor direct democracy along with common ownership of the means of production.

This school of thought has a number of branches, including collectivist anarchism, also referred to as revolutionary socialism; anarcho-communism, also known as libertarian communism; and anarcho-syndicalism, which promotes collectivist labor unions with no union bosses to speak of.

Anarcho-capitalists, or laissez-faire capitalists, see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free society. Unlike many anarchists, they believe in some version of private property. If unhampered by the government, they maintain that private enterprise would provide all of the services that people need.

The Industrial Revolution , objections to capitalism , and mass migration helped spread anarchism around the world. It was during this period that the major branches of anarchism—anarcho-communism and anarcho-socialism—sprang up.

While anarchism played a key role in the Russian Revolution , the anarchists were brutally persecuted after the resulting Bolshevik government under Vladimir Lenin began to exert its authority. During the Spanish Civil War from to , anarchists established their state of Catalonia. Featuring powerful labor unions and successful collective agriculture, the Catalonian anarchists and their allies were driven out during the rise of fascism in Spain under dictator Francisco Franco.

While each has several variations, the two major schools of thought in anarchy are individualist anarchism and social anarchism. Individualist anarchists regard society as a group of separate self-governing individuals and thus value individual liberty above all other considerations. To gain and protect their liberty, individualist anarchists argue that because the conventional government has the power to impose taxes and restrictive laws, it must be abolished.

They believe that free of government restrictions, people will naturally act rationally, working to better themselves by achieving their personal goals. The result, they say, would be a stable and peaceful society. Individual anarchism has been the basis for several alternative lifestyle movements, such as the Yippies. Founded in late , the Youth International Party, whose members were commonly called Yippies, was a radical youth-oriented countercultural revolutionary offshoot of the free speech and anti-war movements of the late s.

More recently, some advocates of bitcoin currency have described themselves as individualist anarchists. According to the concept of positive liberty, freedom is not just the absence of government interference but the ability of individuals to realize their full potential when political power and economic resources are shared equally among all members of the community.

In this manner, social anarchists favor direct democracy and shared ownership of wealth and the means of production. As a process then, social anarchism seeks to empower the powerless, include the excluded, and share power and authority.

Like most political ideologies, anarchism has proven to be far from a consistent concept. Instead, it has changed and taken different forms as people have interpreted and applied it in different ways according to their beliefs and needs. While most types of anarchism fall on the extreme left end of the political spectrum, there are surprising variants.

Rather than unrestricted individual freedom, anarchist capitalism, or lasseiz-faire capitalism , embraces free-market capitalism as key to a free society.

Unlike most anarchists, anarchist capitalists believe in the individual, rather than communal ownership of property, means of production, and wealth. They contend that private enterprise, if free of government control, could and would provide the people with all essential services, such as health care, education, road construction, and police protection.

For example, American anarchist capitalists argue that the nation would be better served by a privately owned prison system. Also known as anarcho-communism, anarchist communism stresses social equality and the elimination of class discrimination caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. Anarchist communists call for replacing capitalism with an economy based on collective ownership of means of production and distribution of wealth through voluntary associations such as trade associations and trade unions.

Government and private property do not exist under anarchist communism. Instead, individuals and groups are self-governed and are free to satisfy their needs through their voluntary contributions to economic productivity. Since people are free to engage in whatever activities best fulfill their needs, traditional wage-based work is unnecessary in anarchist communism.

Anarchist Socialism, or anarcho-socialism, is a broad and ambiguous term that refers to the two major schools of anarchist theory—social anarchism and individualist anarchism. The first combines the basic principles of socialism and anarchism to create a collectivist society—s society that places the needs and goals of the group as a whole over those of each individual. The latter stresses individual liberty in a society that places the needs of each individual over those of a group as a whole.

Typically associated with the often confrontational actions of activist groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd , green anarchism emphasizes environmental issues. In this manner, they stand for not only for the liberation of humans but for various degrees of liberation for non-humans. Some animal rights activists, for example, argue that some non-human species with thinking and conscious minds and a sense of self-awareness be given the same basic rights as humans.

