by 
[ad]I have touched on this subject before, in the column Real and Fake Anarchism, but the duality of anarchism cannot be discussed enough. Just like some would say there may be parallel universes that are each other’s opposites, what is referred to as anarchism is both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Consulting any dictionary on the meaning of the word anarchism makes the confusion obvious, yet people seem to not take notice. This is what Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary says about the word “anarchy”
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
It is fairly obvious that a and c go well together – they mean basically the same thing. b stands out as the “oddball” in the three-parted definition of “anarchy.” But b does seem to go well together with c through the word “utopian,” and also offers an “explanation” to the realized ideal in a.
I am not sure why the word “utopian” is necessarily a part of the definition of what the political theory of anarchism strives for. It seems “utopian” doesn’t add anything but the subjective assessment of this certain political theory’s validity, which is hardly a part of the word’s definition.
Nevertheless, Merriam-Webster doesn’t say that anarchy means chaos – only that it means “political disorder,” which is certainly true if “political” is interpreted as the organization of government. In anarchy there is no government, so such organization would definitely be “disorderly.”
A much more common definition of the word anarchy, where the contradiction is obvious, can be found in e.g. Microsoft’s Encarta:
an·ar·chy
noun
Definition
1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society
Now this is very interesting, especially considering that the definition of “government” in Encarta is “political authority: a group of people who have the power to make and enforce laws for a country or area”. I guess without that “group of people” with “the power to make and enforce laws” the situation would indeed be chaotic.
The question is how people would react in a setting where no such group of people or their representatives are present. Say, in a school class, in a bus, in your apartment. Obviously a chaotic situation in desperate need for a “group of people who have the power.” So why don’t we all establish such power structures whenever we meet people?
The contradiction in the definition exists because there is no obvious link between the two separate definitions, and this makes the word ambiguous. Yet people seem to think there is only one definition of the word “anarchy” and that it always means “chaos” and “disorder.” And anarchists, they conclude, must of course strive for such chaos and disorder – that follows from the very word “anarchy.”
This is of course not true in any sense, unless we add the subjective assessment of the situation in which there is no group of people with power – that it would immediately cause chaos and destruction. As we have seen, such an assessment has been made part of the very definition of the word in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.
The problem here is that some people have taken all this confusion to heart, and exploit it. There is today an international movement of people who are only interested in destroying and fighting – and they call themselves anarchists. These idiots have nothing to do with the anarchist tradition or the real anarchist movement, but they free-ride on its name and are pretty effective in destroying the word as well as the reputation of the peaceful anarchism movement.
When journalists report on the rioting by the free-riders they tend to augment the distortion through calling the people busy burning property and terrorizing people “anarchists.” They have of course nothing to do with anarchism as it was spelled out by Proudhon and the other “greats” of anarchism, but they are successful in mooching trademarks and symbols. There is a reason they often use well-known anarchist symbols like the circled A and the black flag.
Even though some people who are well-read on the anarchist tradition seem to join them at times (I guess to blow off some steam), the rioting freaks usually know nothing of the ideas or aims – or understand the reasons. They are “anti,” but don’t have a clue what they are pro.
The fact is that this “movement” of rioters are the Mr. Hydes of anarchism. They are not the original or the true movement; they are freaks out of control who have chosen a name that was already taken. And the worst part of it is that they are utterly statist in what they do and say – destruction, violence, and terror are all means of state and power, not of anarchism.
The movement following the tradition of Proudhon, Tucker, Kropotkin and others are the Dr. Jekylls. And as we know, people take notice of and fear violent action, whereas voluntary cooperation seldom hits the news.
The article, Blame Anarchism?, is available here.
This is the problem with reliance on dictionary definitions: one is at the mercy of dictionary writers.
Anarchism is the body of thought and writing about the process of achieving anarchy, society without the state. We practice anarchism to build anarchy.
