Anarchism is the theory and views that proclaim the freedom of man from any compulsory management of him or someone’s power. Anarchists advocate the abolition of all forms of exploitation and coercion. The ideas of anarchism were first formulated by ancient Greek and ancient Chinese philosophers. But the main theorist and founder of traditions is Pierre Joseph Proudhon. His works came out in the middle of the XIX century.
Today anarchism is mostly mistaken. We associate this theory with chaos and disorder, Makhno’s father and freeman of the Civil War, where everyone is at war with everyone. Recently, the crisis of the social state has led to a new interest in anarchist ideas. To accept or deny them, it is necessary to get rid of a whole series of misconceptions and consider the views of anarchists.
Anarchism is chaos and disorder.
Few people want to see around themselves chaos, which repels people from the ideas of anarchism. But another theoretician, Pyotr Kropotkin, wrote directly that the teaching only wants to save man from the yoke of capital and state. Public principles are not denied, but they are the basis. Anarchism does not want to entrust cares to the state, demanding the involvement of all members of society. A myth more characterizes modern society. Chaos is total coercion, under which everyone can influence everyone by force and not be afraid of punishment. This is the notorious management. Chaos also arises when an individual tries on the role of the boss or the state. Legalized chaos and governance is the state. Anarchists believe that it is his control and monopolization that create poverty and instability. Without governments, people would have less incentive to commit crimes against each other.
Anarchists are against organization.
This myth can be found even among scientists. Some seriously seriously suggest not to consider Mac Stirner an anarchist because of his desire to establish an organization called the “Union of Egoists.” Anarchists are vivid individualists. Sometimes the spread of this myth is politically motivated. People are in absentia set against the theorists of anarchism and their “ridiculous” views. But the very teaching always thought of organization. Only authoritarian forms of it, built on centralization and hierarchy, are denied, those where decisions descend from the top down. Anarchists want to see decentralized and self-governing organizations, in which decisions, on the contrary, would move upward. Then there will be no division into rulers and ruled. Proudhon can find arguments for building a new socio-economic system with workers’ control and choosing candidates that can always be withdrawn.
Anarchism is a modified bourgeois individualism. This opinion was put forward by Marxists, ardent critics of anarchism. But is it possible to call this doctrine undemocratic? Is the party dictatorship in the Soviet Union more open and free? Anarchism stands for the development of individuality and personal freedom, but the basis remains democratic principles. Public organizations should not be associated with the state. Individualism justifies authoritarianism, while in anarchists, individual freedom is determined by self-government and the absence of hierarchies, which is different from the state. The anti-democratic nature of anarchism can be that most people can make mistakes. But the rule of the minority will be tyrannical in any case. So anarchism is against trusting a minority, even if it is chosen by the majority. This will help protect against abuse of power.
Anarchists are only against the state.
This myth deliberately hides a significant part of the teaching of anarchism. But the first book of the theorist was devoted not to the state, but to property. It was openly called stealing and power. After all, the owner acts as the master in relation to the one who uses the object. So begins the exploitation.Proudhon came to the conclusion that property should be abolished. It should be owned by groups of people who use it. Such a system of rights was called possession, it had to end wage labor. In other words, in 1840 anarchists demanded workers’ control over production. Analysis of the nature of property supplements the analysis of the state, these principles are closely related.
Anarchism is impossible by human nature.
Kropotkin did not attempt to idealize a person, representing anarchists better than other people. Power can spoil the very best. Theories of government control and balance are designed only to assure the powerful world that it is they who control the processes. But how is it imperfect to give authority over others? Anarchists perceive people as they are, therefore they hate the authority that spoils a person. Proudhon wrote that man began equality and ended it.
Anarchism is utopian.
Do not consider anarchy an idealized and unattainable world. The very struggle for freedom is already changing people. Kropotkin also considered utopians to be those who support state ideas. Hierarchy is only corrupting, whereas resistance is tempered by character. A new world can appear only in the struggle with the previous one.