Crypto anarchists support the use of digital money, such as Bitcoin to get around the control, surveillance, and taxation by what they consider governments and financial institutions, thus permanently crippling their authority. Crypto anarchists argue that like the printing press reduced the power of medieval craft guilds and monarchies, the use of digital money will change the nature of big corporations and end government interference in economic transactions.

Far from shadowy, bomb-throwing malcontents, the foundational figures in the creation of modern anarchist thought have been peaceful yet progressive philosophers, economists, and academics. While they all held decidedly negative views of traditional government, their many variations, interpretations, and methods for achieving societies free of government control continue to inspire anarchists today. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon January 5, - January 18, was a French socialist, politician, philosopher, and economist who was the first person to publicly call himself an anarchist.

Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government. In this vein, he considered both capitalism and government in any form to be the most dangerous threats to individual freedom. Bakunin was deeply committed to orchestrating a universal revolution in which peasants and workers would rise up to form a utopian communal society in which all people were socially and economically equal.

His outspoken dedication to this goal earned Bakunin the reputation as being the creator of the theory of revolutionary terrorism. Peter Kropotkin December 9, — February 8, was a Russian anarchist and socialist widely credited with creating the most agreed-upon definition of anarchism in all of its many forms. As a proponent of a communist society based on self-governing communities, Kropotkin criticized what considered the shortcomings of capitalism—unequal distribution of wealth, poverty, and an economy manipulated by a false scarcity of goods and resources.

Instead, he called for an economic system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid between individuals. Emma Goldman June 27, - May 14, was a Russian-born American activist and writer who played a key role in shaping anarchist political philosophy and activities in the United States from around to In Goldman assisted her life partner Alexander Berkman in an attempt to assassinate anti-labor industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of defiance.

Frick survived, but Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Nor does non-conformism and lifestyle anarchism work to create and sustain systems that affirm liberty and equality. But defenders of lifestyle non-conformism will argue that there is value in opting out of cultural norms and demonstrating contempt for conformity through individual lifestyle choices. A more robust form of individualist anarchism will focus on key values such as autonomy and self-determination, asserting the primacy of the individual over and against social groups as a matter of rights.

Individualist anarchists can admit that collective action is important and that voluntary cooperation among individuals can result in beneficial and autonomy preserving community.

Remaining disputes will consider whether what results from individual cooperation is a form of capitalism or a form of social sharing or communism. Libertarian anarchists or anarcho-capitalists will defend free market ideas based upon individual choices in trading and producing goods for market. On the other hand, socialist or communistically oriented anarchism will focus more on a sharing economy. This could be a large form of mutualism or something local and concrete like the sharing of family life or the traditional potlatch.

But these ideas remain anarchist to the extent that they want to avoid centralized control and the development of hierarchical structures of domination. Unlike state-centered communism of the sort developed by Marxists, anarchist communism advocates decentralization. In The Conquest of Bread Kropotkin criticizes monopolistic centralization that prevents people from gaining access to socially generated wealth. Anarchy leads to communism, and communism to anarchy, both alike being expressions of the predominant tendency in modern societies, the pursuit of equality.

Kropotkin [ 31]. Kropotkin argues that the communal impulse already exists and that the advances in social wealth made possible by the development of individualistic capitalism make it likely that we will develop in the direction of communal sharing. He argues that the tendency of history is away from centralized power and toward equality and liberty—and toward the abolition of the state. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism also think that the free market will work to adequately maximize human well-being and help individuals to realize their own autonomy.

But for the socialist and communist anarchists, the question of individual self-realization is less important than the idea of social development. Socialist and communally focused forms of anarchism emphasize the importance of social groups.

For example, families can be viewed as anarchic structures of social cooperation and solidarity. A social anarchist would be critical of hierarchical and domineering forms of family organization for example, patriarchal family structure. But social anarchists will emphasize the point that human identity and flourishing occur within extended social structures—so long as it remains a free and self-determining community.

