Anarchy - Beginners Guide - chapter 1

ANARCHY

by   Ruth Kinna

Contents

Acknowledgements !


introduction 1


Chapter One:

         What is anarchism? 6

         Anarchy: origins of the word: 21

         Anarchist thought: key personalities: 37
         Anarchist thought: schools of anarchism: 48
         Anarchist thought: history: 92
         End of chapter one: 133
         Summary: 133

         Conclusion: 134 (Lone Cypress Workshop
         Summary Conclusion: 148 (Lone Cypress Workshop)

Anarchy: origins of the word

(RK) Anarchism is an unusual ideology because its adopted tag has peculiarly negative connotations. Most ideological labels embrace positively valued ideas or ideals: liberalism is the ideology of liberty or freedom, socialism is associated with notions of sociability or fellowship, and conservatism with the conservation of established or customary ways of life. Even fascism has a positive derivation – from fascio, a reference to the symbol of Roman authority. In contrast, anarchism is the ideology of anarchy – a term that has been understood in both the history of ideas and in popular culture to imply the breakdown of order, if not violent disorder.

(LCW) You define your own conundrum. An ideology simply has to envision something positive and bigger than itself in the short term. Perhaps not in the rest of the world, but here in America, the concept of liberalism has forever been delegitimized by the inherently anti-American ideology of the liberal-progressive-democratic party. They have completely perverted the actual definitions of all of these concepts so no one even knows what they mean anymore.

I have no proof, but it seems obvious that this has been a strategy from the beginning. They co-op movements and ideologies so they can incorporate the most individuals into their causes. This began the whole concept of ‘special-interest’ groups, getting incompatible groups of individuals to work together even when they are not inclined to care about other particular issues at all.

This is what the collectivists are doing with anarchism, and the end result is a product that is perpetually vague and indistinct, and that is easier to deal with from a managerial perspective, since there are no specific objectives except emotional ones, and emotion is well-known to not respect reason or even reality for that matter.

I don’t know how to reconcile that deep conflict within the anarchist paradigm. Leadership is needed to create direction and specificity, but leadership implies authority and in essence, some form of state. This is why I think that objectivism promotes a fine-line balance between the two because without balance there can be no credible movement, no practical ideology, and no legitimate philosophy. It is not an insurmountable obstacle, and yet it is a challenge that I see no anarchist accepting. The road to legitimacy demands that this conflict be resolved.

Socialism may engender sociability and fellowship, but as with all the collectivist ideologies, there is a distinct and disturbing acceptance of coercion in the philosophy. They talk of democracy, but history shows the discrepancies and failures of pure democracy. America has tried something quite different and optimistic, but the existence of highly damaged individuals has once again thwarted success with whatever new system was or is envisioned. These inappropriate players cannot exist without multiple forms of coercion. The eradication of oppressive coercion is of paramount importance.

I am still trying to ascertain how anarchism reacts and deals with this issue of coercion. Giving direction and purpose to an anarchist is like trying to herd cats. They may well do what you want inevitably, but the amount of time and effort to do so is prohibitive. I love cats. For me, they are the philosophers and anarchists of the animal kingdom. They make up their own minds, and it takes an undue amount of effort to change those decisions. They can be fooled but not often, and their cooperative motivations are personal and etched in stone. The epitome of an anarchist, if I may say so myself.

(RK) Even after the mid-nineteenth century when the label was first adopted as an affirmation of belief, anarchy was used in political debate to ridicule or denounce ideas perceived to be injurious or dangerous. For example, in a seventeenth-century defense of absolute monarchy, Sir Robert Filmer treated calls for limited monarchy as calls for anarchy. In general usage, the term is commonly used to describe fear and dread. The ‘great Anarch!’ in Alexander Pope’s The Dying Christian to his Soul is the ‘dread empire, Chaos!’ that brings ‘universal darkness’ to bury all.

The eighteenth-century philosopher Edmund Burke considered anarchy as the likely outcome of the brewing American conflict and identified freedom as its cure. From his rather different political perspective, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley drew on ‘anarchy’ to describe the violent duplicity of government, yet like Burke, he still conceived the term in a wholly negative sense to describe disorder and injustice. Writing in the nineteenth century, the social critic John Ruskin aptly captured the common view: ‘[g]overnment and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition the laws of death’. This conception was the very reverse of Proudhon’s.