Anarchism – the views of Proudhon.
One can not associate such a large-scale doctrine with one person. After all, people tend to be wrong. The same Proudhon, having defined the basic ideas of anarchism, was absolutely wrong in matters of feminism. Moreover, the thinker with his sexism contradicted his own postulates. We can not exclude life from critical analysis of the hierarchy, leaving only state and property issues under attack. Doubts about Proudhon about the strikes did not share Bakunin, Kropotkin and other anarchist revolutionaries. Teaching is not determined by one person, it is constantly evolving and supplemented.
Anarchists are atheists.
This is also a very popular myth. But Bakunin in his works, although denying the existence of God, believed that anyone can be a servant of any cult and even erect religious structures at his own expense. We simply need to deprive the church of the influence of the corporation, which educates new adherents and directly interferes in politics. Proudhon himself said that first, to condemn religion, we must condemn the church. Similar thoughts, by the way, are found in the late Tolstoy.
Anarchism implies violence.
Among the anarchists there are both adherents of pacifism, and vice versa. Today the first point of view prevails, but unfortunately, it was not always so. In the late XIX-early XX century terrorists with bombs for a long time accustomed the public to the image of a warlike anarchist. But Proudhon himself said that equality must be won by word, not sword. The basis is the principle of non-aggression. No one should exert force in relation to the person or property of another.
Anarchism is opposed to schools and education.
Bakunin believed that it was really necessary to abolish all state universities. But at the same time he offered to place education care on communities and free associations. If it is profitable for them, the young man will receive the necessary knowledge. In state schools, anarchists see another mechanism that creates elements of a hierarchical structure. In such schools, people are deprived of the right to be what they want. And quality education remains inaccessible to the broader poor.
Anarchists against roads and infrastructure.
Again, we are talking about the need for roads to be built by communities if necessary. Financing is easy to get – to raise funds from drivers, through advertising. The roads to which roads it leads can also build roads. But anarchists do not see the need to involve the state. Everyone should be managed by supply and demand. Similar views on security issues, firefighting, rescue services. The more the service will be in demand by the society, the better will be its quality and price in a free competitive market.Since
there is no anarchism in Russia today.
In our country there are many directions of anarchist persuasion. Even today in Russia there are such branches as anti-nuclear movement, anarcho-syndicalists, distributing free vegan food Food not bombs, anti-fascists. Fascism is the main antipode of anarchy, so it is impossible without the antipode of the totalitarian regime.
Anarchism can not stop people from being robbed, raped and murdered.
The fact that the world around us is infected with violence, makes us wonder – can we get rid of it altogether? Even correctional institutions, prisons, have turned into crime schools. Governmental war on drugs makes criminals millions. Obviously, the current system is imperfect, so why not try a new third-party solution? Anarchists believe that when the issue of personal security begins to provide not the state, but private individuals and companies, the offender will think twice before acting. The patrols, which are financed out of rent, can provide the order. Perhaps, private roads with protection will attract more attention than unsafe routes. The government imposes the only solution, whereas without the state there will be an unlimited choice.
Without the government’s authority to manage everything, large corporations will start.
If the society is deprived of government, then the consumer will be governed. And large large corporations usually only help the authorities to retain control over the small business sector. It is in their interests to adopt laws and regulations. In order for such a corporation to remain rich without its lobby, it needs to create a quality product at a competitive price. But is it bad? For a corporation to dominate, it must either have more money than all the other competitors put together, or people should see legitimate power in it. But the first moment is impossible in the market without the influence of the state, and the latter is determined precisely by the government and religion. The idea that McDonald’s can enslave society is absurd, no one will consider the legitimate power of Ronald’s clown.
Anarchists are addicts.
There is some truth in this, but there are also drug addicts among representatives of other political and social doctrines, social groups. People who call for skepticism about the authorities are also skeptical about the government’s campaign “drugs are evil.” Many anarchists are experimenters in life, using the instrument that benefits. The same marijuana helps many to relax, it is increasingly perceived as a remedy. But there are among the anarchists and those who hate any narcotic substances. This philosophy attracts thinkers from different walks of life. So do not put the stigma of drug addicts on all anarchists.