The tension between individualist and socialist anarchism comes to a head when considering the question of the degree to which an individual ought to be subordinated to the community. Individualists will want to struggle against this assault upon autonomy and individual identity. On the other hand communally focused theorists will point out that individual human beings cannot exist outside of communal structures: we are social animals who flourish and survive in communities.

Thus radical individualism also remains a dream—and as more politically oriented anarchists will point out, individualism undermines the possibility of organized political action, which implies that individualist anarchists will be unable to successfully resist political structures of domination.

Anarchism forces us to re-evaluate political activity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato held that human beings flourished within just political communities and that there was a virtue in serving the polis. Modern political philosophy tended to hold, as well, that political action—including obedience to the law and the ideal of a rule of law—was noble and enlightened. In Hegelian political philosophy, these ideas combine in a way that celebrates citizenship and service to the state.

And in contemporary liberal political philosophy, it is often presumed that obedience to the law is required as a prima facie duty see Reiman ; Gans Anarchists, of course, call this all into question. The crucial question for anarchists is thus whether one ought to disengage from political life, whether one ought to submit to political authority and obey the law, or whether one ought to engage in active efforts to actively abolish the state. The idea of direct action is often viewed as typical of anarchists, who believe that something ought to be done to actively abolish the state including: graffiti, street theater, organized occupations, boycotts, and even violence.

There are disputes among anarchists about what ought to be done, with an important dividing line occurring with regard to the question of violence and criminal behavior. Franks has argued that anarchist direct action ought to exemplify a unity of means and ends Franks On this view, if liberation and autonomy are what anarchists are pursuing, then the methods used to obtain these goods must be liberationist and celebrate autonomy—and embody this within direct action.

Coercive imposition of the anarchist ideal re-inscribes the problem of domination, hierarchy, centralization, and monopolistic power that the anarchist was originally opposed to. One significant philosophical and ethical problem for politically engaged anarchists is the question of how to avoid ongoing cycles of power and violence that are likely to erupt in the absence of centralized political power. One suggestion, mentioned above, is that anarchists will often want to emphasize the unity of means and ends.

This idea shows why there is some substantial overlap and conjunction between anarchism and pacifism. Pacifist typically emphasize the unity of means and ends. But not all pacifists are anarchists.

However, we mentioned above that there is a connection between anarchism and Christian pacifism, as found in Tolstoy, for example.

Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy and the anarchists. Although Gandhi is better known as an anti-colonial activist, Marshall includes Gandhi among the anarchists Marshall chapter It is possible to reconstruct anti-colonial movements and arguments about self-determination and home rule as a kind of anarchism aimed at destroying colonial power and imperial states.

Gandhi noted that there were many anarchists working in India in his time. In saying this, Gandhi uses the term anarchism to characterize bomb-throwing advocates of violence. Gandhian anarchism, if there is such a thing, embraces nonviolence. In general nonviolent resistance as developed in the Tolstoy-Gandhi-King tradition fits with an approach that turns away from political power and views the state as a purveyor of war and an impediment to equality and human development.

Objecting to this anarcho-pacifist approach are more militant activists who advocate direct action that can include sabotage and other forms of political violence including terrorism. Emma Goldman explains, for example, that anti-capitalist sabotage undermines the idea of private possession. While the legal system considers this to be criminal, Goldman contends it is not.

She explains,. Sabotage is mainly concerned with obstructing, by every possible method, the regular process of production, thereby demonstrating the determination of the workers to give according to what they receive, and no more. Goldman [ 94]. Goldman struggled with the question of violence through the course of her career. Early on she was a more vocal proponent of revolutionary violence. She began to rethink this later. Nonetheless, like other anarchists of her generation, she attributed violence to the state, which she opposed.

She writes:. I believe that Anarchism is the only philosophy of peace, the only theory of the social relationship that values human life above everything else. I know that some Anarchists have committed acts of violence, but it is the terrible economic inequality and great political injustice that prompt such acts, not Anarchism. Every institution today rests on violence; our very atmosphere is saturated with it. Goldman [ 59]. Goldman views anarchist violence as merely reactive.