(LCW) I realize that much of the historical summary of anarchism may be somewhat unflattering and a bit unfair, but where does this come from? Can it not be from the actions and specifically the attitude of many who proclaimed themselves anarchists? Is someone a conservative or a capitalist because they say so, or because they act in some specific way that promotes and support their ideologies?

We are so quick to judge, with little or no credible or legitimate information or evidence to attest to our positions and our criticisms. It is a matter of veracity and reason that we come to conclusions, not on a whim or because we ‘feel’ that someone else is right or wrong. At least that is the way it is supposed to be, or am I wrong once again? Alas, I don’t think so.

(RK) The anarchist idea of anarchy has its roots in a critique of revolutionary government advanced in the course of the French Revolution. In 1792, a group of revolutionaries known as the enragés (the fanatics), because of the zeal with which they entered into their campaigns, demanded that the Jacobin government introduce draconian measures to protect the artisans of Paris from profiteers.

(LCW) There seems to be some element of surprise at the way random individuals interpret the anarchist from a negative perspective and yet you provide your own information that the anarchist idea has its genesis in a group of revolutionaries known as the ‘fanatics’? It should have been fairly obvious as to the kind of reaction that would be forthcoming and the membership should have been prepared, let us say expecting the kind of response that has followed the movement from its earliest versions.

I would question the rationale behind putting the unreasonable and irrational demands of that government, the very same hated ‘state’ that is condemned and vilified today, to be the vehicle by which to save the Parisian artisans from themselves. What exactly is meant by ‘profiteering’? I can only assume that this would be some version of exploitation but my position is that without coercion there can be no exploitation.

I again can only presume, but no one can make you sell your own work for less than the value you place upon it. I understand the pressures and coercive nature when one is without resources, but why not just motivate and mobilize the anarchist element to find appropriate patrons and customers for those same artisans? Unless one can present a reasoned argument that the government itself is the source of the coercion there can be no obligation to create change simply because it is uncomfortable and difficult.

A fundamental of objectivism is a mutual benefit through mutual agreement with the ability and freedom to walk away from any transaction at any time if it does not meet your own standards. Capitalism talks of a similar environment where people trade through voluntary decisions and if some level of benefit does not exist for each participant, the trade should be null and void until another valid opportunity presents itself.

The concept of exploitation does not exist in the theoretical philosophy of either ideology, and it is only the presence of those inappropriate players that I have outlined previously that creates chaos and takes advantage of this to the disadvantage of their own ideological agendas as well as selfish and personal gain.

If a truly intellectual, philosophical, and economical ‘revolution’ is indeed the vision, then action, without violence, should promote and deliver that which you think is deserved and legitimate. The anarchist membership within the social community should act to achieve some balance and resolution to whatever problem is placed before them.

This is one of the major flaws that I find in discussions with collectivists. They know what they want, and by extension what they passionately believe they deserve and there is an endless supply of various individuals upon which to place blame for everything they perceive as unfair, never accepting any culpability of their own, and yet they are lazy and unmotivated when it comes to action, with the only exception being demonstrations and the use of intimidation and violence to prosecute their ideology. I find that disappointing and incomprehensible.

The state has no responsibility for the protection of one’s livelihood unless there is the use of illegal means meaning coercion and violence against someone. Otherwise, they are free to prosper or to fail, according to their abilities. I find it difficult to think that a true anarchist would have a different perspective. The freedom to act suggests the freedom to fail as well.

(RK) Banded around Jacques Roux, an ex-cleric, and Jean Varlet, a man of independent means, the group did not call themselves anarchists.

Yet their programme (a call to the people to take direct action against profiteers and the demand that the government provide work and bread), was labeled anarchist by their Jacobin opponents.

(LCW) If the government is given the burden to supply work and bread, then the whole concept of choice and freedom is irreparably degraded. Would the anarchist agree to do whatever tasks are placed before them, from cleaning horse stalls, cleaning gutters, or collecting garbage and human waste? I am fairly certain that is not what they are thinking of.

Once they have the bread and work, there will be a call, another demand, for cheese and wine, jobs and remuneration will have to reflect a life of dignity and the list will inevitably expand to something akin to the greater good, which is discriminatory and impractical without an extreme use of oppression and coercion. There has to be something more legitimate as a new paradigm for a drastically and radically new future.

