ABOUT ANARCHY
Part 2
Anarchist Schools of Thought
From Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism, to Max Stirner's egoism, to Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism the roots of anarchist thought were always varied, with many different views of what a society without government should be like. Individualists, taking much from the writings of Stirner, among others, demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual. Anarchist communists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin built on the Marxist critique of capitalism and synthesised it with their own critique of the state, emphasizing the importance of a communal perspective to maintain individual liberty in a social context.
Anarcho-syndicalism developed as the industrialised form of libertarian communism, emphasizing industrial actions, especially the general strike, as the primary strategy to achieve anarchist revolution, and "build the new society in the shell of the old".
In the latter half of the twentieth century, two new schools of thought developed in North America: namely, anarcho-capitalism and primitivism. Anarcho-capitalism built on the classical liberal tradition, taking the distrust of government further than liberalism and claiming that free markets could provide justice and security. The state, they argued, was not only unnecessary to maintain these market driven institutions, its intervention was harmful to them. From a very different perspective primitivists like John Zerzan proclaimed that civilisation - not just the state - would need to be abolished to foster liberty and a just social order. A rejection of modern Technology is also prominant in the views of many primitavists, such as Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber).
Pacifism, referring to opposition to the practice of war, is considered by most anarchists to be inherent in their philosophy. Some anarchists take it further and follow Leo Tolstoy's belief in non-violence (note, however, that these anarcho-pacifists are not necessarily Christian anarchists as Tolstoy was), advocating non-violent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution.
Anarchy, Not Chaos and Disorder
The word "anarchy" is often used in the mainstream media and everyday language to refer to lawless and chaotic political situations where, for instance, warlords rule by virtue of military force or there is a temporary power vacuum. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is often referred to as anarchy, since it has no central government.
This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognised form of government can be considered "anarchy". Anarchists, however, use a narrower definition, reserving the term anarchy for an anarchist society: that is, a society organised on the principles of anarchism, though exactly what these principles are differs from anarchist to anarchist.
Violence and Non-Violence
Anarchists have been traditionally portrayed in the media as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists. Since the 1970s, the punk image of irresponsible youths has also been associated with anarchist symbolism, so furthering the association with violence.
The use of political violence, however, is condemned by most anarchists, though there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence. The Tolstoian tradition of non-violent resistance is prevalent among some anarchists, though others see self-defense as a right. Some anarchists believe that violence is justified as a way to provoke social upheaval which could lead to a social revolution.
The writer J. R. R. Tolkien, in a letter to his son, briefly described anarchy as "philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs"[1] (our emphasis).
Pacifism
Pacifism, referring to opposition to the practice of war, is considered by the vast majority of anarchists to be inherent in their philosophy. Wars are often portrayed in anarchist literature as an activity of the state in which the state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically and in foriegn lands. Many anarchists subscribe to the view expressed by Randolph Bourne that "war is the health of the state"[2]. Anarchists believe that if they were to support a war they would, by default, be strengthening the state - indeed, Peter Kropotkin was alienated from other anarchists when he expressed support for the British side in World War I.
Just as they are very critical and distrustful of most government endeavours, anarchists often view the stated reasons for war with a cynical eye. Since the Vietnam War protests in North America and, most recently, the mass protests against the war in Iraq, much anarchist activity has been anti-war based.
Non-Violence
Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in non-violence. These anarcho-pacifists (not necessarily Christians) advocate non-violent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that, as such, violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist tactics.
continues...
