by 
In a recent article published on Strike the Root called Real and Fake Anarchism I argue it is important to use the term “anarchism” to describe one’s ideals. (At least if one is an anarchist.) Because not doing so means distancing yourself and your personal interpretation of anarchism from other anarchists today and in previous times. There are many great anarchist thinkers throughout the anarchist tradition of thought who gladly – and proudly – used the term to denote their convictions.
Anarchism as an ideal is the very opposite to that which most people think of when hearing the word. As we know, people think of destruction, chaos, and war. But anarchism as an ideal has always been about the right for every individual to lead his or her life as he (or she) sees fit. Every man, woman and child has an inviolate right to self – life, liberty, as well as possessions – and that right needs to be respected. Since the state, by its very existence, violates the rights of individuals, the state must be abolished.
This destructive property of the state is inherent – it is an organization that by definition is based on the use of force, and it is hierarchical and seeks to centralize power in society. Force, hierarchies, and power are not compatible with individual freedom, and therefore the state as well as statism are examples of the very opposite of anarchism. Anarchism seeks peace and harmony through liberating people from oppression – force and power are the opposites of anarchism, and whoever has, seeks, or advocates such are thereby disqualified from being anarchists. Rather, they would be enemies of anarchists.
This definition of anarchism makes any attempt to label as “anarchists” people burning property or violating people nothing but ridiculous. But it is also, in a sense, a sad attempt by antagonists of the anarchist tradition to denigrate anarchism, to make anarchism seem like a (or the) bad alternative. It is nevertheless a widely used tool for those with power to work over anarchism.
How to best denigrate each individual’s right to life and liberty? To make it appear as the worst possible alternative.
“Lawlessness” is sometimes used to define anarchism. Even though it is true, at least in the sense that anarchism does not allow for government-enforced laws, there is nothing in the concept of lawlessness that without a doubt makes it chaotic, destructive, and war-like. Why would the lack of rules set and enforced by a centralized power entity mean chaos and destruction?
To draw such a conclusion one will have to embrace the thesis that man is inherently bad, and would willingly kill, rape, and plunder were it not for a superior power forcing him not to. Yet, the champions of this strange philosophy fail to show how a society of such bad people become a peaceful and orderly society when all are subdued by a single, centralist power – and how that power, run by men, does not degenerate into terror and destruction. After all, if man is inherently evil, there is nothing we can do about it – and it certainly rules out making some of those inherently evil folks the rulers of others.
Anarchism does not, however, claim that man is inherently good – that only harmony is possible. If this were true, then there would be no wars, no problems, no terror. But there are an awful lot of bad things happening in our world – and bad things have always happened, throughout history. Anarchism does not claim man is inherently good or bad, only that man is – and that is every man’s right to live his life as he sees fit. The argument for anarchism is different depending on the individual anarchist’s perspective, but it always boils down to this: people have a right to be free, and that freedom is only limited by other people’s equal right to their freedoms.
How can this be chaotic, destructive, and a cause of terror?
“But anarchism as an ideal has always been about the right for every individual to lead his or her life as he (or she) sees fit.”
I find this statement problematic. Although we can organize a society this way, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with those who would gain an advantage through dishonesty, and we’re back to the societies of today, with their invasive central governments.
Response to rightsaidfred:
I don’t agree (obviously). Part of the reason is that I don’t agree with the premise in your disagreement. There is no “we” to “organize a society”, this conception of society is utterly false. Society is not a structure that needs to be planned and carried out, society is not the product of following a blueprint.
Actually, I would say society cannot be planned, constructed and enforced. Society is simply what is when people interact, and as we know: people find ways of getting along as well as deal with dishonesty and crime. There is no reason for a top-down approach “making” a society, it is not only impossible – it is also undesirable, since it is in every sense immoral. Organizing society requires first elevating the organizers to a higher level than other people, which means hierarchy and power. If, on the contrary, everybody gets to organize society we’re talking of a bottom-up approach: anarchism.
