# Anarchist philosophy--details, resources, anything you've got



## Feo Takahari (Mar 14, 2014)

I've just discovered a character who has a _lot_ of parallels to one of my heroines. Rather than distinguish her from him, I'm thinking of playing up their philosophical similarities so as to better contrast her to the characters around her. I think I know enough to write how those other characters act and think, but I'm not entirely certain I've got a handle on anarchist philosophy.

The linked character is described as having been inspired by an Objectivist offshoot called Neo-Tech, but I've been unable to find an unbiased resource that plainly describes how this philosophy functions. (The philosophy's founder's website doesn't count, being an unintelligible mess.) Does anyone know anything about it? Alternatively, what other resources might I look at, and what other approaches might I take, to get into the mindset of a pacifistic anarchist and anti-authoritarian?

Edit: I should note that I _do_ intend to read the comics the linked character starred in, since they apparently have some of the philosophy in question. But I don't want to just make my character a genderflip of him--she wouldn't think all of the things he thinks given her background and personality, so I'll need to read enough of the literature to try to determine what she would think instead.


----------



## Roan Davidson (Mar 14, 2014)

When I was studying the Spanish Civil War--a time when Anarchists were a strong faction--I realized that this isn't just one thing. One popular form was about different guild-like groups of workers, all with self management and direct influence over government issues. I think this is what Wiki has as Anarcho-syndicalism.

Anyway, can't give you much info about the philosophy behind Anarchism. But if you want to take a look at people who tried to implement it, the Spanish Civil War is a good place to start.


----------



## crash (Mar 14, 2014)

I personally don't know a lot about the nuts and bolts of Anarchism, but the jist is that people are inherently good and don't need governments. The anarchist thought is that government is un-natural and doesn't need to exist. But there are, like most political philosophies, many schools of thought. The bigs ones are:

Anarcho-Communism: wants the abolition of private property, hierarchy, people live in communes and produce what they need, making major decisions by democratic vote. This form was really popular and proved to work well in Spain until Franco won the civil war

Mutualism: basically free market economics, believe in the Labour Theory of Economic Value, but where the collective owns the means of production, goods and services are exchanged for their equal amount
Individualist Anarchism: a lot like mutualism, but individuals can opt out of cooperatives if they want 

Anarcho-Capitalism: free market anarchists, but believe in the Subjective Theory of Economic Value; while they don't see capitalism as inherently exploititive and don't automatically distrust "big business" or "big government" (they see most of them as beneficial, "friends in high places"; they're generally not regarded as "true anarchists" by other movements

Green Anarchism: it's a lot like anarcho-communism, but with a bigger emphasis on environmentalism; the most radical form of this, anarcho-primitivism, holds that civilization is inherently oppressive and want to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, and in some cases abstract thought (reading and writing) and return humanity to a hunter-gathering level of society

For more information, I'd seek out the writings of William Godwin (the father of Mary Shelley), Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon, Leo Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau and Noam Chomsky. Also look up Nestor Mankho and George Orwell's book _Homage to Catalonia_ if you want to read up about the Spanish Civil War. Vladimir Lenin also wrote about anarchist tactics and strategy in his book _What is to be Done_, but he's a lot more disparaging than most about the anarchists of his time.


----------



## hots_towel (Mar 14, 2014)

that was very interesting crash

unfortunately, the only insight i can give on this topic is very convoluted. the punk scene of the late 70's/80's (and i guess also the grunge scene). the reason i say convoluted is because nearly everyone had their own opinions on how government (or lack thereof) should work. While punks and grunge were primarily focused on nonconformity (even in of themselves which makes things even more complicated), they let that virtue dip into all sections of their lives. Which of course includes their political beliefs. 

you had some saying "F everything!" and others saying "love everything." but i think that would be a little more akin to the hippy movement of the 60's. keep in mind though, most of this was being done by a bunch of college aged kids who were angry at everything and likely not sober. 

i dont know any specific documentaries about punk (the closest thing i can think of is "SLC punk" which is a movie), but Sam Dunn made an interesting short doc on grunge, which is saying something because i cant stand grunge music. its called "Metal Evolution: Grunge"

i hope this helped even a little bit


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 14, 2014)

I say this fully aware this is a rabbit hole from which you may never emerge. You should start with Bakunin.
Mikhail Bakunin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Follow the links in the footnotes and biblio. Then follow *their* footnotes and biblio.  Bye bye! We all loved you, Feo!


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 14, 2014)

crash said:


> Mutualism: basically free market economics, believe in the Labour Theory of Economic Value, but where the collective owns the means of production, goods and services are exchanged for their equal amount
> Individualist Anarchism: a lot like mutualism, but individuals can opt out of cooperatives if they want
> 
> Green Anarchism: it's a lot like anarcho-communism, but with a bigger emphasis on environmentalism; the most radical form of this, anarcho-primitivism, holds that civilization is inherently oppressive and want to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, and in some cases abstract thought (reading and writing) and return humanity to a hunter-gathering level of society.



