Anarchism and Political Theory

in their turn have both the potential will and the potential capacity to cooperate with each other to the same degree. On the surface there seems to be nothing wrong with this Anarchism and Political statement — no anarchist would disagree with any of the five Theory assertions. The issue, however, is Dunn’s presumption that this is a “common version” of anarchism. Common where? Per- Contemporary Problems haps among the dozen or so professional philosophers who have formulated a version of anarchism that adheres to the disciplinary expectations of academic political theory. But it Uri Gordon is hard to imagine a single self-defined anarchist who, in response to an open question about the meaning of anarchism, would annunciate this or any other roll-call of interconnected assertions. What we would hear, rather, is a combination of attitudes, opinions, emotions and outlooks — a piece of narra- tive rhetoric — which may cohere in the respondent’s mind but which does not conform to the expectations we would have from a theory. Bonanno may be too categorical in his statement that anarchism “is not” a political theory — inside a philo- sophical frame of discourse (such as this thesis) it may well be addressed and developed as political theory. However, if anarchism “is” a political theory, plain and simple, then anarchists can only be activists who endorse something that is recognis- ably a theory in their heads. Since none of them does, we come to the absurd conclusion that no activists are anarchists. A response could be that, very well, activists may not inde- pendently think their anarchism in such terms, but it is enough that they will agree with the philosopher’s definition once pre- sented to them to make it valid a-posteriori. But this still leaves us with two problems. First, although activists may not, as I said, disagree with Dunn’s statement or with other putative expositions of “anarchist principles”, they may still have good reasons to feel that the statement is too thin. While such a 2007 statement may describe a distilled version of activists’ opinions 52 Kropotkin, in his seminal Encyclopaedia Britannica article, defines anarchism as “the name given toa principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government” (Kropotkin 1910 — emphasis added here and below). Emma Goldman similarly defines it as “The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law” (Goldman 1917). For Daniel Guerin anarchism is “one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main com- ponents are concern for liberty and haste toabolish the State” (Guerin 1965). While Noam Chomsky says it is “an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary” (Chomsky 1996). However, the chief problem with talking about anarchism primarily as a political theory is that, in doing so, we usher in a set of expectations that would attach themselves to any political theory. Under such a regime of expectations, anything qualifying as anarchism would have to consist in a series of claims and arguments, substantiated by logical and/or empiri- cal reasoning, with careful attention to the use of concepts. To be sure, such an account can be provided to the most precise degree. Thus, for John Dunn (2000), a “common version ofan- archism” asserts several things: firstly, that centralized coercive power can never be justified; secondly, that it is never a precondi- tion for organized social life; thirdly, that it never (or at least seldom) on balance has consequences more desirable than those which would follow from its absence; fourthly, that human beings who belong to a single community potentially have both the will and the capacity to cooperate with each other to whatever degree such cooperation will be necessary to serve their several (real?) interests; and fifthly, that individual communities 51 a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modifica- tion in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in con- trast, is a set of “fixed” ideas which people believe Contents dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or “chang- ing” it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. (McKay et.al. 2003 §A) Abstract ......................... 7 Acknowledgements .................. 8 This popular notion of ideology as dogma is far removed from the approach taken in this thesis. Anarchists too Introduction 10 construct reality according to their biases, generating a dis- Contemporary Anarchism: A first look . 13 tinct political epistemology or mode of ideological thinking. Two Agendas ...................... 15 Doubtlessly many anarchists do hold some judgements — Between Philosophy and Participatory Research . 20 “government and hierarchy are bad”, for example — to be Discussion ....................... 