<<

New Proposals: Journal of and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol. 10, No. 1 (April 2019) Pp.58-63

The Failure Of The And The Rise Of In Contemporary Anti-Systemic

Morgan Rodgers Gibson University of Queensland

Abstract: The centrality of anarchism to the praxis of contemporary anti-systemic movements has been well docu- mented. From the alter-globalisation movement to , many contemporary anti-systemic movements are defined by their commitment to some of the central tenets of anarchism, including the pursuit of decentralized, directly democratic and egalitarian organisational forms that are independent from and reject the state as an agent of . This stands in contrast to traditional anti-systemic forces which, as identifies, have typically seen the state as the principle agent of social change. However, within the scholarly literature, only limited attempts have been made to develop an understanding as to why many anti-systemic movements now reject the state as an agent of change. This paper seeks to provide a theoretical and historical account of this. By tracing the historical failure of ‘state-centric’ anti-systemic movements (principally state communist, social-democratic and nationalist forces) this paper argues that an anarchistic praxis – though not a doctrinaire ideological programme – has become a primary point of reference for contemporary anti-systemic movements. It argues further that this can be seen, in many ways, as a response to the failure of ideologically motivated, state-centric anti-systemic forces to bring about substantial, transformative social change once assuming power. This argument be substantiated and illustrated through two qualitative cases: the Zapatistas and the South African shack dweller’s movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo.

Keywords: Abahlali baseMjondolo, anarchism, anti-systemic, praxis, Zapatistas

Introduction narchism has long been dismissed as incompatible 2013), WikiLeaks (Curran and Gibson 2013) and Awith the complexities of contemporary ; the alter-globalisation movement in the West (Dixon either a recipe for and chaos, or, more often, 2012), and the Landless ’s Movement (Stedile a ‘pre-modern’ utopian fantasy. Indeed, these are 2002), the Zapatistas (EZLN) (Curran 2006; Graeber axioms often uncritically taught to budding 2002) and Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) (Gibson (see Heywood 2007). To such observers, it must thus 2008; Pithouse 2006) in the ‘global South.’ It is thus be perplexing to find anarchism now of substantial evident that much contemporary anti-systemic praxis influence within what Wallerstein (2002) labels is defined by a commitment to some of anarchism’s ‘anti-systemic’ social movements. central praxiological tenets, principles and analyses, Much scholarly discussion identifies what I refer including to , decentralisaition to as an anarchistic praxis as at the centre of these and the pursuit of directly democratic social forms movements. For instance, Curran (2006, 2), Graeber (see Epstein 2001; Gordon 2007; Graeber 2002). Most (2002) and Wallerstein (2002) each identify the cen- significant is that anti-systemic movements increasingly trality of anarchism in contemporary opposition to reject the state as an agent of change. It is this final neoliberal globalisation. Elsewhere, anarchism – or, at point that forms the core of this article. The originality least, anarchist principles – has been identified as an of this piece lies in the fact that, whilst, as explored, animating ideological force behind Occupy (Gibson many identify the centrality of anarchism within 44 • M. R. GIBSON contemporary anti-systemic praxis, few attempts have promise: the radical transformation of society. In many been made to develop an understanding as to why cases, they instead became functionaries of state power. many anti-systemic movements now reject the state In important ways, the state has thus ‘failed’ as an agent as an agent of change. In light of this lacuna, I seek of change, substantiating the anarchist to provide a theoretical-historical account of the way contention that it is destined to reproduce domination. anti-systemic movements have developed and changed. This failure also helps to explain the widespread adoption, To do this, my paper will develop an understanding of within contemporary anti-systemic movements, of an why an anarchistic praxis has become central within anti-state, anarchistic praxis. contemporary anti-systemic movements. The final section empirically illustrates this argu- I argue that an anarchistic praxis – though not a ment through two cases: the Zapatistas of Chiapas, doctrinaire ideological programme – has become a pri- and the South African shack dweller’s - mary point of reference for contemporary anti-systemic ment, Abahlali baseMjondolo. These movements social movements and that this can be seen, in many illuminate that contemporary anti-systemic actors ways, as a response to the failure of state-centric ver- increasingly recognise both the failure of state-centric sions to bring about transformative social change once anti-systemic movements and, more broadly, the fail- assuming power. Admittedly, one cannot explain the ure (and, perhaps, inability) of the state, to transform actions of every anti-systemic actor. Hence, I am not social order. Besides illustrating my argument, there are alleging that state-centric anti-systemic movements no significant methodological I chose the EZLN longer exist or that their ideological underpinnings do and AbM over possible case-study candidates. not inspire participants, but merely that the influence First, they are amongst the largest and most influen- of state-centric anti-systemic movements is on the tial contemporary anti-systemic movements. Second, wane and that, as a result of their failure, an anarchis- these cases (both of the ‘global south’) represent voices tic praxis is increasingly significant in the distinct and separate from ‘Western’ manifestations of contemporary anti-systemic forces. Furthermore, of an anarchistic praxis – like Occupy – that have I am not arguing that this state-centric praxis is the received comparatively ample academic focus. For only these forces have failed. However, it is the instance, while the EZLN, and their impact on the most significant shared feature of their praxis and is the alter-globalisation movement, have been extensively feature this paper focuses on. analysed, there has been limited analysis of the move- Necessitated by the misconceptions surrounding ments’ specific rejection of the state as an agent of it, this article begins by explicating what constitutes an change. Third, limited attention has been paid to the anarchistic praxis. Sympathising with socialist critiques specific movements that utilize an anarchistic praxis of , an anarchistic praxis is differentiated from in the global south. Hence, utilising cases from the the numerous varieties of state by of global ‘South’ will broaden quantitative and qualitative its pursuit of decentralised, directly democratic social understanding of ‘anarchical’ movements, lending fur- forms independent of the state and that, as far as ther applicability and generalisability to my argument. possible, prefigure anarchism’s utopian social vision. The Finally, both movements represent a ‘living ’ in second section explores – through the of Immanuel which anarchist principles serve as the source of social Wallerstein – the historical dominance of a ‘state-centric’ life and political enlightenment, acting to substantiate praxis within anti-systemic movements – animated by the claim (see Curran 2006) that anarchism constitutes the notion that the state is the major agent of social the core of contemporary pursuits of a post-capitalist change, and that, subsequently, taking state power is a world. necessary initial part of enacting social change – before outlining the considerable success state-centric anti- Anarchism and an ‘Anarchistic Praxis’ systemic movements have had in obtaining state power. Hierarchy, Capitalism and the State However, despite this success, these movements sub- Etymologically, anarchism means (something like) the sequently failed to deliver on the second part of their absence of . Along these lines, Peter THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 45