On the first: this could work really well with my protagonist.

On the second: I think I found the final villain with which to conclude the series. Even my social Darwinist nature hero would have reason to smack him one.


----------



## Shockley (Mar 17, 2014)

I am glad this discussion is coming up, as I am (A) an anarchist of the platformist variety and (B) the co-editor of a reader on American anarchist philosophy that will come out next year. 

 So, here are some important points:

1. There are many, many kinds of anarchists and many of them do not get along with each other. Anarchists of the Italian variety, for instance, tend to have major problems with platformists (which is more eastern European in character). American anarchism tends to have a more individualistic mindset, while European anarchism tends to focus on the collective. Chinese anarchists were very willing to work with the People's Republic of China and Proudhon ultimately held political office, but this would be unacceptable to most anarchists.

2. While anarchism predates Bakunin, he provides a fairly clear point of differentiation for anarchism from other utopian ideal systems because of his dispute with Marx. Marx, of course, argued that the proletariat should seize control of government and use government to bring about a stateless, classless society. Bakunin theorized that such a transition was impossible, and that the end result of Marx's system would be the continuation of the state and oppression in another form. Therefore, Bakunin essentially argued for communism without the transitional dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. A number of left-anarchists would contest the idea that Neo-Tech or Objectivism (in the case of the character Anarky) are legitimate forms of anarchism. The major argument is that, traditionally, anarchist philosophy has been a part of the broad left. The major anarchist thinkers - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc. - tended to identify with socialist or communist economics. The other issue, and this is the point I would argue, is that the continued existence of private property (at least in Objectivism) implies some kind of system of control to protect said property and enforce contracts. While I am not overly familiar with Neo-Tech, every major Objectivist philosopher (all three of them) have consistently denied that Objectivism is an anarchist philosophy.

4. Power as a concept is a point of contention. Some would argue that abolishing the state essentially means abolishing power, while others argue that abolishing the state allows the individual to freely assert power in their daily lives. The second position tends to be fairly common among anarcho-primitivists. 

5. I don't know a lot of anarchists who would actively proclaim that humanity is 'good' and that's why anarchism is achievable. Quite a few of the ones I interact with regularly would probably argue that morals are just a means by which the oppressors control the oppressed. In general, the idea is that government just encourages certain bad behaviors that would be unlikely in less hierarchical situations.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 17, 2014)

My character is probably gonna approach this from the right rather than the left--her parents were millionaires, after all. Though come to think of it, now that my social Darwinist is lightening up and becoming more complex, abolishing private property might be something he'd go for.

(This story is seriously becoming a clusteryay of mutually incompatible ideologies. The not-anarchist and the unapologetic authoritarian are actually the characters who get along best and have the most in common, since they at least have the same methods of opposing the current system.)


----------



## Nagash (Mar 17, 2014)

It's interesting to point out that traditional - european - anarchism (left) has some common grounds with libertarianism, a rather american doctrine founded on a strong belief in free market economy and general liberalism, and therefore a pretty far-right ideology, economy-wise. Shockley really summed up very well this vast and complex political landscape, filled with numerous contradictions, especially when anarchism takes a socialist visage. I for one am a pretty strong lefty, but I've got to admit that libertarianism in itself is much more realistic - no reasonable, realistic - than any kind of socialist/communist friendly form of anarchy, since the latter one is built upon the impossible conception of a world without state. Bakunin's philosophy is mainly a reflection of Marx's communist dream, only without the tough part about the proletarian dictature, and is therefore an impossible dream turned nightmare, without the nightmare part. Jean Joseph Proudhon's vision of anarchism is a confusing compromise between political doctrines Marx called a blabbering mess of pseudo-communism and market economy - it mainly rested upon the idea that "propriety - of capital - was robbery" while "propriety in itself was freedom [from the tyranny of state]". Although Proudhon's ideology was initially orientated towards the left (capital should belong to the state), I suspect libertarians have made tools of his philosophy, advocating small government - mostly the duty of protection - and a competitive market economy. Karl Marx at last, had nothing of an anarchist, except the humanist philosophical standpoint, since he saw strong government as a necessity in the early stage of the structural revolution of society, before the end of all form of state, forced labour, tyranny through the exploitation of workers and the accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie. Being an admirer of Marx's humanism, I can only regret he trusted the state - "the coldest of all monsters", to quote Nietzsche - with such a tremendously important duty.