A completely individualistic, independent, and voluntary philosophy is the only path forward that I can think of, but coercion is at the root of almost all revolutionary ideological thinking and they have yet to capture the attention and interest of their contemporaries to any great degree and it is not really that difficult to understand why.

They can clearly see that there will continue to be those who are forced to ‘give’ something to those that will only ‘receive’ something, and most individuals know, especially those of ability and intellectual resources, that they will be the ones to give, and everyone else to take, at their whim. They will not be asked for their opinions, and their interests will never be a consideration, with all decisions being made by nameless individuals behind closed doors.

Anarchism, collectivism, and liberalism have never been able to address these issues and until they do, the desire to create a new image for the future will never be realized.

(RK) During their battle with the Jacobins, moreover, Varlet and Roux rejected the idea of revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms, importantly associating anarchism with the rejection of revolution by decree. As the revolution ran its course the revolutionary government continued to apply the term ‘anarchist’ as a term of political abuse and to discredit those political programmes of which it disapproved.

Nevertheless, the idea that anarchy could be used in a positive sense and that anarchism described a political programme was now firmly established. The first four editions of the Dictionary of the French Academy (1694–1762) defined anarchy as an unruly condition, without leadership or any sort of government. The exemplification was taken from classical philosophy: ‘democracy can easily degenerate into anarchy’. In the fifth edition (1798) the definition of anarchy remained the same, but it was supplemented for the first time with an entry for ‘anarchist’ that distinguished ‘a supporter of anarchy’ from ‘a trouble-maker’. It was now possible to speak of ‘anarchist principles’ and an ‘anarchist system’.

(LCW) So we see that Moore and Proudhon had some very basic issues with the anarchist paradigm even as they promoted aspects that they thought relevant. We now see that Varlet and Roux had some fundamental conflicts as well. A ‘revolutionary’ government seems to be a contradiction in terms. It is an incompatible concept when compared to what seems to be the contemporary manifesto from today’s anarchist.

There seems to be a rejection more of government actions and programs that the revolutionaries do not accept or agree upon, and less of the concept of government and that pesky ‘state’. If anarchy is a movement without leadership or any sort of government then it cannot even be considered a grass-roots movement since leadership is a prerequisite for any kind of focused response to inequities within the social paradigm. What does that leave for structure in the anarchist community?

It would seem to infer that anarchy is nothing more than an inherently spontaneous internal reaction to external stimuli. It cannot even be recognized as a thinking response, since without leadership or structure, there can be no consensus or even definition of purpose. That leaves nothing but a rabble, a mob, lashing out without intelligence or reason, what Rand would call a ‘whim’. Not good for accomplishing anything of substance or value.

(RK) The revolutionary movement created by the enragés left its legacy in the history of ideas. Less than 100 years after the outbreak of the revolution, the association between anarchy and the idea of popular revolution inspired the French writer Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to label himself an anarchist. In his first book, What Is Property? (1840, where he famously coined the phrase ‘property is theft’) he appropriated the term anarchy to define his egalitarian and libertarian ideal. Proudhon introduced the term in the following dialogue:

What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my
younger readers reply: ‘Why, how can you ask such a question?
You are a republican!’ ‘A republican! Yes; but that word
specifies nothing. Res publica; - that is, the public thing.
Now, whoever is interested in public affairs
– no matter under what form of government – may call
himself a republican. Even kings are republicans.’
– ‘Well! You are a democrat?’ – ‘No.’ – ‘What! you would have a monarchy?’
– ‘God forbid!’ – ‘You are then an aristocrat?’ – ‘Not at all.’
– ‘You want a mixed government?’ – ‘Still less.’
– ‘What are you, then?’ – ‘I am an anarchist.’
‘Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically.
This is a hit at the government.’ – ‘By no means.
I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith.
Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. ...’

(LCW) I find far too much equivocation in his words, and many others from the revolutionary camps of the anarchist, collectivist and liberal. All of these labels are ultimately defined not through a single concept that infers a specific meaning, but through subjective contemplation with an intent and expectation that is not readily available to the recipient of the words.