Anarchists are not serious, they know nothing about politics.
To become an anarchist, one has to understand politics well. They are people obsessed with their idea, who seriously talk about the future of mankind. Anarchists understand historical patterns and see objectively what government power is. It is a violent, monopolistic and non-commercial force. If you ask the anarchist about a political issue, you can expect a lengthy thorough conversation.
Anarchists will not be able to protect the country from foreign invaders.
In a stateless society, even more people will stand up for his defense. Instead of a single military man, who is on the state’s backing, under anarchism, much more people can stand up for protection, which will be financed by their interested clients. Defense is the same business as others, because people want to live in safety and protect themselves from armed encroachment of enemies and competitors. War is advantageous when it is possible to parasitize on tax flows. With anarchism, defense capacity will grow, like personal protection.Is it easy to capture a country where any of the millions of citizens can buy firearms in the store?
Anarchists consider themselves omniscient.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, Liberals and others, anarchists do not pretend to know what is best for a person and how to live. It is assumed that only the citizen himself must determine this, relying on his own interests. Anarchists have several theories about the possible functioning of society, but most importantly – to exclude aggression. And now, under this criterion, any government that is vested with power no longer falls within it.
Anarchism implies the absence of any rules.
Anarchism does not deny rules or laws. The main thing here is the absence of rulers. The person is still responsible for his actions and property. It’s just that in a stateless society, the laws of a residential complex operate in the apartment, and in the department store the laws of this store itself. In a quiet family area, making noise in the evening will be forbidden, and gossips and drugs will be allowed somewhere. The road campaign will write the rules of driving and so on. Business will abandon stupid unjustified laws, as this will quickly scare customers away. In a decentralized society, we have personal freedom, and the rules do not govern our life. When there is a question of property or violation of the rules of the crime, then private courts or arbitration companies can solve it. They will succeed and be recognized through fair decisions. So it will be possible to escape from the state monopoly on arbitration and corruption in the courts. And this is just one of the ideas.
Anarchism is reduced to graffiti, broken windows and riots.
Vandalism has never been the end in itself of anarchism. Such actions are part of the struggle against the state system with domination over the individual. It is power that breeds violence.
Anarchists are another political party that wants to seize power.
The goal of anarchists is not to seize power, but to destroy it.
By their actions, anarchists are detrimental to the national interests.
It is likely that the term “national interests” hides the interests of the ruling elite. The people get wars, taxes, police persecution and infringement of rights. People have their own interests, which allow themselves to organize themselves.
Anarchists are loafers who do not want to work.
Under anarchy, labor will be replaced by robbery. Anarchists see a society in which labor will be free. And work in conditions of forced exploitation, when income goes up, the subject of pride can not be.
Anarchism sooner or later comes down to communism.
In the most anarchist movement, there is no consensus on this issue. Anarcho-communists consider it unacceptable to use hired labor and the existence of private property. This group believes that after the fall of the state it will be possible to give everything to everyone and demand from each according to their abilities. But anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-individualists recognize property as the human right to work voluntarily anywhere, including on the basis of labor relations. In a society where there is no coercion, different models are possible. But in general, anarchists are against monopolies in politics and economics. Enterprises must be given up by the working people, and the economic strategy must be determined on the basis of the consent of the workers.
Anarchists will not be able to provide social security for disabled people.
It is believed that no one except the state can support pensioners and disabled people. But in this way the authorities plant society on the needle. Funds for pensions and benefits are selected from the very people at the expense of taxes and duties, tariffs and inflation. But most of the fees in this case is not at all on the maintenance of pensioners, but on officials, the police and the army.Perhaps, the old people could be better kept without intermediaries? In a stateless society, social security is possible in many ways – at the expense of the collective, voluntary charity, the same relatives.