To this point we have engaged some preliminary questions about the natures of empire and resistance. Now it’s time to begin exploring the basics of anarchism, starting with a rebuttal of some common misconceptions about anarchy as a political philosophy (I should note here that I tend to use “anarchism” as referring to political anarchy, though my usage is not always consistent). Anarchism as a political philosophy is often confused with a more generalized notion of the meaning of “anarchy”. To quote Jesus Radicals:

Just like the word “Christianity” itself, the words “anarchy,” “anarchism” and “anarchist” are abused terms. They are abused so often by the media, state historians and government officials that, by no fault of her own, the average person on the street only thinks of chaos, terrorists and random violence when the term anarchist comes up.

The first major misconception is that anarchism is about chaos or disorder. In fact, anarchism is not a politics of disorder – quite the opposite, really. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who may have been the first person to use the term “anarchist” self-referentially, is famous for his statement, “Anarchy is order”. He said, “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.” Proudhon believed that if people could be freed from external tyrannies they would create for themselves a structure in which to live life that would be, on the whole, more free, more just, and more ordered than that which was imposed by the alliance of government, economic power, and military and police violence. 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.

About Jason Barr