Anarchisme, Christendom, en Prophetic Verbeelding 6

Aan dit punt hebben wij sommige inleidende vragen over de aard van imperium en weerstand in dienst genomen. Nu is het tijd beginnen onderzoekend de grondbeginselen van anarchisme, om te beginnen met een tegenbewijs van sommige gemeenschappelijke misvattingen over anarchy als politieke filosofie (ik zou hier moeten opmerken dat ik neig om „anarchisme“ te gebruiken zoals verwijzend naar politieke anarchy, hoewel mijn gebruik niet altijd verenigbaar is). Het anarchisme als politieke filosofie is vaak verward met een algemener begrip van de betekenis van „anarchy“. Om te citeren Jesus Radicals:

Enkel als het woord „Christendom“ zelf, zijn de woorden „anarchy,“ „anarchisme“ en „anarchist“ misbruikte termijnen. Zij worden misbruikt zo vaak door de media, de staatshistorici en de overheidsambtenaren dat, door geen fout van haar, de gemiddelde persoon op de straat slechts aan chaos, terroristen en willekeurig geweld denkt wanneer de term anarchist omhoog komt.

De eerste belangrijkste misvatting is dat het anarchisme over chaos of wanorde is. In feite, is het anarchisme geen politiek van wanorde - vrij het tegengestelde, werkelijk. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, dat de eerste persoon kan geweest zijn om de term „anarchist“ te gebruiken zelf-referentially, is beroemd voor zijn verklaring, „Anarchy is orde“. Hij zei, de „Vrijheid is de moeder, niet de dochter, van orde.“ Proudhon geloofde dat als de mensen van externe tyrannies zouden kunnen worden bevrijd zij voor zich tot een structuur waarin zouden leiden om te leven het leven dat, in het algemeen vrijer zou zijn, meer enkel, en meer opdracht gegeven tot dan dat die door de alliantie van overheid, economische macht, en militair en politiegeweld werd opgelegd. Or, as David Layson put it, “Anarchy is not chaos, but order without control.”

Anarchism is not about disorder and chaos, it is about creating a different kind of order. Catholic Worker co-founder and anarchist Peter Maurin often described the goal of the movement as to create a society where it is easier for people to be good. This is a far cry from the common picture of anarchy as chaos that would inevitably be characterized by lawlessness and vigilante action, a dog-eat-dog world where strong prey on the weak. Anarchism is about as far as that as you can get, as we will see when we get more into what it is.

The second major misconception is that anarchism and anarchists are violent. The truth is that anarchism is fundamentally a critique of violence. It is true that some anarchists have used violent means to further their goals. It is also true that anarchists have often been confused with nihilists – there were groups of nihilists in Europe, particularly Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century who made a conscious tactical decision to assassinate as many people in positions of power as possible, hoping to create an attitude of fear among those who would be leaders and so eventually persuade them through fear of violence to leave those positions of power vacant. The relationship between nihilism and anarchism is complex, but on the whole anarchism is more critical than utilizing of violence and anarchists generally desire to create a more peaceful world.

It should also be noted that the destruction of property is often included in official reports as “acts of violence”, but there is a real debate that is going on, and has been going on for some time, about whether destruction of property should be considered an act of violence. Some would argue that it is, or at least can be, fundamentally an act of liberation. Anarchists tend to value human beings over property, and many feel that the modern nation-state, historically based as it is on Lockian philosophy that emphasized the state as an alliance between property owners for their mutual benefit, elevates property above humanity. This is not to necessarily endorse the destruction of property in all or even any circumstances, but rather to illustrate that there is actually a viable debate about property destruction as it relates to the concept of violence, and so it is disingenuous to automatically and unquestioningly point to property destruction as “acts of violence”.
Next time I shall begin to explore more of the nature of anarchism itself, beginning to discuss what anarchism is, rather than what it is not.

for further reading . . .

• None Found