(1910) claims anarchist ‘tendencies’ run throughout with Marxists and other state socialists a rejection of the of social and political thought. This claim capitalism, arguing it is fundamentally exploitative is substantiated by (2001, 17), who and alienating. Indeed, anarchism, in its denunciation asserts that “anarchist ideas are to be found in almost of hierarchy, is consistent with Marx’s conception of every period of known history”: evident not only in the capitalism as alienation insofar as both are ultimately of its canonical figures, but also as far back as pursuant of a social order in which social bonds are the the Taoist , , the Hedonists, Cynics and Stoics product of free association. in , the practices of Christian sects of In recent history ‘anarcho’-capitalists the and the medieval of Europe, and right-wing libertarians have posited the inviolabil- and also in the works of ‘utopian’ socialists like Fourier. ity of private , contending infringements Nonetheless, throughout much of history the constitute a fundamental breach of . word ‘anarchism’ has been pejoratively synonymous They go on to argue that the can actualise with disorder and even terror, associations maintained as a non-coercive of exchange between to this day. utility maximising agents, with violation on the part The notion of ‘anarchism’ as a coherent political of the state qualifying as a hierarchical imposition , named as such, took shape via the writings of that quashes intrinsic moral rights and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. For Proudhon, it is not anar- (see, for instance Nozick 1974). However anarchism, chy, but hierarchy, that produces chaos and disorder. particularly in its ‘classical’ social forms, has typically For anarchists, the of social and condemned capitalism for its exploitative and alien- practices are directly tied to the extent that they pro- ating effects. Anarchist’s – foremost amongst them, mote individual freedom. From this conviction springs Kropotkin (1904) – claim that capitalism, by engen- anarchism’s opposition to the state, which anarchists dering , greed and , threatens the consider the exemplar of externally imposed hierarchy. altruistic and mutualistic bonds that underlie human It is not only the principle source of social antagonism, speciation, and thus threatens social atomisation and but, as Kropotkin (1946, 1) contends, also “the greatest fragmentation. The capitalist and private hindrance to the birth of a society based on equality property, rather than actualising human freedom, and liberty, as well as the historic means designed to constitute instead forms of arbitrary domination. They prevent this blossoming.” operationalizes produce economic that operate for and state power. As a consequence, anarchism stands in under the of the few against the many. The opposition to both the state and government (concepts masses not only live dreary lives as alienated cogs in a sometimes used interchangeably within the tradition). broader economic machine, but a life of compulsion, As Proudhon (2004, 294) famously declares: forced as they are to sell their in order to survive. Furthermore, by forcing much of the popula- To be governed is to be… spied upon, directed, - tion into the realm of competitive market relations in driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, order to survive, capitalism actively impedes the devel- preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, opment of alternative lifestyles and social arrangements, censured, commanded, by creates who have neither promoting homogeneity and . the right not the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. For anarchists, the state is not external to this To be governed is to be… repressed, fined, vilified, process, but complicit in it. The state, amongst other harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, chocked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, things, enforces , maintains systemic stability, pan- shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed… That is ders to the interests of capital and fills functionalist gaps government, that is its , that is its . in the market in times of crisis. It also plays a directly violent role in crushing socially oppositional elements. However, the anarchist opposition to hierarchy Capitalism, in short, is propped-up and reinforced by goes beyond anti-, demanding the repudia- the violence of the state. This is confirmed by Hayek tion of hierarchy in various forms. Anarchists share (1994, 45) who, nominally a champion of unregulated 46 • M. R. GIBSON capitalism, nonetheless admits a necessary role for the critique of capitalism with a liberal critique of social- state in maintaining the capitalist order, stating: “in ism”; thus constituting the libertarian wing of socialism. no [market] system that could be rationally defended Against the of political and economic would the state just do nothing.” forces advocated by socialism, anarchists argue the Hence, anarchism traditionally stands in opposi- social appropriation of capital must be carried out tion to both the state and capitalism. In this sense, it directly by themselves. is “the confluence of the two great currents which… since the French have found such char- An Anarchistic Praxis: Prefiguration, Direct acteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: and Decentralisation socialism and ” (Rocker 2001, 16). The great Hence, for anarchists, social forms ought to prefigure, liberal thinkers, in order to maximize individual liberty, as far as possible, the post-capitalist society sought. sought to limit governmental and statist functions. In short, a liberated society can only be achieved Anarchists extend this critique of the state further, and through similarly libertarian means of getting there seek to eliminate political power itself from social life. (Franks 2006, 99). The reason for this, anarchists posit, But they also appreciate the socialist critique of liberal- is that, whatever the intentions, the means of praxis ism. Personal and social freedom can only be actualized tend to inherently transform into and become its ends. in the context of equitable, non-dominatory economic Bookchin (2004, 11), for instance, argues that the conditions. Anarchism thus shares with socialism the historical failure of the revolutionary can be found demand to abolish capitalism in favour of common in the way in which anti-systemic forces have typically of the means of , free for the use utilised profoundly oppressive and hierarchical means of all without distinction. (such as the of the , or the However, the anarchists depart from the various ) in an attempt to realise an emancipated, state socialists on the question of how a post-capitalist post capitalist future (the ends). While anarchists and society ought to be realized. As explored below, the socialists find commonalities, particularly in their cri- social democrats seek to gain control of the bourgeois tiques of capitalism, this conflation of means and ends state through parliamentary processes, building a is the basis upon which anarchists reject both Marxian through reformist means. On the other notions of the dictatorship of and social hand, the state communists – including Marx and his democratic . Along these lines Bakunin followers1 – preserve the state and political power in (1972, 329) prophetically cautioned that statist forms the form of a proletarian dictatorship that, as discussed of socialism would, despite perhaps noble aims, spawn in the paper’s second section, after driving the transi- a tyrannical and oppressive ‘ .’ This cri- tion towards a , they hope will dissolve tique of ’s emphasis on the state as an itself, producing, from hierarchical means, the ends of agent of change is driven by anarchism’s “conviction a non-hierarchical . that an instrument of domination… cannot be used to Anarchists thus struggle against not only class, achieve liberation; that ends cannot be separated from but hierarchy itself, a distinction which constitutes means” (Gibson 2013, 341). the major point of departure for anarchists from stat- Anarchist social structures and organisational ist forms of socialism. In pursuit of a non-hierarchical forms aim to stifle human tendencies towards vio- society, anarchists contend that the struggle against lence and egoism and instead encourage spontaneity capitalism must also carry through as a struggle against and the impulse towards mutual aid. hierarchy itself, including, especially, hierarchical (1904), against Social Darwinists, Hobbesians and political power and the state. Thus, as David Apter Malthusians, sought to explicate that, alongside mutual (1970, 397-398) claims, anarchism “employs a socialist struggle, exists another, equally necessary, tendency towards mutual aid that enables human and 1 For discussion on Marx and Lenin and the dictatorship of the prole- other animals to maintain themselves against a some- tariat, and the state, see section two of this article. THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 47 times hostile nature. For anarchists, capitalism and the First, they presented themselves as . state undermine these sociable instincts. Processes of However, the two types generally had a ‘reformist’ wing rationalisation and the domination of and the that advocated social transformation from within the form produce highly fragmented, atomised system. Nevertheless, these movements, even reform- social forms, undermining bonds. ist versions, were seen as threats to the status-quo. Anarchists, in contrast to the highly centralised Furthermore, it was often difficult to tell the two apart. and undemocratic social forms that characterise state Sometimes ‘revolutionaries’ would compromise to gain capitalism and socialism alike, advocate decentralisa- or retain power, whereas ‘reformists’ often realised state tion and confederalism to suppress the emergence of power was more limited than hoped (Wallerstein 1996). hierarchy (see Bookchin 1991). For anarchists, an Second, these movements went through a parallel emancipated society can only be realised through series of debates over strategy that varied from ‘state- the direct participation of social agents in centric’ perspectives to those that viewed the state as an decision-making processes. Decentralisation aims intrinsic enemy and pursued instead civil and individ- at fostering this participation, vitiating the need for ual transformation. Within the social movements, this centralised decision-making bodies. Anarchists, in materialised in the debate between state socialists and conflating means and ends, aim instead towards the anarchists; within the national movements between development of decentralised counterpower institu- ‘political’ and ‘cultural’ nationalists (Wallerstein 1996). tions that build “the structure of the new society in Though, for a time, statist and anti-state alternatives the shell of the old” (Industrial Workers of the World, held a broadly similar influence within anti-systemic n.d). Hence, while anarchists rarely explicate what forces, the state-centric perspectives eventually tri- libertarian structures would look like (if they are to umphed, arguing the immediate source of power and be truly the product of participatory practices, how influence is located in the state apparatus (Tilly 1996, could one?), what is clear is that non-hierarchical, 10). Resultantly, anti-state alternatives came to be dis- directly democratic structures must emerge as part of missed as ‘utopian’ in that they supposedly ignored the revolutionary process, constituting simultaneously political ‘.’2 Moreover, attempts to ignore the its means and ends. centrality of the state were destined to fail as anti-state variants would, ultimately, be suppressed by the state. The State And The Promise Of Liberation ‘State-Centric’ Anti-Systemic Movements The ‘Two Step’ Strategy and the State Apparatus Utilising 1848 as a symbolic starting point, Wallerstein Contrary to more libertarian alternatives, state-centric (2002) identifies and analytically splits anti-systemic movements, broadly speaking, articulated an instru- forces into two broad forms: ‘national’ and ‘social’ mentalist ‘two step strategy’ in that they would first movements. Social movements are principally envis- seek to gain power over the state and follow this by aged as socialist , movements and initiating the second step: transforming the world unions struggling against bourgeois domination and (Wallerstein 2002, 30). Controlling the state appara- state managers. The major source of , these tus thus became the principal short-term aim of these movements contend, is the capitalist economy and the movements. Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein (1989) class relations that spring from this (Arrighi, Hopkins identify two basic ways that state-centric anti-systemic and Wallerstein 1989, 30). Conversely, ‘national’ forces sought to obtain state power: (1) through reform movements seek the creation of a -state, or to and (2) through revolution. at least secede from colonial (Goodman 2002, 17). Wallerstein (2002) argues that, although these and State movements accorded priority to their own social or In the , these debates culminated in national objectives – often specifically opposed to the conflict between social democrats (reformists) and state other – and the two rarely cooperated, the history of communists (revolutionaries). This was so despite the these movements reveals a of shared features. 2 See, for example, Lenin’s (1992). 48 • M. R. GIBSON two movements the same broad objective of the prior (and most significant) source of domination overthrowing capitalism and a similar anti-systemic (Marx and Engels 2004, 54). As Marx (2001, 26) puts heritage. Though social democracy’s reformist tactics it, the of the proletariat must have, would immediately appear to violate its very status as its immediate goal as an ‘anti-systemic’ force (actors, after all, actively the conquest of political power… this requires a pre- seek to participate in the system), social democracy vious organisation of the developed retains its anti-systemic character by maintaining the up to a certain point and arising precisely from its achievement of socialism is only possible with the abo- economic struggles… with the object of enforcing lition of capitalism. Rather than smashing the state its interests in a general form, in a form possessing or promoting revolution, however, social democrats general, socially coercive force. [emphasis added] seek the gradual overthrow of capitalism through bourgeois-parliamentary means (Steger 1997, 140). Hence, state communists advocate a working class Upon being elected, social democrats propose eventu- revolution to smash the capitalist state and replace it ally utilising state power to collectivise the means of with a revolutionary ‘proletarian state’ – which, Lenin production and eliminate , thus eliminat- (1987) would later assert, out of practical necessity, ing the domination of capital. An example of this is must be composed of a of the working class the ‘Socialist Objective’ of the , – that would subsequently transform society. which proposes that, once sufficiently establishing As sketched out most famously by Marx and political power, the Party will seek “the socialisation Engels (2002, 243-244) in , of industry, production, and exchange” this transitionary period would involve “the confisca- (McKinlay 1981, 52-53). tion of the property of all emigrants and rebels,” the Conversely, ‘revolutionary’ communists accuse “abolition of property in land” and the centralisation social democrats of legitimising capitalism through of all factories and instruments of production, credit their passive acceptation and affirmation of bourgeois and the banking system and communication and institutions and processes. In contrast to social demo- transport in the hands of the state. After dissolving crats, communists argue the capitalist state – which class antagonisms, the proletarian dictatorship would constitutes, as Marx and Engels (2002, 221) famously centralise production and eliminate wage labour and put it, a mere “committee of the ,” dedi- the dehumanising aspects of the cated to perpetuating capitalism – cannot be utilised (Marx and Engels 2002, 244). Marx (2008, 27) vaguely towards socialist ends. The state constitutes part of the posits that, at this point, the statist dictatorship would ‘superstructure,’ an outgrowth of the economic relation- eventually lose its political character and ‘wither away,’ ships emergent from the capitalist . leaving a communistic society, built on free and volun- Such an instrument cannot be reformed for emanci- tary social bonds, that transformed distribution from patory ends. Because the economic ‘’ (essentially) “each according to [their] ability, to each according to determines the character of the superstructure,3 the [their] needs.” only possible way the working class is able to realise its emancipatory is through the appropriation of The Global Rise to (State) Power of Anti-Systemic political power by a ‘dictatorship’ of the proletariat that Movements transforms base relations. As its initial task, this dicta- Despite substantial differences, it appeared as though torship seeks political power in order to destroy class state-centric forces would achieve their transformative relations inherent in capitalist society, thus abolishing promises on a transnational scale. By the mid-twenti- eth century, they had, in many cases, achieved ‘step 3 See “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of ” one’ of the two step strategy and gained state power (Marx 1994, 211) and also the preface to (Marx and Engels 2004), for Marx’s explication of the base-superstructure relation- throughout the world. Social democrats had generally ship. established influence within Western political systems THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 49