Having said that I would have to agree with his argument about these labels. The demand from most of these contrary groups is that you are either ‘with us’ or ‘against us’. Everything always seems to be only ‘black’ or ‘white’ when existence, especially through language, is a million shades of grey. There is no consensus with these concepts except in the insulated environment of an ideology or some philosophical reality such as anarchism or collectivism. To be brutally honest, this holds true within Objectivism and capitalism as well.

I find it interesting to see Proudhon characterized as both a libertarian and an egalitarian. This only confirms my own perspective that we are all a ‘mixed-economy’ when it comes to philosophy and ideology. We pick and choose what we see as ‘inter-related’ and significant and relevant, and use those concepts (fully defined and understood) as the benchmark of our own belief mindset (we all need fundamental precepts) and develop and expand from there.

It is impossible to not look at any of these belief systems and not find some specific thing that attracts and intrigues us, and oftimes many individual things, that resonate and are personally accepted as legitimate, credible, and capable of being adopted and assimilated into one’s own reasoned convictions along with bits and pieces or whole swaths of ideas from multiple sources which results in a philosophy that has both a richness and depth of understanding about the world around us.

It is a unique and independent mindset that is independent of every other, which creates an environment of perpetual inquiry trying to find out why others come to their conclusions. This infers great satisfaction with the ability to articulate and define one’s own conclusions as well as, at times, great conflict when we disagree.

This, from my perspective, is the true human condition, and instead of attempting to coerce and manipulate those that disagree, we should be making an attempt to comprehend new ideas and find areas of agreement and create new environments that allow both (all) systems to work in cooperation and synchronicity with one another. A true symbiotic paradigm where we live in controlled chaos and reasoned communication within a respectful and just social interactive reality.

(RK) As George Woodcock noted, Proudhon delighted in paradox and fully appreciated the ambiguity of the term ‘anarchy’ when he adopted it to describe his politics. Tracing the origin of the word to the ancient Greek (anarkhos) he argued that anarchy meant ‘without government’, or the government of no one. Far from implying social ruin, it suggested progress and harmonious co-operation. Anarchy was the natural counterpart to equality: it promised an end to social division and civil strife.

In the nineteenth century some anarchists inserted a hyphen between the ‘an’ and ‘archy’, in an effort to emphasize its derivation from antiquity, whilst also drawing implicit comparison with the better-known alternatives, monarchy (the government of one), and oligarchy (the government of the few). By hyphenating the word in this manner they hoped to challenge their detractors whilst encouraging the oppressed to re-examine their ideas about the nature of political organization and the assumptions on which these ideas were based.

(LCW) I can appreciate Proudhon’s amusement at the conflict his ambiguity might bring to his detractors and supporters alike. It is very similar to my own position whereas I attempt to not ‘tell’ individuals what they should do, and I try to refrain from directing others but instead desire only that they ‘think’ about concepts and hopefully find some revelation through their own efforts. The use of force in education or some manipulation and indoctrination in philosophical thought becomes an inevitable failure.

No movement garners respect and legitimacy through the production of mindless zombies to implement and proselytize their ideology. As Einstein is quoted as saying, “if you cannot explain it to a six-year-old, then you probably don’t really understand it yourself”. Truer words were never spoken. Real and credible change comes only through reasoned conversation, deep contemplation, and a usually prolonged investigation into concepts that result in a significant comprehension of ideas, intent, and ramifications. Nothing else can give you the confidence and assurance of something substantive and of demonstrable value.

With all the friction and probable animosity my positions may evoke, I welcome the ideals of social progress and harmonious cooperation. For me, the jury is still out if the anarchist understands that these things absolutely have to derive from the initial concept of voluntary action, without restriction or exception.

The communists and the socialists as well as the liberals all give ‘lip service’ which is nothing more than hollow rhetoric and a narrative full of insincerity and hypocrisy. They do not work towards persuasion and agreement but for coerced cooperation and capitulation through oppression and intimidation. I see no reasoned agreement and consensus through discussion and debate but a master/slave relationship that is created, initiated, developed, and implemented through outside influences for vague and unrealistic as well as impractical ends that always seem to result in failure and disappointment. Invariably and inevitably.

I am intrigued and appreciate the way you try to characterize the anarchist as strategic and thoughtful in the way they ‘intended’ to use the label of anarchism. I have no first-hand knowledge of the veracity of these intentions, but for the sake of this conversation, giving the benefit of the doubt, I welcome the possibility that what is stated is actually true.

