What Is Anarchy?
There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it. I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence. Hence I cannot accept either nihilists or anarchists who choose violence as a means of action. I certainly understand the resort to aggression, to violence. I recall passing the Paris Bourse some twenty years ago and saying to myself that a bomb ought to be placed under that building. It would not destroy capitalism but it would serve as a symbol and a warning. Not knowing anyone who could make a bomb, I took no action! The resort to violence is explicable, I think, in three situations. First, we have the doctrine of the Russian nihilists that if action is taken systematically to kill those who hold power – the ministers, generals, and police chiefs – in the long run people will be so afraid to take office that the state will be decapitated and easy to pull down. We find something of the same orientation
“. . Anarchy is Individualism consistently carried out and put into practice. It is the doctrine of autonomy, laissez-faire, independence and liberty. It is the doctrine which accepts all the social principles of that most advanced school of thinkers of which Herbert Spencer is at the head, and does not fear to carry them to their logical conclusions, even though the greatest expounders of those principles may fail to do so themselves. Anarchy, in short, is to politics what atheism is to theology. Atheism says: we shall have no divine rulers; Anarchy says: we shall have no temporal ones either. Atheism says: be not a slave to a god; Anarchy says: be not a slave to god or ruler either. Atheism says: cast off all allegiance to all laws divine; Anarchy says: cast off all allegiance to all laws both divine and human. Atheism says: defy the priest, who robs you under the authority of a god; Anarchy says: defy the ruler who robs you under the authority of a State, as well. Atheism says: be f
Anarchy is a confusing word to define, since it has several possible definitions. The word is almost unchanged from its Greek origin, anarchia, which simply translates as without or lacking in authority. In the modern sense, it may be used negatively or positively, but most often the word is used in a negative sense to imply a complete lack of order and chaos. The days immediately following Hurricane Katrina was a time when anarchy prevailed and confusion was great. In another sense anarchism may refer to the idea that people would better profit without a government of any kind. Anarchists believe that most people can govern themselves and would be happier doing so. Within this idea of self-government, as opposed to government by the state, fall many theories of how lack of a government could possibly work. Would people, for instance, have the same currency, be asked to abide by the same laws, or have any types of organized assistance? It would be hard to argue that all individuals are
by Butler Shaffer by Butler Shaffer I have mixed feelings about the use of labels to describe philosophical views, whether of myself or others. It is difficult to avoid doing so because our efforts to understand and communicate about the world necessarily involve the use of words and words are, as Alfred Korzybski warned us, abstractions that never equate with what they are meant to describe. His oft-quoted statement that “the map is not the territory” offers a caveat whose implications for confusion are further compounded when addressing such abstract topics as political philosophy. One philosophical abstraction that seems to befuddle most people is “anarchy.” To those challenged by complexity such as radio talk show hosts and cable-TV “newscasters” who are convinced that all political opinions can be confined to the categories of “liberal” and “conservative” the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain forces. Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of