The perception of anarchists as wild-eyed bomb throwers was established in the early 20th Century by the corporate press in league with government toadies and authoritarians seeking to root out the evils of socialism and free thought. This image is exacerbated today by louts and chaosists posing as anarchists, much to the glee of the corporate press and their government puppet masters.
One is well served to read Edward Abbey’s Masters thesis at the University of New Mexico, 1950, “Anarchism and the Morality of Violence,” in which he critically examined the support for violence in the pursuit of anarchy, in the works of Prudhon, Kropotkin and others, and found it wanting. Violence cannot create a non-coercive society, leading instead to the ultimate coercion of continued violence.
Though we seek the end of state society, we know that violence is the tool of the state against its people. We seek a revolution, not an extension of the status quo.
As ever, your writing is fine and makes its point. “Anarchism” along with many other words keep getting definitional articles. I would think there is enough on the net for beginners to find their way. You continue to write on that level as the professors do while publishing not to perish. Your “anarchism” is muchly or even identical to voluntaryism, as you quite surely know. Voluntaryism has yet to become “cool” and thereby attract the less thoughtful.
There is much writing, information, and thought needed at the levels between the popular rock throwers and the solid action groups’ strategy-and-tactics talk– working, building, survival, growth, networking, …
Perhaps you might more often consider such needs in your subject queue.
Good work you already do. I just offer ideas for more.
Yours in freedom, J.
Responding to Heyduke:
You are absolutely right; dictionary definitions aren’t totally reliable, especially when we’re discussing terms used politically. Political and moral ideas stir up a lot of emotion and therefore bias – even if you don’t intend to define a term in a biased manner, you often end up with a definition biased in one way or another. And since terms describing such political and moral ideas are used and defined rather subjectively by people, any definition will always make a lot of people accuse the writer of being biased.
That said, there is no reason to doubt that anarchism is often a target unconsciously or even consciously. In our statist world, people are statists and think statist – a definition of anarchy by a statist would necessarily include some kind of criticism including conclusions such as “chaos” or “war.” Hobbes did so some half millennium ago, and people still do it.
I agree with your comment on anarchism not having anything to do with violent action. The idea of anarchism has never been about using violence, but rather to avoid and abolish the use of it. So using it to achieve its opposite seems contradictory, counter-productive at best.
As for Abbey’s master’s thesis – I’d love to read it. Could you perhaps link to it here in the comments? I cannot find it on Google.
I see you have taken your alias from one of his works, by the way.
Responding to Junker:
Thanks! Yes, I definitely should discuss action more in my writings. With my interest in philosophy, I tend to discuss philosophical issues and stay with theory. But you are absolutely right, there is a need for discussion the “how” and not only the “what” and “why.” I have done so to some degree on this blog (e.g., DIY – Do It Yourself, even though it is more of a morality discussion) and in my articles, but it is still only a very limited part of my “works.”
I probably don’t need to remind anyone here of this, but I try to use “anarchism” more than “anarchy” because anarchism means the philosophy that statelessness is just and Statism unjust, and it refers to the promotion of that philosophy. Anarchy is the condition of statelessness.
By the way, I might not be much of an anarcho-capitalist if I don’t know this, but I’ve only heard of Proudhon and never read much (if anything) by him about anarchism. I don’t know anything about the Tucker and Kropotkin you mentioned. Can you post some links to introductory readings by/about those writers?
Responding to John:
I suggest you visit the Anarchism.net library, which has links to some online books you might find interesting. I am currently working on updating the library through adding more books, e.g. Proudhon’s General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century. Proudhon is quite pro market in his works, even though many “leftists” prefer to interpret his writings as strictly leftist socialist.
As for Proudhonian thought, I would strongly suggest you read a couple of books by individualist anarchists in the American tradition. They were heavily influenced by Proudhon through e.g. Benjamin Tucker. See Tucker’s own State Socialism vs. Anarchism as well as The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews, both available on Anarchism.net.