I am no fan of a government of one, whether it be a monarchy or a dictatorship, although the concept of the beneficent or benign dictator has given me much to contemplate over the years. The problem is that even if successful, how does a dictator ensure a peaceful transfer of power and how do they guarantee someone just as beneficent as their successor?

I am just as skeptical of the government of the few since an undue amount of power is contained in such a small group that can be somewhat easily corrupted or intimidated. But this is the possibility that no matter the size of the group, the logistics are possibly more complicated but nevertheless possible.

That was one of the fundamental ideas of genius that the American founders eventually inserted into the development and organization of their budding system. At least the representation would be tied to the size of the population, thereby creating a paradigm that would be hard to corrupt as the country grew and expanded, but alas, the oligarchy of the political machine itself quickly put a stop to that since it was not in its best interests.

It was also a bit impractical. The initial intent was to have a representative for every 4000 citizens, which ironically was never achieved from the initial stages until legislation capped said representation at 435 in the early 20th century. It came close, but not really relevant. The impracticality would have soon killed the idea anyway.

A quick diversion to do some math and those initial numbers would have been 1000 of those pesky politicians running around but today it would have meant over 80,000 representatives which would have been prohibitive without a reduction or negations of salary and benefits, which doesn’t sound bad exactly, but who would want the job? There is always the lust for notoriety and power, but still.

Even with a goal of a representative for each 40 or 50 thousand citizens would still necessitate over 5000 representatives. I guess they really had no idea that America would grow so large or so quickly. In 250 years, it has grown from 4 to 330 million citizens, with no way of knowing how many actual inhabitants that implies.

My point is, and I did have a point, was that it would be next to impossible to lobby or corrupt five thousand individuals, which would be a good thing. We need to work on that a bit more. But that is actually my point. Constitutionalism and capitalism may be damaged and possibly even broken, but that does not mean that they cannot be repaired and restored to their original intent.

The only issues that I have found of significance and legitimacy within all of these other ideologies, from liberalism and collectivism to anarchism, are all already existent fundamental concepts within the structure of the American political paradigm. There is no argument that they are not working, but these other systems have no structure, they have no leadership (by design and intent), and no real objective except to tear down and rebuild afterward (when changing one’s mind will not be an option) so their impracticality and ability to function in such a diverse and highly divisive environment are highly unlikely, and that is a generous characterization.

One of the reasons that I am interested in knowing more about the anarchist mentality is when comments such as ‘hoped to challenge their detractors whilst encouraging the oppressed to re-examine their ideas about the nature of political organization and the assumptions on which these ideas were based’ I am encouraged that the movement (not the public face) may in fact be a positive influence in some way on the future events within the structure of American social evolution.

This statement was not dictatorial in nature, and I appreciate that. It talks of hope, with an intellectual and reasoned approach of ‘challenging’ its detractors and the oppressed alike to ‘re-examine’ their own assumptions and ideas that are the basis for the movement itself.

I find it necessary to re-evaluate my own deeply held beliefs on an ongoing basis, even those that I am confident cannot be shaken because my own personal history has shown that changes do in fact take place even with our most intimate and comfortable positions at times. I find this fact refreshing and a prerequisite to a legitimate evolution of personal thought and ideology. To hear it from an anarchistic source is encouraging, to say the least.

(RK) Some anarchists have shared Proudhon’s delight in the paradox of ‘anarchy’ and played up the positive aspect of chaos associated with the term. The Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin famously described the disordered order of anarchy in the revolutionary principle: ‘the passion for destruction is a creative passion, too’.

(LCW) This is a highly unsubstantiated claim not to mention more than a bit irrational, naïve and foolish. Without some credible evidence or at least a reasoned argument I simply fail to see any positive aspect to chaos except a distraction to assist in the implementation of another paradigm after some form of revolution or coup. I find it difficult to accept such a claim or that this is a positive element.

I also have great difficulty accepting that the passion for destruction is a creative passion as well. That would demand some kind of explanation to clarify exactly what it is that is being implied. The statement is ‘cute’ in many respects and creative to some degree, but the harm done to the reputation and interpretation of what anarchy actually ‘is’ brings so much more negative than positive implications. I find it immature and self-destructive. This also suggests that coercion is an appropriate response to your desires being frustrated or your feelings being hurt. From my perspective, unacceptable.

