Anarchism

A (frankly disjointed)  recounting of what I've learned (so far) about anarchism.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/

https://philosophynow.org/issues/128/A_Brief_Explanation_of_Anarchism

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/54132/do-anarchists-want-to-eliminate-all-the-power-or-only-juridical-one#:~:text=So%20the%20power%20that%20anarchism,purpose%20of%20preserving%20said%20authority.

-https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/crimethinc-frequently-asked-questions-about-anarchism

The words I use in the recording may not match the words in the transcript.

Transcript

Anarchism

The frankly shallow dives I've done recently into meritocracy, the Protestant work ethic, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and kyriarchy have prompted me to think, and learn, about anarchism.

Anarchism, according to Wikipedia's definition, is 'a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).' According to the Britannica.com article, 'They (anarchists) deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority. But they would argue that their denial of constitutions and governments leads not to “no justice” but to the real justice inherent in the free development of human sociality—the natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid'; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that, 'Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building.' The word 'anarchism,' much like the word 'anarchy,' has its roots in the Greek words 'an' and 'arkhe,' which translate, respectively, into 'without rulers.' Once, I heard a stranger explain that anarchism and anarchy advocated for a 'bottom-up' rather than a 'top-down' approach to governing society.

But kyriarchal capitalist society has always misunderstood, and misrepresented, anarchism.

As the philosophynow.org article, 'A Brief Explanation of Anarchism,' explains, 'Unfortunately, anarchism hasn’t been the most well-defined of ideologies,' and quotes David Graeber, who explains why this is: '“it’s hard to think of another time when there has been such a gulf between intellectuals and activists; between theorists of revolution and its practitioners”' before describing the consequences: 'The inevitable side-effect of this division is that anarchist movements tend to appear disjointed and hodge-podge, a haphazard gathering of motley students and dispossessed workers, who may not always be on the same page.' Ergo, much like with atheists, trying to herd anarchists is like trying to herd cats. 

The ruling classes of the world, especially in the West, have always defined anarchism and anarchy in terms of lawlessness and chaos, and have managed to convince the people they rule that an anarchist society will lead to the destruction and decay of society and the loss of everything that makes it function. But so many on the bottom who've done their homework know that the ruling classes have done this only because they're afraid of losing the power that they've had for so long. As the philosophynow.org article states: 'For the anarchist, this hierarchy exploits the rest of society in a number of pernicious ways, such as coercing citizens to submit to their will by imposing excessive penalties for violating laws that may or may not be justified.' Leadership is important--and some people are better leaders than others--but that doesn't mean that anyone should be able to dominate over others, especially if doing so causes suffering, and everyone should have a say in how society is run, and learn to share and compromise, regardless of their positions in society. In fact, the philosophynow.org article states: 'Anarchism implies, he (John P. Clark) says, that the individual shouldn’t be forced to adhere to any one view of society, and must have the ability to ‘opt-out’ of a given society as he or she sees fit. Therefore in essence, anarchism must be non-binding.'

As far as I understand, whereas kyriarchy and capitalism tell society there are only so many seats at the table for anyone who isn't a wealthy, able-bodied, cis, heterosexual WASP man who occupies all other intersections of privilege, anarchism states that the table is wider than capitalism and kyriarchy tell us, and there's a seat for everyone, regardless of their privilege or lack thereof; under anarchism is a true manifestation of the merit principle--to quote Karl Marx, 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'

 Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/

https://philosophynow.org/issues/128/A_Brief_Explanation_of_Anarchism

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/54132/do-anarchists-want-to-eliminate-all-the-power-or-only-juridical-one#:~:text=So%20the%20power%20that%20anarchism,purpose%20of%20preserving%20said%20authority.

-https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/crimethinc-frequently-asked-questions-about-anarchism