Left-anarchist fail to take into account that a stateless humanity is not only impossible, its unthinkable... Seeing as humans are social creatures, their association cannot be thought without laws and rules giving it a form. Law, however, cannot be enforced without the presence of this all-powerful state figure - this _Leviathan_ Hobbes conceptualized... While Libertarians do believe a small government should exist in order to maintain order, left-wing anarchists tend to built their philosophy upon Rousseau's fantasy world, where man in his primordial form, is inherently good and fulfilled. Since these traditional philosophies of anarchy revolve around defiance of authority, they plunge into the abyss of catastrophe. Even a stateless humanity would suffer of authority - that of the strongest. Thus, Bakunin's quintessential anarchism is built upon a failed premise : a kind-hearted and sophisticated human race.

In the end, seeing how Marx's system is also a road to a terrifying holodomor-filled nightmare, Proudhon's initial conception is probably the most realistic concept of anarchy for the lefties. The idea of a communal democratic authority (Rousseau all over again), and a general union of said communes in some sort of a federal system owning the capital, establishing a free-ish market economy and guaranteeing the protection of citizens and granting them enough freedom to actually possess anything, seems to be the most viable system of all...


----------



## Shockley (Mar 19, 2014)

I am going to respond to a few of Nagash’s points in the hopes this further clarifies some aspects of anarchist philosophy.



> I for one am a pretty strong lefty, but I've got to admit that libertarianism in itself is much more realistic - no reasonable, realistic - than any kind of socialist/communist friendly form of anarchy, since the latter one is built upon the impossible conception of a world without state.



 Most left-anarchists would probably respond by pointing out that, for the first 197,000 years of ‘human existence’ there weren’t very many states. Even those that did exist – such as Egypt – had a very different conception of a state than we do now. 

 It should also be noted that anarchism really only got going after the Treaty of Westphalia, where the modern idea of a state was born (more or less). So, a lot of anarchist criticism can be viewed as criticism of the state as it developed in early modern Europe as opposed to all forms of state in all cultures. 



> Bakunin's philosophy is mainly a reflection of Marx's communist dream, only without the tough part about the proletarian dictature, and is therefore an impossible dream turned nightmare, without the nightmare part.



 This objection, in my mind, was one of the strongest parts of Bakunin’s ideas. Marx theorized that his dictatorship would willingly surrender power at some future date and allow statelessness to emerge. Bakunin only really argued that this envisioned dictatorship would never give up its power.

 There is also a Bakunist tradition (though I don’t recall if Bakunin brought this up himself or it was a later development) that focusing on the proletariat would itself perpetuate the class system. There are two classes, per Bakunin – the oppressor and the oppressed. To create a dictatorship of the proletariat continues this distinction and perpetuates the dual class system. The idea that urban/industrial workers are not particularly special might be one of Bakunin’s strongest ideas and probably explains the success of anarchism among agricultural laborers (who rarely supported full on Marxist efforts).



> Seeing as humans are social creatures, their association cannot be thought without laws and rules giving it a form. Law, however, cannot be enforced without the presence of this all-powerful state figure - this Leviathan Hobbes conceptualized... While Libertarians do believe a small government should exist in order to maintain order, left-wing anarchists tend to built their philosophy upon Rousseau's fantasy world, where man in his primordial form, is inherently good and fulfilled.



 I don’t know very many anarchists who would argue that man in nature is a perfectly good being. The argument is multi-faceted, but I will present a rather simplistic form of it:

 - The state is not necessary to preserve order. In fact, the bills, crises, wars and catastrophes inflicted upon the people by their own state or foreign states are often incredibly detrimental to order.
 - If the state is the only way to preserve order, then someone has to explain why the state has done such a poor job of preserving it. Furthermore, if the state is the last line of defense against bad behavior, why have all sorts of crimes been committed with the state there to prevent them?
 - Numerous societies in human history, such as the ancient Scandinavians, a great number of indigenous peoples in Europe and elsewhere, had absolutely no concept of laws until they were introduced by other societies. What ideas of good conduct they had were not enforced by a governing or state entity but the collective decision of the community.  



> In the end, seeing how Marx's system is also a road to a terrifying holodomor-filled nightmare, Proudhon's initial conception is probably the most realistic concept of anarchy for the lefties. The idea of a communal democratic authority (Rousseau all over again), and a general union of said communes in some sort of a federal system owning the capital, establishing a free-ish market economy and guaranteeing the protection of citizens and granting them enough freedom to actually possess anything, seems to be the most viable system of all...



 As expressed earlier, my sympathies are firmly in line with those of the platformist school. That is, societies are tightly organized but without any sense of hierarchy. Communities work together (trade, defense, etc.) for the collective well-being of their communities, and certain ideas like basic police and military are maintained. All of this is done within a communistic economic framework.


----------