(RK) Another nineteenth-century Russian, Peter Kropotkin, followed suit. Order, he argued, was ‘servitude ... the shackling of thought, the brutalizing of the human race, maintained by the sword and the whip.’ Disorder was ‘the uprising of the people against this ignoble order, breaking its fetters, destroying the barriers, and marching towards a better future.’

(LCW) Fairly simplistic and somewhat irrational to say such a thing. I see no servitude in order. Quite the contrary, order allows choice and self-determination. Chaos and disorder are nothing but inexplicable confusion and the absence of structure and all freedoms since there is no control over other individuals with the exception of the subjective conclusions and actions of each and every other person, with no consensus or agreement as to the legitimacy of any aspect of a civilized social relationship.

These are fundamental questions and freedoms that are necessary for the existence of a valid alternative to those systems that are held in the question of validity. It almost certainly removes any validity of anarchism itself which again is self-defeating and self-destructive.

I fail to see where the concept of a better future can germinate in the total chaos of no discernable rules or conventions. It verges on insanity. This is not to say that chaos can possibly be the genesis of something superior (in theory) at some point in the future, but with no guarantees whatsoever that the objectives and results will be positive since there are no objectives to begin with. Truly incomprehensible.

(RK) Of course anarchy spelt disorder for it promised ‘the blossoming of the most beautiful passions and the greatest of devotion’: it was ‘the epic of supreme human love’.

(LCW) Who are the people that make these absurd statements? History shows us no examples of beautiful passions in the activities of anarchists and as for supreme human love, it exhibits nothing I could relate to as far as love is concerned.

There has been no credible evidence of this sentiment in anything that has been produced to this point, in the context of this book or any historical events. There is a disturbing tendency to linger on these issues that are obviously biased and predicated upon oppression, coercion, violence, and pure hatred. I simply cannot see a path that leads anywhere except tyranny and a servitude infinitely worse than any recognized under the systems being criticized.

(RK) Other anarchists have been less comfortable with the connotations of ‘anarchy’. Indeed, much anarchist literature suggests that the ambiguity of ‘anarchy’ has forced anarchists onto the defensive. As many anarchists have pointed out, the problem of Proudhon’s paradox is not only the confusion to which it lends itself, but its broadness: disorder can imply anything from disorganization to barbarism and violence.

(LCW) The fact remains no focus is being invested in the explanation of these perspectives and no specifics are ever produced. More poetic license that does sound inviting but does not represent the ideology in any sense other than one of fantasy and wishful thinking. It does not reflect well upon the philosophy or the individuals representative of that ideology, hence the fear that it will develop and evolve into a possible reality even worse than the original set of circumstances. I certainly commiserate and agree with such a position in essence since I have the same apprehensions and doubts but remain without confidence that the intent and expectations are practical or legitimate.

(RK) One of the most persistent features of introductions to anarchism is the author’s concern to demythologize this idea. Examples from three different authors are reproduced below. The first is taken from Alexander Berkman’s ABC of Anarchism:

... before I tell you what anarchism is, I want to tell you what it is not. That
is necessary because so much falsehood has been spread about
anarchism. Even intelligent persons often have entirely wrong
notions about it. Some people talk about anarchism without
knowing a thing about it. And some lie about anarchism, because
they don’t want you to know the truth about it. ...
Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

(LCW) Based upon what? What information or evidence is there to support such a statement? Almost without exception this book has related comments from various directions that may not talk of bombs and robbery and death, but they unequivocally point to disorder and chaos, often with a discernable glee, and that is the problem.

What ‘falsehoods’ are being spread about anarchism if the ideology itself cannot be defined or explained? There must exist something that is ‘true’ for the possibility of disseminating something else that is ‘false’. It is an irrational statement that is subjective and biased in essence and inconclusive in any reasoned argument.

‘Even intelligent persons’? This comes across as a bigoted and arrogant statement. Intelligent by whose standards? Can that include individuals that disagree with you or only those that understand and recognize those concepts that only ‘you’ have determined are legitimate? This does not reflect any voluntary actions or cooperative decisions, but rather an oppressive environment and mindset that has resulted in failure in every instance available to us by looking at history.

How can you say that it is not a return to barbarism or the wild state of man? Why was Moore referenced then? What can one expect in the social interaction between individuals if there is no government, no law, no rules, no authority, and no clear explanation as to who and what and when or even if something is appropriate or beneficial or detrimental and completely discouraged?