“They personally and in unison act as a competing State wanting to occupy the territory and replace the present regime with their own.”
I find Per Bylund as compelling now as I did years ago when he first attached a dollar sign to anarchism: not at all. Like other anarcho-capitalists, he has for some time operated under the delusion that property is synonymous with liberty. Thus, he can make the statement above with a straight face. Who, if not anarcho-capitalists like Bylund, wants to occupy territory and replace the state with their own regime? That is precisely what property is, whether it be state property or private property, the granting of certain human beings absolute dominion over the claims of others in a given sphere of influence. Shame of Bylund for claiming moral high ground for propertarians who have always based their philosophy on threat of violence for any who transgress against their sacred property ideals. And no, I will not apologize on behalf of those anarchists who reserve the power to use violence whenever they are chained, whether those chains be made of metal or bills of credit enforced by the barrel of a gun. Bylund will resort to violence whenever his philosophy justifies it, what he calls defense is offense to those who don’t share his peculiar value system. But unlike him, at least I can admit that violence is part of my tool-set in maintaining freedom, rather than denouncing those I disagree with on completely hypocritical grounds.
If Voltairine has really, as you say, followed me and read what I have written for years, she should know I do not consider myself anacho-capitalist or even a hard propertarian. Rather, I am a soft propertarian and have written a thesis on a moral ground for “private” property – defined as use-rights rather than property rights, and based on use rather than “simple” claims or (limited) Lockean acquisition. The property argument simply doesn’t bite.
As for violence, I can certainly admit that I am opposed to violence, aggression, force, coercion, and power. They are all essentially what anarchism is not – violence and aggression means elevating yourself and your being to a level higher than the one you attack. I see no reason why you would have that right; I do not understand why anyone could ever have the right to use force on another human being.
The only exception to this rule is of course force and violence used in self-defense. If someone attacks me I am entitled to defend myself and even to use force to give a “blow back” to avoid being attacked again. I am not a pacifist, but I recognize that pacifist means are sometimes preferable to acting in direct self defense.
However, Voltairine’s comment is not about self-defense. It is not even about property. It is about my article and whether I have the right to claim I know anarchism and can tell what anarchism is and isn’t. I don’t have that right and I do not claim it. But I do have an opinion and I express it in articles and blog posts.
My opinion is that anarchists, in the traditional and “real” sense, are not chaos-loving destruction-seeking individuals. Anarchism is a peaceful but radical tradition of thought that preaches peace, liberty and prosperity. It is absolutely true that some anarchists are strictly opposed to all sorts of property, even though many of them tend to define property only in terms of landlordism or state-sanctioned exclusion rights.
I would however say that Proudhon was a proponent of property, even though the term often used is possession. He was a champion of the free market, which would liberate labor workers from the chains of capitalism (what anarcho-capitalists would call “state socialism”) and establish equality. Benjamin Tucker et al in the American tradition likewise claimed the freed market would effectively rid society of oppressive and exploitative privileges and establish anarchism.
Many anarchists today have for some reason adopted the anarcho-communist idea as the only “true” anarchism. I would certainly agree it is an anarchism, but I don’t agree it is the traditional/original nor the only kind of anarchism. It is very possible to be a proponent of private possession or property (depending on your definition, of course) and still be an anarchist. That is, essentially, the view of Proudhon and the “traditionalist view” in anarchism.
I share the view expressed by Voltairine as anarchists having a right to “reserve the power to use violence whenever they are chained.” But this statement totally misses the target – neither my article nor blog post are about this right. In both of them I discuss the people seeking nothing but chaos and destruction, who seek opportunity to act under flags of anarchism to burn, beat, tear apart, and destroy. Is this anarchism? Certainly not. Anarchism is about respect, peace, and liberty. Chaos, destruction, and violence are the opposites: disrespect, war, and slavery.