(see Lavelle 2008, 7).4 Though on an alternating basis fare concessions and alleviating extreme – not in with other parties, they still achieved enough has changed. The implications of this for the power over the state apparatus and were thus in a anti-systemic movements were huge. The masses drew position to initiate the second step of the strategy: from this, at best, negative conclusions about their social transformation. Similarly, national liberation performance; at worst, they called for revolutionary movements assumed power or partially realised their change (for instance, the Union or ). aims of decolonisation through Asia and Africa5, state- These populations ceased to believe that state-centric communist parties ruled over approximately a third movements would realise the more egalitarian future of the world6 and populist movements ascended in promised; disillusionment reflected in, for instance, . As Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein against statist versions of communism7 and (1989, 33) identify, “from the vantage point of 1848, its repudiation throughout much of the world. the success of the anti-systemic movements has been Throughout the interwar period, the terrors of the very impressive indeed.” Soviet shook the wider legitimacy of state communism.8 Though the struggle against The ‘Failure’ of State-Centric Movements temporarily legitimated the Bolshevik regime, the Yet when these anti-systemic movements gained perpetuation of systematic tyranny by power, they failed to live up to their promise of regimes, like the USSR and China, in the post- transforming the world. The longer these formerly world continued largely unabated. The centralisation anti-systemic parties or movements stayed in office, the of production, distribution and exchange extolled in more it appeared they were attempting to postpone or works like The Communist Manifesto produced system- even suppress the realisation of their transformative atic oppression of the masses they championed and promises: a ‘new’ bureaucratic . The dictatorship of the proletariat failed to disappear. Instead, around the The cadres of a militant mobilizing movement globe, the aspirations of communist parties for political became the functionaries of a party in power… a power prevented the socialistic reconstruction of the privileged of higher officials, with more power economy. As Rudolf Rocker argues: and more real than the rest of the population emerged. At the same time, the ordinary workers The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ in which naïve enjoined to toil even harder and sacrifice ever more souls wish to see merely a passing, but inevitable, in the name of national development. … transition stage to , has today grown tactics that had been daily the bread of the social move- into a frightful and a new , ment became ‘counter-revolutionary’, highly discouraged which lags behind the tyranny of the Fascist states in and usually repressed once [the movement] was in office. nothing. The assertion that the state must continue [Wallerstein 2002, 32-33. Emphasis added] to exist until class conflicts, and classes with them, disappear, sounds, in the light of historical experience, Even in states where reforms or ‘’ have almost like a bad joke. [Rocker 2004, 12-13] been achieved, there is increasing disillusionment with the capacity of such movements to deliver substantive Affirming persistent anarchist critiques, communist change. Many of the problems the anti-systemic move- parties the world over tended to become functionaries ments objected to – from alienating wage labour, to the of state power. The ultimate general results of the revo- level of democratic participation within society, or the lution envisioned by Marx never realised. Once gaining role of the state in the international system – remain in place. Simply put, though anti-systemic movements 7 For instance: in the USSR, began almost immediately, with the Makhnovists, and the Rebellion providing achieved some victories – particularly in winning wel- early examples of resistance, by various left forces, to Bolshevik rule; see Guerin (2003, 98-108). 4 Examples include the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the 8 The purpose here is not to debate the extent regimes like the USSR Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Swedish Socialdemokratiska or the ’s of China were/are ‘true’ reflections of Marxism- Arbetarpartiet. – they may also rightly be called ‘state capitalist.’ Rather, I am 5 Including in , Mozambique and Nicaragua. merely exploring the failure of ‘state communist’ regimes to produce lib- 6 Most prominently, the USSR and ’s Republic of China. erating change. 50 • M. R. GIBSON political power, communist parties quickly came to of the proletariat,’ at what point does the nationalist repress the militant tactics that had once been their ruling class ‘know’ that ‘national’ liberation has been primary means of political struggle. Actually existing achieved? Furthermore, can an inclusive, humanistic state communist regimes were not agents participat- society be cultivated from one that has struggled to ing in liberating social transformation in a worldwide be exclusive and nationalistic? Given the parochial struggle against capitalist oppression. Instead, these impulse of ‘national liberation’ struggles produced by regimes came to be characterised by oppressive statist the ‘us/them’ dichotomy cultivates, and . the hitherto typically chauvinistic character of national Similarly, social democrats have long abandoned liberation movements, one must question whether the their anti-systemic ambition: the dissolution of cosmopolitan transformation (of explicitly nationalist capitalism through the evolutionary establishment of movements) is possible, or whether new movements socialism. Social democrats are now typically satisfied must instead emerge on the failed edifice of nationalist with “curbing the excesses of capitalism and redistribut- struggles and overcome their limitations (for instance, ing [some] power and resources to the disadvantaged see Bookchin’s (1995, 68-72) criticism of national and the forgotten” (Seyd and Whiteley 2002, 185). In liberation movements). adopting this goal and rejecting the more ambitious Having lost confidence in these movements, most aim of (eventually) overthrowing capitalism, they have also withdrew their faith in the state as the locus of sacrificed their anti-systemic telos. This is potently transformative change. Whilst populations did not illustrated by the widespread adoption of necessarily stop supporting state-centric forces,10 this and the emergent dominance of catch-all party models support often became a ‘defensive’ measure; a vote within capitalist (see Lavelle 2008, 39-40). for the ‘lesser evil,’ rather than a verification of ide- Finally, since taking state power, ‘national’ anti- ology or expectations (Offe 1994, 116). The fall and systemic movements have been responsible for the transformation of various communist regimes and perpetuation of systematic oppression. In the pursuit the unprecedented dominance of neoliberalism both of homogenous nation-states, many contemporary within states and the international system vindicates national movements9 have committed unspeakable such a conclusion. Additionally, the emergence of violence and tyranny, in the form of things like ethnic neoliberalism exacerbates