Do you expect those same individuals that act like animals under capitalism and constitutional federalism and have no respect for existing law and property of others to somehow become model citizens on their own with no input or direction from any source whatsoever? I embrace idealism but this is completely irrational.

I have heard the anarchist many times explain that the individuals themselves will have some kind of mystical convocation (undefined and inexplicable) and come up with solutions that they are incapable of doing under existing social structures, and while I appreciate the sentiment, I question the practicality of doing so even under circumstances that are rather small, let’s say a thousand people, much less in the sense of a modern country of millions of individuals.

Especially in the case of anarchists who by definition are individualistic and fiercely independent. The expectation, again only from my own point of view although I think it rational and completely believable that the degree of dissent and disagreement would be significant, even higher than within the normal parameters of our state and federal environments today. Does this not reflect a perfectly legitimate perspective on the alternative of anarchists resolving fundamental issues within their communities?

I find it amusing but confusing that Berkman does everything except tell us what anarchy is, and that is the crux of the issue. I remain ignorant of the basic truths of the anarchist paradigm, and that is of great concern. Quite troublesome if you must know.

If even ‘intelligent persons’ have the wrong notions about anarchism, I have to question whose fault is that? It is more than a bit confusing when the uneducated individual or the person that is supposedly speaking (authoritatively) on behalf of the philosophy takes it upon themselves to represent the entire 'ideology' even though authority is supposedly rejected and hierarchies are dismissed as irrelevant. Where does any speaker get their ‘authority’ to dos so?

His mini-monologue is overly vague and fundamentally condescending. It does nothing to welcome the non-anarchist into a viable discussion, and nothing to even suggest what anarchy actually is. It holds little substance or value in the determination of the definition of anarchy.

(RK) The second comes from the Cardiff-based Anarchist Media Group:

There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any
other political idea. Actually it has nothing to do with a belief in
chaos, death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry
bombs, nor do they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies ...
... There is nothing complicated or threatening about anarchism ...

(LCW) I am trying to keep my responses reasonable and respectful but I must admit these comments come across as extremely disingenuous to the point of dishonest. I see very few people that speak of carrying bombs or beating up old ladies or death or even destruction and alluding to these things simply keep the concepts alive in the conversation, to the point of overpowering the appropriate narrative that needs to be presented.

If the discussion was only about legitimate and credible intellectual and philosophically based concepts then perhaps these references could be countered and dismissed without fanfare. Responding to the radical fringe and misinformed mob only calls attention to their ignorance about their own ideology. I have said it many times already, this is self-defeating and self-destructive and should be avoided. Whoever speaks for anarchy does it no benefit by talking about negatives. Optimism and positive issues would avoid such unwanted distractions.

It is completely incomprehensible to me that, if ‘there is nothing complicated or threatening about anarchism’ then why do you not explain, in detail, why that is? I am open to the concept of anarchism, at least in theory, and yet I have found it complicated and threatening for decades since I have seen no one articulate enough to show me the error of my ways.

The conversation perpetually speaks of revolution, it talks of destruction and contains a rationalization of a ‘need’ for violence and coercion but I am not supposed to feel threatened? If it walks and talks like a duck then in all probability it really is a duck. And once again, the speaker does nothing to refute or clarify what anarchism is, but only what it is not. Not helping the conflict at all.

Much of what has been presented in this particular book, and anarchists in general ‘do’ talk of chaos and destruction. You recently quoted Michael Bakunin as famously stating the principle: ‘the passion for destruction is a creative passion, too’. Numerous sources you have quoted have promoted and embraced chaos and revolution, and there is no way to have an agreeable revolution.

People always die, even if it is not the ‘intent’ to do so. The expectation was clear, it was not a peaceful revolution that was envisioned but one where governments were overthrown, and history shows us no examples where that did not result in pain, suffering, and death.

(RK) Finally, Donald Rooum offers this in his introduction to anarchism:

Besides being used in the sense implied by its Greek origin, the word
‘anarchy’ is also used to mean unsettled government, disorderly
government, or government by marauding gangs ...
Both the proper and improper meanings of the term ‘anarchy’ are
now current, and this causes confusion. A person who hears government
by marauding gangs described as ‘anarchy’ on television
news, and then hears an anarchist advocating ‘anarchy’, is liable to
conclude that anarchists want government by marauding gangs.