In response to state violence, the anarchists often argued that they were merely using violence in self-defense. Another defender of violence is Malatesta who wrote that the revolution against the violence of the ruling class must be violent. He explained:. I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence.

Malatesta [ 48]. Like Goldman, Malatesta warned against violence becoming an end in itself and giving way to brutality and ferocity for its own sake. He also described anarchists as preachers of love and advocates of peace.

He said,. Malatesta [ 46]. Anarchist violence appears as the violence of an individual against the state. It is easy to see why such violence would be characterized as terroristic and criminal. For an individual to declare war against the state and take action to disrupt the state is criminal. And thus anarchists have also been interested in a critique of crime and criminality—arguing that it is the law and the legal system that creates and produces crime and criminality.

Similar ideas are found in Foucault and in more recent criticisms of mass incarceration. Contemporary anarchists will argue that mass incarceration is an example of state power run amok. The question of violence leads us to a further issue: the question of obedience, disobedience, resistance, and political obligation. Much could be said here about the nature of political obligation and obedience: including whether obedience is merely pragmatic and strategic or based upon notions about loyalty and claims about identification with the nation and its laws.

But it is clear that anarchists have no principled reason for political obedience. If the anarchist views the state as illegitimate, then obedience and participation are merely a matter of choice, preference, and pragmatism—and not a matter of loyalty or duty. Christian anarchists will look, for example, to the case of Jesus and his idea of rendering unto Caesar what is due to Caesar Matthew — Jesus does not recognize the ultimate moral and religious authority of Caesar or Pilate.

But he goes along with the political regime. Thus some anarchists may simply be compliant and submissive. But politically motivated anarchists encourage resistance to state power, including strategic and principled disobedience. Such disobedience could involve symbolic actions—graffiti and the like—or acts of civil resistance, protests, tax resistance and so on—up to, and possibly including, sabotage, property crime, and outright violence.

One important example is found in Thoreau, who famously explained his act of disobedience by tax resistance as follows:.

In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases. Thoreau [ ]. He recognizes that a declaration of war against the state is a criminal act.

He willingly goes to jail. But he also admits that he will cooperate with the state in other cases—since there is something advantageous about cooperation. This indicates the complexity of the question of cooperation, protest, and disobedience. Kropotkin discussed him as an anarchist Kropotkin [].

And Tolstoy admired his act of civil disobedience—as did Gandhi. Anarchists continue to discuss strategies and tactics of disobedience.

One problem throughout this discussion is the degree to which disobedience is effective. If there were to be successful anarchist campaigns of disobedience they would have to be organized and widespread. Whether such campaigns would actually work to disassemble the state apparatus remains an open question. Perhaps there are reforms and short-term gains that can be obtained through traditional political means: voting, lobbying legislators, etc.

But anarchists have often held to an all-or-nothing kind of approach to political participation. We noted above that the Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul has said that he does not vote because anarchy implies conscientious objection.

But herein lies a strategic conundrum. If progressively minded anarchists opt out of the political system, this means that less enlightened policies will prevail. By not voting or otherwise engaging in ordinary politics, the anarchist ends up with a system that he or she will be even less happy with than if he or she had actively participated in the system. This is, really, a problem of revolution versus reform.

The revolutionary wants revolution now, believing that it will occur by way of direct action of various sorts. Perhaps the revolutionary is also thinking that the psychological, cultural, and spiritual evolution toward revolutionary consciousness can only occur when direct action is taken: in order for anarchism to emerge, the anarchist may think, one ought to behave and think like an anarchist.

Meanwhile those reform-minded folks who work within the system of political power and legality can end up supporting a system that they have doubts about. This philosophical problem of reform vs. Davis Many anarchists are revolutionaries who want change to be created through direct action. But given our preceding discussion of violence, disobedience, and the potential for success of revolutionary activity, the question arises about opting-out of political life. The Epicureans and Cynics pointed in this direction.

The history of anarchism is replete with efforts to construct anarchist communes that are independent and separated from the rest of state centered political life. We might pick up the history here with the Christian anarchists and pacifists of the Reformation: the Mennonites, for example; or the Quakers who refused to doff their hats for political authorities and who sought a refuge in Pennsylvania. In the Seventeenth Century, Anne Hutchinson was cast out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and forced to found a new community, when she concluded that the idea of government was flawed.