the failure of state-centric cleansing, genocide, and other forms of state-sanc- anti-systemic forces, threatening, along with tioned violence (prominently in the former Yugoslavia of austerity, the few concessions anti-systemic struggles and Rwanda throughout the 1990s). Indeed, national- gained from the capitalist ruling strata. This has made ism and national liberation movements, far from acting the failure of the state even more striking, as the few as beacons of social , or a buttress against impe- ‘victories’ won are now threatened, or in the process of rialism, are more readily associated with: (1) regressive, being reversed.11 xenophobic parties and movements that vehemently The failure of the state affirms that mechanisms oppose and/or and (2) of state control are ultimately incapable of serving aggressive, violent ethnic- that, in attempt- the end of liberating social transforming. As Michels ing to cultivate homogenous nation-states, perpetuate (1911) argues in the seminal Political Parties, though unmitigated violence in ostensible pursuit of this end. vanguardist and representative leftist political organisa- National liberation theorists contend that ‘national’ tions might be conceived in the pursuit of social change liberation struggles must eventually give way to a wider – as the means to an end – these groups tend to ossify ‘humanistic’ struggle that seeks, as opposed to parochial into hierarchical, centralised bodies. Hierarchs become ‘national’ emancipation, ‘human’ emancipation (see increasingly differentiated from the masses and ordi- Fanon 2001, 119-166). However, a similar problem to that of Marxism-Leninism applies: like the ‘dictatorship 10 Though, often, it also means this. See Lavelle (2008, 39-40). 11 A prominent example is the wave of austerity currently sweeping the globe. Moreover, state spending has not decreased under neoliberalism, 9 Through the likes of in Zimbabwe, Idi Amin in Ugan- but has instead been redirected away from social spending towards things da and Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. like the military, and the subsidisation of capital. See Harvey (2007, 70-81). THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 51

nary members find themselves progressively removed this. This perhaps explains why anti-systemic move- from decision-making processes. As rules, procedures ments, in their contemporaneous rejection of the state and activity become further detached from the mass and a state-centric praxis, act in accord with anarchistic body, ‘the people’ increasingly reject it and refrain analyses, principles and praxis. from participating within it. This bestows upon leaders greater decision-making capacity, while also ensuring Enough Is Enough! Towards an Anarchistic that hierarchs become increasingly convinced by their Praxis own and adulation, eventually conclud- Vignette: A ‘Post Ideological’ Anarchism ing they know what is best. Furthermore, the means Though never anointing themselves as anarchists, one of hierarchy and centralisation (‘the party’ and the can see in the practice of the Zapatistas and Abahlali state) quickly come to supplant the ends of a liberated baseMjondolo a powerful expression of and com- society free from oppression and exploitation (‘the mitment to anarchist principles. The praxis of both revolution’). While state-centric forces achieved some corresponds with what Curran (2006, 2) describes as significant concessions from the ruling strata, the telos ‘post ideological anarchism.’ Though inspired by and of social transformation and the liberation of daily life drawing from anarchism in constructing autonomous remain unachievable through the mechanisms of state politics, post-ideological anarchists reject “doctrinaire control, coming to be eventually supplanted by a desire positions and sectarian politics,” preferring instead to maintain power and perpetuate privilege. to conflate anarchism with an eclectic assortment of Such an outcome acts vindicates the anarchist cri- other political ideas. These movements thus illustrate tique of the state and its incapacity to produce liberating my principal argument: that anarchism informs the change. As the anarchist , Voline (1974, 538), “impulse, and organisation” of anti-systemic states, any revolution inspired by and adoptive of statist movements; that its “ideas and principles are generating forms, even ‘provisionally’, is lost as “all political power new radical dreams and visions” that impact signifi- inevitably creates a privileged position for those who cantly upon the , practice and philosophy exercise it.” This is because, “those in power are obliged of modern anti-systemic forces. to create the bureaucratic and repressive apparatus which It should be restated: I am not claiming that is indispensable for any authority that wants to maintain anti-systemic actors who utilise these principles itself, to command, to give orders… to govern.” are, or explicitly refer to themselves as, ‘anarchists.’ Resultantly, anti-systemic movements are now Nonetheless, everywhere one finds the same anarchist generally “deeply suspicious of the state and of state- principles informing praxis. In line with this, both the oriented action.” They are also more inclusive and Zapatistas and Abahlali baseMjondolo have adopted a non-hierarchical in that the “basis of participation is a praxis constructed around anti-statism, anti-capitalism, common objective… and a common respect for each decentralisation and that looks to, [individual]’s immediate priorities” (Wallerstein 2002, as far as possible, prefigure emancipated social and 35-37). It is thus not surprising that anti-systemic polit- organisational forms. Furthermore, the emergence of ical actors have turned to anarchism which, instead of both movements, and the anarchistic praxis central to advocating a “fixed, self-enclosed ,” strives their expression, is tied to the perpetual oppression “for the free, unhindered unfolding of all the individual experienced by both at the hands of the state and and social forces in life” (Rocker 2004, 31). Amongst global capital. As such, they illustrate the tendency of the great nineteenth-century political , contemporary anti-systemic forces to reject the state as anarchism stands alone in opposition to the state. an agent of transformative social change. Liberals, social democrats, nationalists and Marxists alike, though divided ideologically, were driven to The Zapatistas capture the state and wield state power in the interests The followed centuries of brutal of their constituent groups against others. Anarchists, oppression of the indigenous Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, singularly in opposition, warned presciently against first under Spanish imperial rule, and then the domina- 52 • M. R. GIBSON

tion of the Mexican state and its hierarch, global capital. stands at odds with the foundational ambitions of the It is no coincidence that the EZLN uprising began on Zapatistas. Initially, the EZLN developed as a “com- January 1, 1994: the day NAFTA was signed into law. pletely vertical” military organisation “established to As the Zapatistas declared, through Subcomandante take power through armed force.” However, this rigid Marcos: conception quickly came to clash with the of life in indigenous . The original vanguard’s We are a product of five hundred years of struggle … “conception of the world and revolution was badly we have nothing, absolutely nothing, not even a roof dented in the confrontation with the indigenous reali- over our heads, no land, no work, no health care, no ties of Chiapas” (Marcos 1995). It was only when the food or … today we say: ENOUGH IS EZLN subordinated itself to participatory structures ENOUGH! [Marcos 1993] that the project exploded into a popular mobilisation. Historically, the Mexican state “has treated Chiapas The Zapatistas have, consequently, come to oppose as an internal colony, sucking out its wealth while leav- the Marxist-Leninist idea of a vanguard, however it ing its people – particularly the overwhelming majority may be conceived. Despite beginning as a hierarchical who live off the land – more impoverished than ever” -military group, the Zapatistas have shown a (Burbach 2001, 118). Chiapas thus serves as a vivid commitment to participatory practices in, for instance, expression of the of neoliberal globalisa- declining the formation of a practical political alliance