The Great Debate: Anarchism

Last week we weighed up the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments for being portrayed as anti-capitalist. This week, anarchism is our topic. As political philosophies go, anarchism is one of the most misunderstood, but could it contain the answers to the world’s problems?

FOR – Donnacha DeLong

Do you like being told what to do with your life? Do you appreciate it when politicians, bosses and experts seem to think that they know more about what you should do than you do yourself? If you do, then stop reading now.

If, on the other hand, you think you are the best person to decide about you and that the same is probably true of most people, you’re on your way to becoming an anarchist. Anarchism is based on the idea that true freedom is only possible where people are in control of their own lives.

Anarchists argue that our lives are controlled by coercive authorities and imposed hierarchies that control our lives both politically and economically. That is why most anarchists oppose both the existence of the state and of capitalism. As Bakunin argued, “Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and […] socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”

Anarchism, as its developed as a political movement over the last 150 years or so has been a key element of the fight for women’s rights, for gay rights, against racism and other forms of discrimination and helped build the radical trade union movements that gained workers the basic rights they now enjoy. Inspirational figures like Albert and Lucy Parsons, Louise Michel, Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, Errico Malatesta, Buenaventura Durruti, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are just some of the names in the anarchist tradition. Unlike other political viewpoints, anarchism is a conversation over the ages, not tied to specific doctrines or one thinker.

Anarchism has a bad reputation, misrepresented as a violent creed stereotyped by bomb-throwing terrorists in the past and black-clad vandals in the present. These aspects do exist, by they have never represented the majority of anarchists – who can be found everywhere. Some anarchists are teachers, doctors, trade unionists – the people who spend their time working to make life better for everyone inspired by an idea of a future free from oppression and inequality, a world based on free distribution of the things we need and free association of autonomous individuals.

AGAINST – Brian Whelan

The anarchists can’t save us now. As the global economy went into meltdown in 2008 a British anarchist group took to the streets and called for the system to ‘collapse faster’. For me this event captured all the worst aspects of a movement that increasingly has nothing to say about important events beyond glib slogans.

The anarchist movement is amorphous, made up of vast and contradictory groups together under one banner, united by their ideology of opposition to the state. There are many positive elements, I won’t deal with them here. This year’s London anarchist bookfair posed the question ‘Is Capitalism destroying itself? And can we replace it?’. The unfortunate answer is no. As capitalism teeters our society faces a choice of socialism or barbarism, yet many anarchists still place their faith in spontaneous insurrections, naively hoping capitalism might topple itself so they can pick up the pieces. They praised the recent riots as a sign of a society fighting back, where a more appropriate analysis would see them as neo-liberal riots against a backdrop of a defeated working class.

Elsewhere anarchists, lacking a real analysis of the current situation, have blamed the financial crisis on ‘the bankers’, missing a trick by allowing the inherent failures of capitalism off the hook. There are huge parallels to be drawn between the anarchists and the Occupy movement and serious warnings to be heeded too. The Occupy movement has uncritically taken some of the worst aspects of anarchist practice on board, adopting the consensus decision making process and fetishising form over content. The usual failings of the consensus model are clear; meetings drag on, informal leaderships emerge and frustrated activists drift away. It is a hangover of the worst parts of the late 60’s countercultural libertarian movement.

The anarchist focus on direct action has helped to keep the movement interesting but all too often leaves them stuck in a cycle of activity for the sake of it. If the goal of the Occupy movement is to take advantage of a perceived historic rupture and begin the work of changing society then your first job should be to pack up the tents and go back to your communities. Learn the historic lessons of anarchism, stop petitioning the city and go do the hard work of building a real political movement.

A debate is scheduled at TentCity University after the GA on Wednesday, November 2nd for us to carry on this debate in person. See you there!