Hutchinson is considered as one of the first anarchists of North America see Stringham Separatist communities were founded by the New England abolitionists and transcendentalists, by Josiah Warren, and by others. Anarchist communes were formed in Europe during the Nineteenth Century and in Spain during the s. There have been ongoing movements and organizations of indigenous peoples and others who inhabit the margins of mainstream political life.

In the s and 70s, anarchist separatism was reiterated in the Hippy communes and attempts to live off the grid and get back to nature. Alternative communes, squats, and spontaneous gatherings continue to occur. Separatist communities have to consider: the degree to which they give up on anarchist direct action against dominant political forces, the extent to which they have to accommodate themselves to political reality, and the risk that customary hierarchies will be reinstated within the commune.

For the revolutionary anarchist, separatism is a strategy of avoidance that impedes political action. Separatist communes must often obey the rules of the dominant political organization in order to trade and get connected to the rest of the world. Finally, a complaint made about separatist communes is that they can end up being structured by sexist, classist, and other hierarchical organizing principles. One might argue that until the dominant culture is revolutionized, separatism will only be a pale reflection of the anarchist ideal.

And yet, on the other hand, advocates of separatism will argue that the best way for anarchist ideals to take hold is to demonstrate that they work and to provide an inspiration and experimental proving ground for anarchism. If revolutionary activity is taken off the table, then anarchists are left with various forms of gradualism and reformism.

Along these lines David Graeber provides a description of the cultural and spiritual work that would be required in order to prepare the way for anarchist revolution.

Revolutionary anarchists will respond to this by arguing that liberation in the imaginary is simply imaginary liberation: without actual change in the status quo, oppression and inequality continue to be a problem. Objection: This objection holds that anarchism is merely another name for chaos and for a rejection of order. This objection holds that anarchists are violent and destructive and that they are intent on destroying everything, including morality itself.

Reply: This objection does not seem to recognize that anarchists come in many varieties. Many anarchists are also pacifists—and so do not advocate violent revolution. Many other anarchists are firmly committed to moral principles such as autonomy, liberty, solidarity, and equality. But one can be committed to anarchism, while advocating for caring communities.

Indeed, many of the main authors in the anarchist tradition believed that the state and the other hierarchical and authoritarian structures of contemporary society prevented human flourishing. Objection : This objection holds that anarchism is inherently unstable. Hobbes and other early modern social contract theories maintain that the state emerges as a necessary response to natural anarchy which keeps order and protects our interests.

Some anarcho-primitivists will argue that things were much better for human beings in the original state of nature in small communities living close to the land.

Other anarchists might argue that the disadvantages of state organizations—the creation of hierarchies, monopolies, inequalities, and the like—simply outweigh the benefits of state structures; and that rational agents would choose to remain in anarchy rather than allow the state to evolve. Some anarchists may argue that each time a state emerges, it would have to be destroyed.

But others will argue that education and human development including technological development would prevent the reemergence of the state.

Objection : This objection holds that there simply is no way to destroy or deconstruct the state. So exercises in anarchist political theory are fruitless. It would be better, from this point of view to focus on critiques of hierarchy, inequality, and threats to liberty from within liberal or libertarian political theory—and to engage in reforms that occur within the status quo and mainstream political organization.

Reply : Ideal theory is always in opposition to non-ideal theory. But utopian speculation can be useful for clarifying values. Thus philosophical anarchism may be a useful exercise that helps us understand our values and commitment, even though political anarchism has no hope of succeeding. Furthermore, there are examples of successful anarchist communities on a small local scale for example, in the separatist communities discussed above. These concrete examples can be viewed as experiments in anarchist theory and practice.

Objection : This objection holds that a political theory that abolishes political structures makes no sense. A related concern arises when anarchism is taken to be a critique of authority in every case and in all senses. This sort of criticism is related to standard criticisms of relativism and nihilism.