tion, laying bare capitalism’s simultaneous generation with the subversive Mexican political movement, the of wealth and poverty. For the Zapatistas, the Mexican Popular Revolutionary Front (EPR). As the EZLN state and international capital “feed on the blood of confirmed in a communiqué to the EPR, “what we the people”; taking “the wealth out of Chiapas and in want… [is] not to seize power but to exercize it” (cited exchange” leave behind nothing but “their mortal and in De Angelis 2000, 32). Instead, the Zapatistas see pestilent mark” (Marcos 1994). the construction of autonomous democratic structures Though responding to a particularly brutal and within as an end in itself. Along these oppressive mobilisation of state power, the Zapatistas lines, by 1987, the Zapatistas had set up a complex have resisted the formation of a nationalistic praxis, confederal network in which settlements took direct instead pursuing the formation of transnational oppo- charge of praxis and decision-making. What had for- sition to neoliberal globalisation. This is encapsulated merly been a vanguard submitted and integrated itself vividly in the declaration ‘Against Neoliberalism and for into the “social, cultural [and] political… fabric of the Humanity,’ issued from La Realidad in 1996. In it the communities.” Every taken had to be “autho- Zapatistas note how money disregards borders and grants rized by the regional command after deliberations in assemblies”; the communities “made the EZLN cede no importance… to races or colours… money humil- to them” (Lorenzano 1998, 143). iates dignities, insults honesties and assassinates hopes. This ties in with the way in which power ought to The historic in the concentration of privileges, be exercised within anarchist social structures: at an wealth and impunities is renamed ‘neo-liberalism.’ It individual level. Rather than bargaining for a limited democratizes misery and hopelessness. [Marcos 1996] version of territorially based within a cen- The Zapatistas thus constitute a particular expression tralised model of demanding adherence to of an international anti-capitalist mobilisation that the state, the Zapatistas insist on the right of each com- “beyond borders, races and colours, shares the song of munity under its influence to develop its own network life, the struggle against death, the flower of hope and of political relations (Stahler-Sholk 2007, 49). Though the breath of dignity” (Marcos 1996). quickly encircled by the Mexican Army after the 1994 Closely connected with an understanding of the Declaration, the Zapatistas quickly announced their state developed through struggle and in line with anar- presence in thirty-eight outside of the chist views of political power, the Zapatistas do not army barricade. Following this, the Zapatistas boy- seek to capture state power, but circumvent it. Yet this cotted official and rejected the assertion of THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 53

authority proclaimed by the Mexican state. Instead, hence, administrative political power (Jeffries 2001, they effectively created parallel structures of gover- 132). nance by adopting traditional indigenous practices The second operational concept of ‘asking we that produce direct, participatory procedures in open walk’ places the burden of responsibility for activity community assemblies (Stahler-Sholk 2007, 54-56). on , rather than certain figures or ‘vanguard- These confederalist, decentralized social struc- ist’ social groups driving political praxis (Curran 2006, tures are an attempt to build institutions that seek to 154-155). This means that, rather than telling others render existing hierarchies irrelevant. The Zapatistas how it is that social change is to be carried out (as one contend that it is only through changing “the forms in the role of a ‘vanguard’ would), one is constantly of organisation and the tasks of politics” that social engaged in emancipatory praxis by consistently asking transformation is possible. In saying “‘no’ to leaders, how it is that social change is to be carried out and we are also saying ‘no’ to ourselves” (Marcos 2001a, by participants doing tasks themselves. As such, lib- 73). In this, the EZLN is challenging not only the eration depends not on providing the correct answers, hierarchy on which the movement was originally con- but asking the right questions and taking collective, structed, but hierarchy itself: saying ‘no’ to the right democratic responsibility for revolutionary action. of anyone to decide on behalf of, or impose them- selves on, another. Accordingly, the Zapatistas are an Abahlali Basemjondolo “armed movement which does not want to take power, Similar to the Zapatistas, AbM emerged from post- as in the old revolutionary schemes” (Marcos cited in as a response to the continued Lorenzano 1998, 141). Rather, they are “subordinate marginalisation of the poor and dispossessed. In the to [civil society], to the point of disappearing as an wake of the oppression and degradation of the racially alternative” (Marcos 2001b, 58). Thus, the Zapatistas violent and oppressive Apartheid regime, Nelson are fundamentally indifferent to the state; they seek to Mandela’s African National (ANC) promised bypass and live autonomously from what they see as to liberate the impoverished and oppressed by establish- its deceitful, destructive influence. ing a socialistic society through parliamentary means. The operational methods of cultivating and propa- However, the socioeconomic inequalities of Apartheid gating these democratic structures converge with the South Africa remain largely intact. This is justified by anarchist ideas explored above. Through the utilisation the ANC with reference to the of an African bour- of two central principles, the Zapatistas have shown geoisie, in which a host of new millionaires have been a sophisticated commitment to and understanding created (Gibson 2008, 695). of both the anarchist congruence of means and ends It is in this context of stark inequality and con- and pursuit of a . Through the tinuing state repression that AbM emerges. Though first operational principle of ‘command-obeying,’ the beginning as a single issue movement demanding better Zapatistas have sought to subvert hierarchy by juxta- economic services, housing and sanitation, AbM has posing the relationship between the leaders and the led. since drawn connections between their own subjective In practice, this has led to the rotation of of injustice, and the systemic inequities in community councils in order to avoid a situation that plague post-Apartheid South Africa. As the move- of permanent leadership and a form of ‘consensus’ ment’s spokesperson, S’bu Zikode, explains, AbM decision-making within communities in which all felt betrayed: “this is the government that we fought important decisions must necessarily be decided upon for, worked for and voted for and which now beats by participants. Furthermore, decisions that fall outside and arrests us” (cited in Pithouse 2005). In ignoring of the scope of a single community are decided upon the poor, AbM participant, Hlongwa (2007), claims within village assemblies that draw parallels with classi- politicians have shown “they are not the answer” to the cal anarchist ideas of confederalism. This preoccupation suffering of the poor, who are treated as “the ladders of with participatory decision-making is an attempt to the politicians” who, like a “hibernating animal,” come avoid the pitfalls of externally imposed hierarchy and “out in season to make empty promises” only 54 • M. R. GIBSON to soon disappear. Another resident similarly claims lective . The praxis of Abahlali is thus centred that the government has “promised us lots of things, around a self-conscious pursuit of direct democracy but they never did even one... Still no toilet, still no and collective self-management: electricity, still no house” (cited in Xin Wei 2006). Let us keep our votes. Let us speak for ourselves The movement thus sees the post-Apartheid state as where we live and work. Let us keep our power for a parasitical entity that steals from and oppresses the ourselves. The poor are many. We have shown that poor and the politicians that compose it and claim to together we can be very strong. Abahlali has now won represent the people as the: many victories… Let us vote for ourselves every day. New bosses, not the servants of the poor. They [Hlongwa 2007] deceive us and