34 correct by definition. The fear at the back of such statements is the atrocities committed in the name of “revolutionary” ideologies — whether socialist, fascist or fundamentalist — Part I. Explaining Anarchism 45 “the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, Chapter 1: What Moves the Movement? 46 a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling Anarchism as a Political Culture . 46 elite”. But what causes atrocities is not the doctrine itself, The A-word ....................... 47 but its compulsory application to society through the state. From Networks to Political Culture . 55 Anarchists, like every other social movement, have an identi- Forms of organisation . 61 fiable ideological orientation, however unstable and shifting Campaigning and direct action repertoires . 64 in response to debate and selfcriticism. However, this is only Discursive aspects . 66 one aspect of what defines the anarchist movement. Broader cultural attributes . 68 As for theory, it is questionable how far we can say that an- The Role of Identity . 69 archism “is” a political theory in any privileged sense. Beyond Old-school and New-school . 78 the openness and diversity of perspectives within anarchism (which means it should not expected to be “a” political the- Chapter 2: Threads of Resistance 83 ory), a more basic issue is whether the way in which anarchist Tracing the Genealogy of Contemporary Anarchism 83 activists actually think and communicate can be described as Defeat and Stagnation . 85 theory. Writers within the anarchist tradition, classical and An Haphazard Rebirth . 90 contemporary, have also been party to the unquestioned as- An International Movement . 96 sumption that anarchism is primarily a matter of theory. Thus 50 3 Chapter 3: What Anarchists Want 103 and indigenous movements from Asia and Latin America, who The Logic of Anti-Authoritarian Political Language . 103 have never made reference to anarchism or to any other set of Struggle Against Domination . 104 ideas rooted in a western historical experience. Finally, many Prefigurative politics . 110 activists do not want to call themselves anarchists because they Open — Ended Politics . 124 don’t want to adopt any label at all. They identify with very many political and cultural threads, but believe that circum- scribing their beliefs under any one “ism” is unnecessarily con- Part II: Anarchist Anxieties 134 stricting and implies (however unjustly) that they have a fixed and dogmatic set of beliefs. In the words of one activist, Chapter 4: Power and Equality 135 Leadership and Power in Anarchist Organising, Part Personally I am not down with any titles, tags, or One . 135 designations. I’ve spent most of my adult life try- “But we don’t have leaders…” . 137 ing to find ways to do away with genres and bor- From Leadership to Power . 143 ders and envelopes, so I think we are always bet- Power-over as Domination . 145 ter off if we don’t label ourselves or allow any- Power-to and Power as Influence . 154 one to label us. Anarchy or anarchism is really Power-with or power-among . 158 something we seek and live and struggle for, so it Equality and “Activist Resources” . 159 doesn’t matter what we call ourselves (or don’t) if we are in the midst of action doing it” (Imarisha Chapter 5: Power, Invisibility and Solidarity 171 and Not4Prophet 2004). Leadership and Power in Anarchist Organising, Part Two . 171 This line of expression is related to another reason forre- Decentralisation . 173 sistance to the anarchist self-appellation. As David Graeber Between Enforcement and Coercion . 176 points out, “there are some who take anarchist principles of Anarchism and Democracy . 179 anti-sectarianism and open-endedness so seriously that they The Tyranny of Structurelessness Reconsidered . 183 are sometimes reluctant to call themselves ‘anarchists’ for that Accountability . 191 very reason” (Graeber 2002). The reason here is the expecta- The Forum and the Campfire . 196 tion that anarchism should be understood as a closely-defined Power and Solidarity . 202 “ideology”. As the authors of the popular “An Anarchist FAQ” are at great pains to argue, Chapter 6: Beyond “Diversity of Tactics” 209 Re-assessing the Anarchist Debate on Violence . 209 Anarchism is a socio-economic and political the- Contextualising the Present Debate . 210 ory, but not an ideology. The difference is very im- Messy Definitions . 220 portant. Basically, theory means you have ideas; Limits to Justification . 234 an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is 4 49 “representative” account of anarchism without any reference Empowerment, Revenge and Armed Struggle . 243 to a constituent group of people. But in introducing the re- quirement for such reference, another difficulty immediately Chapter 7: Luddites and Hackers 252 arises: how should the researcher define and demarcate that Defining a Broad-Based Anarchist Politics of Tech- constituent group itself? This is particularly difficult with nology . 252 anarchism, given the widespread reluctance among political Anarchists and Technology .

Load more