(LCW) Not to be argumentative, but even if the desire is not to have government by marauding gangs, the essence of what I have read so far here today and what I have experienced with my efforts in the past to understand anarchy, it does reference and imply no government at all, and that means inevitable chaos and while the marauding gangs may not precisely represent ‘government’, if there is no established authority of any kind, ready and waiting to step in when the present government is negated or whatever the anarchist is implying or expecting, then those gangs will ‘de facto’ be in essence the only valid even if illegitimate authority.

When they say jump you ‘will’ jump, or in all probability you will die. Even if these individuals are not anarchists, per se, who are you or anyone else to determine otherwise? Is there some kind of test or membership card that will separate the wheat from the chaff? Do you see my dilemma? Do you understand why people fear the anarchist paradigm? You have done nothing to change that reality.

(RK) Of course, anarchists have moved beyond these disclaimers to advance fairly detailed conceptions of anarchy and to highlight the success that anarchy has enjoyed, albeit on a temporary and proscribed scale. Yet anarchy remains a problematic concept because, unlike liberty, for example, it so readily lends itself to the evocation of an unattractive condition.

(LCW) I find it fascinating that so many anarchists want to parse the differences between legitimate and illegitimate characterizations of the ideology. We see very much the same attitude and interpretation from collectivists and liberals but is that not what they do when they characterize capitalism as exploitative?

It is ‘demonstrably’ an almost infinitesimal segment of capitalists (although I can easily make the argument that they are not de-facto capitalists in the same way that those ‘anarchists’ that you disagree with are characterized as not really anarchists). They are the ones who create and institute these totally inappropriate environments and situations (with the complete knowledge and support of deeply depraved and corrupted political players both elected and appointed) that are the problem.

I ‘suggest’ that these individuals are only capitalists in name only and are an extreme and perverted version of the concept. I reject what they do and how they do it, and if those in opposition would understand that fact then perhaps change could be effectuated that could resolve some of these issues. An easy alternative? Not at all, and yet more desirable than the conflict that is inevitable if you truly expect to, without violence, change the fundamental political and economic apparatus that exists today.

A very sad reflection on the inability of opposing philosophies to have a conversation and be able to discuss and debate disparate viewpoints. Is this not the inevitable takeaway from those who tout diversity? Diversity is our differences and has nothing to do with similarities. Our differences are what make us interesting and yet challenging. It is what makes life exciting and produces creative resolutions to complex issues. Diversity makes us appreciate those differences and the creativity and innovation and discoveries that result directly from that very conflict of interest and ability.

I see no real attempt being made to make such an effort, rather than simply trying to coerce people to see only single perspectives when having diverse positions. Sad state of affairs. Mankind will require an exorbitant amount of growth and maturity to experience before that will be possible.

(RK) And whilst anarchists are happy to discuss the possibility of moving beyond existing forms of state organization they have been wary of employing ‘anarchy’ as an explanatory concept, preferring to define anarchism in other ways. The remainder of the chapter examines three alternative approaches to anarchism: the first looks at key personalities, the second at schools of thought, and the third at history.

(LCW) From my perspective, I would tend to agree that they are all inclined to the possibility of ‘moving beyond’ existing state organization realities, but the wariness of employing anarchy as an explanatory concept is more than a little bit troubling. If one is not willing to explain their own self-labeled concepts, then what possible legitimacy can be found in avoiding them?

If anarchy is a legitimate alternative then there needs to be a focus on the dissemination of a valid and significant definition of the ideology and the philosophy. I don’t understand the reluctance to do so. Is it not possible or is there a certain lack of confidence as to the credibility of their own belief system? If the anarchist is not fully engaged and enthusiastic in their ideology why should I invest time and energy in the concept?

Why would you wish to ‘define’ anarchism in ‘other’ ways? If you are ashamed of the term ‘anarchism’ perhaps you should call yourself something else. How about ‘Utopianistas’ or some such deviation? I think the time to define and explain is now, with your self-proclaimed logo and philosophy and with an articulate presentation not of what anarchy was or could be, but what it is. If there are too many versions, you need to control your own movement or it will devolve and disappear into a mist of ineptitude and irrelevance.