make fools of us. They ask us for our The notion of ‘ for ourselves’ appears as an vote and then disappear with our votes to their big explicit rejection of hierarchy and representation. It houses and conferences where they plan with the rich suggests that little can be achieved when decision- how to make the rich richer. [Hlongwa, 2007] making is removed from the personal level of more After lengthy deliberation, the movement decided direct, participatory forms of democracy. Central to to refrain from electoral politics in order to preserve its this has been a concrete recognition, essential to an integrity as a radical political project. Espousing the anarchical praxis, that one’s praxis must, as far as pos- slogan ‘No Land, No House, No Vote,’ AbM instead sible, prefigure one’s vision of an emancipated society. seeks of confederalist, decentralised In line with this, AbM (2008a) has always municipal structures parallel to and independent from asked people to speak to us, not for us… to work the ‘corrupt influence’ of the post-Apartheid state and with us, not for us. We have asked people to think the of global capital, “which… represent the poor with us, not for us. We have asked people to under- because they are for and by the poor” (Hlongwa 2007). stand that our movement will always belong to its What AbM has sought to construct is a radically members and never to any NGO or . democratic . First and foremost, the shack dwellers are committed to a participatory and Within this is recognition that when power is externally decentralised praxis. All new issues are discussed at imposed it risks developing into oligarchic structures open-forum meetings conducted on a formal, weekly antithetical to . Thus, Abahlali basis. When issues are raised, participants seek con- has consistently opposed representation by hierarchies, sensus building through lengthy measures at which even those who claim to work in their interests, be they point, if consensus is unable to be reached, the issue is , NGOs, or groups. put to a majoritarian vote. When municipal delegates Instead, politics must be a composite of collec- are sent out as functionaries to other communi- tive existence, a ‘living ’ that is experienced ties, they are mandated to make decisions on issues daily. Though the shack dwellers speak of a struggle already democratically decided upon and not to make for houses and services, they also acknowledge, in a decisions on behalf of the movement or particular com- Kantian vein, that “freedom is more than all of this. munities within it. This decentralisation means that Freedom is a way of living, not a list of demands to each community that joins the movement engages in be met.” Though delivering houses will “do away decision-making autonomously and collectively. What with the lack of houses,” this in itself will not realise develops from this is a political practice in which par- freedom. Rather, “freedom is a way of living, where ticipants actively decide what is important and in which everyone is important and where everyone’s experience elected ‘leaders’ are, on a daily basis, accountable and and intelligence counts” (AbM, 2008b). Accordingly, accessible to those that elect them.12 Embodied in such AbM acknowledges liberty cannot be realised through practices is a desire, like the Zapatistas, to create an the ‘temporary’ tyranny of statist hierarchies, cannot autonomous space where the ‘forgotten’ are respected, be achieved through the leadership of a self-appointed dignity is reclaimed and politics is a composite of col- vanguard and is not something to be bestowed in a

12 See ethnographic treatment of this in Nimmagudda (2008). THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 55 distant era once ‘revolution’ has been achieved. Rather, as a response to the failure of state-centric versions to it is something to be realized collectively in the way bring about substantial, transformative social change people live; through a self-liberation that reaches social once assuming power. dimensions: In order to substantiate this claim, this paper was divided into three main sections. The first, by virtue of We are for a living communism. We are for a com- the misconceptions surrounding anarchism, explicated munism that emerges from the struggles of ordinary what is entailed in an anarchistic praxis. Sympathising people and which is shaped and owned by ordinary with the socialist critique of capitalism, anarchism none- people. We are for a communism built from the theless differentiates itself as the ‘libertarian’ wing of ground up. We are for a communism in which land socialism through its critique of hierarchy and pursuit of and wealth are shared and managed democratically. directly democratic, decentralised organisational forms, Any party or groupuscule or NGO that declares from above that it is the vanguard of the people’s independent from capital and the state, that prefigure struggles and that the people must therefore accept its emancipated social vision. The second section began their authority is the ’s struggles. by exploring the historical dominance of a state-centric Leadership is earned and is never permanent. It can praxis within anti-systemic movements and, the subse- never be declared from above. It only lasts for as long quent success state-centric movements had in acquiring as communities of struggle decide to invest their hope state power. Despite success, however, these movements in particular structures. [AbM 2010] failed to deliver on the second ‘step’ of their strategy and deliver transformative social change, instead , As such, the movement has developed a notion of in numerous ways, functionaries of state power. In a ‘politics of the poor.’ That is, a “homemade politics important ways, the state has thus ‘failed’ as an agent of that everyone can understand and find a in,” a revolutionary change, substantiating the anarchist con- participatory praxis that utilizes a dialogic formulae dis- tention that it is destined to reproduce domination. The cernible to the people (Zikode cited in Pithouse 2006). article’s final section turned to illustrating this argument As Zikode (cited in AbM 2006) declares: “our struggle through an exploration of two cases: the Zapatistas and is thought in action and it is thought from the ground… Abahlali baseMjondolo. These movements illustrate that We define ourselves and our struggle.” Rejecting hierar- contemporary anti-systemic movements appear to be chy and imposed leadership, this constitutes a “genuinely increasingly recognising the failure of traditional state- … in which the poor are powerful and not centric movements to deliver transformative change those in which they are silenced as they are named and and, moreover, the anarchist insight that the state is directed from without” (Pithouse 2008, 89). incapable of delivering such change. Significantly, these anarchic anti-systemic move- Conclusion ments offer much more. They implore us to consider Anarchism constitutes the core of contemporary revolution as something to be intersubjectively con- anti-systemic praxis. This is a point substantiated by structed among participants, rather than imposed from anarchism’s influence in and on recent movements as without through the state or other hierarchical forms. diverse as Occupy, the alter-globalisation movement This principle represents a long-marginalised way of and WikiLeaks, to name but a few examples. Yet even anti-systemic politics; a rejection of hierarchical power in explicating this insight, scholars have largely failed to and the -centric forces of the past, along with properly engage with the question as to why anarchism the dominant liberal ‘democratic’ modality of the pres- appears now at the core of anti-systemic . ent. The propagation of an anarchistic praxis represents This paper developed an understanding of this. I argued an attempt to reclaim democracy, along face-to-face, that an anarchistic praxis – though not a doctrinaire direct lines; a reconstruction of the polis in which ideological programme – has become a primary point people are able to construct another world from below, of reference for contemporary anti-systemic social free from the hierarchies that have so long betrayed the movements and that this can be seen, in many ways, possibility of a more just, equal and free world. 56 • M. R. GIBSON

