When I was 12-years-old, I used to walk around calling myself an anarchist. Of course, I did not know anything about anarchist political theory. All I really knew was that an anarchist was someone who sprayed anarchist symbols underneath bridges and sported mohawks. I didn't know anything about Bakunin, Proudhon, or Chomsky.
My own opinion of anarchism nowadays is that it is a cute collection of wishful thinking. I also think it is an unfortunate case of reductionism. Authority does not equal power. In fact, while power is an easily recognizable phenomenon, authority is far more nebulous. Think about the banker in the Monopoly boardgame you own or the captain of the football team. Are these power-hungry dictators?
In any sense, the anarchist archives is an excellent collection of thinkers, pamphlets, and historical international organizations that at one time rivaled Marxism as a dominant revolutionary movement. You'll also read about the First International, the Paris Commune, and the Spanish Civil War.
Think of it as the political ideology the world thankfully avoided — and here's the literature to prove it.
Friday, March 30, 2007
"I am an Anarchist!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Two things I would like to comment on: first the notion of authority. Authority can be viewed as an institutionalised form of power, such as the law. Second is your idea that anarchism is cute but unachievable. If your idea of anarchism is the dismantling of the state and everyone living in bliss, then yes that is cute. But another, perhaps post-modern view, is that anarchism is a permanent critique of authority; it is a journey rather than a destination.
I would see the importance of anarchism in that it promotes the ideal of relationships between structures and organisations that are other than hierarchical and the promotes self help, community, sharing and all that good stuff.
When you say that it is a cute idea, is one to assume the opposite that the current arrangement is okay. I presume not. So is it a case that you are saying it may be ideal but is not workable as opposed to not desirable?
Clearly creating a functional society that is in general benefical to most of humankind is a knoty problem. What are you offering instead as a solution or are you saying its impossible?
Post a Comment