The Case for Anarchism

Here is an approach to governing that is based on the outright rejection of government … anarchism. Let’s take a look at this.

Anarchism argues that there is no conceivable justification for government. It is an illegitimate, intrusive and coercive form of control over people. Anarchists, such as A. John Simmons and Robert Paul Wolff, claim that governments, like the United States are illegitimate precisely because they are corrupted easily by “special interests”. This domination can take the form of passive neglect or coercive force. Nevertheless, the goal is to dominate society for its own purposes and to be placed in the service of corporate elites.

 In turn elites insist that their interests are optimal for those they govern. Anarchists claim that government capture by elites is not the only form of illegitimate control. Government capture manifests itself in authoritarian and totalitarian countries, theocracies, the third world, etc. But if anarchism rejects government, how then do people live in society while avoiding, presumably, self-annihilation?  

So, here’s the answer.

The defense of anarchism is based on a grass-roots form of self-government. Rousseau argues this is the truest form of governance. This would eliminate authoritarian special interests while promoting a democracy which prioritizes fundamental human rights. But there are differences among anarchists on how to achieve “grass-roots” self-government. 

Here are four. 

For the first model of anarchism that I argue for is based on an ancient Hindu form which rejects both the Hindu caste system and any form of government domination. It is based on a small local communities of self-rule, “swaraj” and it incorporates a strategy of passive nonviolent political resistance, “satyagraha”. This is what Gandhi referred to as the path “ahimsa”, and the strategy he encouraged to end the colonial occupation and oppression of British rule in India. Within these communities all people are accepted and valued regardless of their Caste status in Hindu society. This includes the “untouchables” or “dalit” who, according to Hindu belief, suffer evil in the present for the evil they inflicted in their past life. In effect, Gandhian anarchism sought to promote communities of resistance to all forms of government rule. 

Embracing the Untouchables Anarchist

The second type of anarchism is commonly associated with militant or violent revolution. Like passive anarchism, violent anarchism takes the position that government is illegitimate in nature. However, what separates the two is that violent anarchism identifies government as an “evil” that must be overthrown by force if necessary. Past examples of violent anarchism can be identified in the labor wars in the late 19^th and 20^th centuries in Europe and the United States. This type of anarchism resulted from government suppression of union organizing. During this time period union organizing was illegal and even considered a form of treason, sedition and insurrection. In reaction to this, anarchists, communists, Wobblies, IWW, AFL, CIO, etc., actively engaged in literal warfare between labor and capital. Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, and Georges Sorel’s Reflections on Violence provide a framework for violent anarchism. This later developed into the syndicalist movement throughout Europe and the United States.

There is no clear answer as to whether violent tactics by anarchists will guarantee a just outcome. It begs the question as to whether these tactics might lead to even further violence. Recent examples of Alt-Right anarchist tactics in the January 6 attempted coup and the George Floyd riots are examples.

To be rejected are extreme forms of anarchist tactics outlined in William Powell's The Anarchist Cookbook.

Violent Anarchist Muppet

The third type of anarchism is based on Robert Paul Wolff’s, In Defense of Anarchism. Like the other forms of anarchism, this position also adheres to the inherent corruption of government and its illegitimate authority. However, this position asserts that government may be necessary as a matter of practical necessity. Though the exercise of government power may be permitted, it can only be exercised in a limited way. This may include the establishment of a small but local welfare state managed by self-governing communities. Anarchism in this sense must promote social justice.

The last form of anarchism is based on an activist role which seeks to redirect the functions of illegitimate government, i.e., the existence of racist policies, etc., toward a legitimate government which promotes social justice. This form of anarchism must be based on peaceful protest, such as the civil disobedience which was argued for by Henry David Thoreau in his Walden Pond. Thoreau argued that his protest in not paying taxes for the Mexican American, must be accompanied by his willingness to accept the consequences of his "illegal" act of defiance. This method of protest was also embraced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, whose tactics proved to be highly successful in ending injustice. King included the Judeo-Christian principles of justice (Moses and the Exodus) and the Gospels of Jesus which teach of nonviolence and unconditional love. Nevertheless, the role of government for King must be limited while it is to craft public policies that must constrain injustice in order to promote justice. King reminds us that “morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”

Superhero Non-Violent Anarchist

I argue the peaceful, nonviolent anarchism is the political option to best promote a just and democratic society. 

To be continued ...

 

Ed Martin 

Tubac, Arizona 

Long Beach, California