References Franks, B. 2006. Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary British Anarchisms. Edinburgh: AK Press. AbM. 2006. “University of Abahlali baseMjondolo.” Abahlali Gibson, Morgan Rodgers. 2013. “The Anarchism of the baseMjondolo website. Accessed December 8, 2018. http:// .” The Australian Journal of Political abahlali.org/university-of-abahlali-basemjondolo/. 48(3):335-348. AbM. 2008a. “Land and Housing.” Abahlali baseMjondolo Gibson, Nigel C. 2008. “Upright and Free: Fanon in South website. Accessed December 8, 2018. www.abahlali.org/ Africa, From to the Shackdwellers’ Movement (Abahlali node/3970. baseMjondolo).” Social Identities 14(6):683-715. AbM. 2008b. “Abahlali baseMjondolo to Mourn UnFreedom Goodman, J. 2002. “Nationalism and : Social Day Once Again.” Abahlali baseMjondolo website. Accessed Movement Responses.” The International Scope Review, December 8, 2018. http://www.abahlali.org/node/3480. 4(8):1-17. AbM. 2010. “Abahlali baseMjondolo of the Western Cape Gordon, U. 2007. “Anarchism Reloaded.” Journal of Political Responds to the South African .” Abahlali , 12(1):29-48. baseMjondolo website. Accessed December 8, 2018. http:// Graeber, David. 2002. “The New Anarchists.” abahlali.org/node/7375/ Review 13(6):61-73. Apter, David E. 1970. “The Old Anarchism and the New – Guerin, D. 2003. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. New Some Comments.” Government and Opposition 5(4):397-398. York: Press. Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Harvey, David. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New Wallerstein. 1989. Antisystemic Movements. New York: Verso. York: . Bakunin, Mikhail. 1972. Bakunin on Anarchism, trans. S. Hayek, F.A. 1994. The Road to . : University Dolgoff. : . of Chicago Press. Bookchin, Murray. 1991. “Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview.” Heywood, A. 2007. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. New Accessed 03 April, 2019. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ York: Palgrave MacMillan. murray-bookchin-libertarian-municipalism-an-overview Hlongwa, M’du. 2007. “The No Land, No House, No Vote Bookchin, Murray. 1995. or Campaign Still on for 2009.” Abahlali baseMjondolo website, Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. Oakland: AK Press. January 18. Accessed December 8, 2018. www.abahlali.org/ Bookchin, Murray. 2004. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Oakland: node/510. AK Press. Industrial Workers of the World (n.d.). “Preamble to the Burbach, Roger. 2001. “Roots of the Postmodern Rebellion IWW Constitution.” IWW website. Accessed December 8, in Chiapas.” In and Postmodern Politics, edi- 2018.http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml. ted by Roger Burbach and Fiona Jeffries, 116-128. London: Jeffries, Fiona. 2001. “ and the Intergalactic Age.” Pluto Press. In Globalization and Postmodern Politics: From Zapatistas to Curran, Giorel. 2006. 21st Century Dissent: Anarchism, Anti- High-Tech Robber Barons, edited by Roger Burbach, Fiona Globalization and . Hampshire: Palgrave Jeffries and W. Robinson, 129-144. London: Pluto Press. Macmillan. Kropotkin, Peter. 1904. Mutual Aid. Charleston: Forgotten Curran, Giorel and Morgan Rodgers Gibson. 2013. Books. WikiLeaks, Anarchism and of Dissent. Kropotkin, Peter. 1910. “Anarchism.” Encyclopaedia 45(2):294-314. Britannica, 1910. Archives website. Accessed De Angelis, M. 2000. Globalization, New Internationalism December 8, 2018. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_ and the Zapatistas. Capital and Class, 70(9):9-35. Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html Dixon, Chris. 2012. “Building ‘Another Politics’: The Kropotkin, Peter. 1946. The State: Its Historic Role. London: Contemporary Anti-Authoritarian Current in the US and Freedom Press. Canada.” 20(1):32-60. Lavelle, Ashley. 2008. The Death of Social Democracy: Political Epstein, Barbara. 2001. Anarchism and the Anti- Consequences in the Twenty-First Century. Aldershot: Ashgate. Globalization Movement. Monthly Review website 53(4). Lenin, Vladimir. 1987. “What is to be Done?” In Essential Accessed December 8, 2018. https://www.monthlyreview. Works of Lenin, ed. H. M. Christman. New York: Dover. org/0901epstein.htm. Lenin, Vladimir. 1992. The State and Revolution,trans. R. Fanon, F. 2001. The Wretched of the . New York: . New York: Penguin Books. Penguin Books. THE FAILURE OF THE STATE AND THE RISE OF ANARCHISM • 57

Linklater, Andrew. 1986. “Realism, Marxism and Critical Pithouse, Richard. 2005. “Struggle is a : The Rise International Theory.” Review of International Studies of a Shack Dwellers’ Movement in .” Monthly 12(4):301-312. Review website, February 2006. Accessed December Lorenzano, Luis. 1998. “Zapatismo: Recomposition of 8, 2018. https://monthlyreview.org/2006/02/01/ Labour, and Revolutionary Project.” struggle-is-a-school-the-rise-of-a-shack-dwellers-move- In Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico, edited by ment-in-durban-south-africa/. John Holloway and Eloína Peláez. London: Pluto Press. Pithouse, Richard. 2006. “Rethinking Marcos. 1993. EZLN’s : Today We Say From Below.” Critical Dialogue 2(2). Enough Is Enough. Chiapas: EZLN. Pithouse, Richard. 2008. “A Politics of the Poor: Shack Marcos. 1994. “The Southeast in Two Winds, A Storm Dwellers’ Struggles in Durban.” Journal of Asian and and a Prophecy.” for Chiapas website. Accessed African Studies, 43(1):63-94. December 8 2018. https://schoolsforchiapas.org/library/ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 2004. What is Property? southeast-winds-storm-prophecy/ Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Marcos. 1995. “Carta a Adolfo Gilly” Vientro del Sur, Rocker, Rudolf. 2001. Anarchism and Anarcho- Summer 4:25. . London: Freedom Press. Marcos. 1996. “Against Neoliberalism and For Humanity.” Rocker, Rudolf. 2004. Anarcho-Syndicalism. Oakland: Weekly. AK Press. Marcos. 2001a. “The Punch Card and the Hourglass.” New Seyd, Patrick and Paul Whiteley. 2002. ’s Left Review 9:69-79. : The Transformation of the Labour Party Marcos. 2001b. Our Word is Our Weapon, edited by Juana Membership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ponce de Leon. London: Seven Stories. Stahler-Sholk, Richard. 2007. “Resisting Neoliberal Marx, Karl. 1994. “Preface to a Contribution to the Homogenization: The Zapatista Autonomy Movement.” Critique of Political Economy.” In Selected Writings, Latin American Perspectives, 34(2):48-63. edited by L. Simon. Indianapolis: Hackett. Stedile, João Pedro. 2002. “Landless Battalions: The Sem Marx, Karl. 2001. “To Friedrich Bolte in New York.” Terra Movement of .” New Left Review, 15:77-104. In Marxism Versus Anarchism, edited by N. Soudakoff. Steger, M. 1997. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism: Chipperdale: Resistance Books. and Social Democracy. Cambridge: Marx, Karl. 2008. Critique of the Program. Cambridge University Press. Baltimore: Wildside Press. Tilly, C. 1996. European Revolutions 1492-1992. Marx, Karl and . 2002. The Communist Cambridge: Blackwell. Manifesto. New York: Penguin Books. Voline. 1974. The Unknown Revolution: 1917-1921. New Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 2004. “Preface.” In York: Free Life Editions. The German Ideology, edited by C. J. Arthur. New York: Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1996. Keynote Address: The International Publishers. ANC and South Africa: The Past and Future of Liberation McKinlay, I. 1981. The ALP: A Short History of the Movements in the World-System. Annual Meeting of the Australian Labor Party. Melbourne: Heinemman. South African Sociological Association, 7-11 July. Michels, R. 1911. Political Parties. New York: Free Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2002. “New Revolts Against the System.” New Left Review 18:29-39. Nimmagudda, Neha. 2008. “Narratives of Everyday Resistance: Spaces and Practices of Citizenship in the Xin Wei, Ngiam. 2006. “Taking Poverty Seriously: What the Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement.” Abahlali baseMjondolo Poor are Saying and Why it Matters.” Abahlali baseMjondolo website. “Accessed December 8, 2018. www.abahlali.org/ website. Accessed December 8, 2018. www.abahlali.org/ node/3204. node/27. Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. Offe, C. 1994. “Structural Problems of the Capitalist State: Class Rule and the . On the Selectiveness of Political Institutions.” In The State: Critical Concepts, edited by J. Hall. London: .