Misunderstood Politics – Anarchism (And ACAB)

Anarchism is perhaps one of the most misunderstood political ideologies in modern times. For most my life I thought of them as simply wanting chaos. A totally impractical movement for idealists with no understanding of human nature, who would tear down society due to issues with authority, which would only lead to more suffering and the inevitable rise of a new state out of the rubble.

Recently however, I fell down a Youtube rabbit hole of anarchist content creators and found I had misjudged them and their believes. They are not caricatures of the Joker or Tyler Durden. This sparked an interest in looking at misunderstood communities. I want to give a basic rundown of the realities of anarchism for those who may be similarly misinformed. I think it is important for us to understand others and their views, so we might better understand the world and empathise with our fellow humans.

For those looking for a more thorough understanding of anarchism I would recommend the youtubers “Thought Slime” and “Non-Compete” for an insider view that’s easily accessible. I will also link more official sources such as the Stanford entry on Anarchism below for a more intellectual look at Anarchism for those intrigued enough. It is also worth noting that anarchists are a very disparate group, with numerous different views on what they want and how best to get there so consider this a broad look at the topic.

So without further ado, let’s get into Anarchism

The word comes from the prefix “an”, meaning “without”, and “arché” or “archos”, which is Greek for “ruling power, leader or chief”. So “without ruler”. No this does not mean they want chaos, in fact the “A” within an “O” symbol which represents anarchism stands for “Anarchy is Order”. They reject hierarchies and the authority of man over man as illegitimate, seeking to create a society were power is distributed horizontally, rather the vertical distribution we live under now. To give a better view of their beliefs here are some quotes from Anarchist philosophers and thinkers

Gerard Casey: “states are criminal organizations. All states, not just the obviously totalitarian or repressive ones”

Nocella: “Anarchism is a socio-political theory which opposes all systems of domination and oppression such as racism, ableism, sexism, anti-LGBTTQIA, ageism, sizeism, government, competition, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and punitive justice, and promotes direct democracy, collaboration, interdependence, mutual aid, diversity, peace, transformative justice and equity”.

Pierre Proudhon: “The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy”.

To anarchists, hierarchical power inevitably leads to oppression in systemic and institutionalised ways. One group will gain power and privilege over another and can then codify the system to benefit them at the expense of others. In our own society, the wealthy individuals, predominately white and male have the vast majority of power and can manipulate the system. Their own social ideas are then put into law by the legislature, and enforced by the police and military. Anarchists question the validity of not just authoritarian regimes, but of democratic systems, wherein some can use their power, wealth and influence to change and manipulate the course of action of the state through elections, lobbying and even bribes. They are critical of representative democracy as you choose your rulers, not the rules, and have no real ability to hold them to account as they hold the monopoly on force and control the access you have to power.

Therefore, to anarchists, vertical power should be questioned and dismantled to lead to a more egalitarian and fair society. Anarchists believe that oppression would not be possible if it weren’t for the coercive authority of the state, that is to say the state having a monopoly on the justified use of violence and the threat thereof. An individual can still be cruel and manipulative, but that isn’t the same as a states overarching power over a citizens life. The overarching power of the state means that you can never be truly free. They would ask, are you really free if you have to function in society to be able to eat or avoid incarceration? For example, you need to work to eat, and you need to pay tax to avoid being arrested. If freedom is conditional on obedience, can you really say that you are free?

The extent to which they oppose authority can vary. Some see all states and institutions as illegitimate. Others, such as the famous Noam Chomsky, believe they can exist, but that the burden of proof is on the institutions to show that they are necessary and benevolent.

Noam Chomsky: “This is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met”.

“Such institutions face a heavy burden of proof: it must be shown that under existing conditions, perhaps because of some overriding consideration of deprivation or threat, some form of authority, hierarchy, and domination is justified, despite the prima facie case against it—a burden that can rarely be met”.

It should also be noted that they do not reject authority in every instance. They would not deny a doctor’s authority in health matters, or an engineer’s/architect’s authority in construction. Authority can exist on an individual level when appropriate but should not be allowed to take root in institutional and systemic way.

It is an intriguing world view. It is not always used with a political goal in mind. It can be considered a way of philosophically analysing the world we live in. I think there is something admirable to a stance that holds all power to account, and challenges arbitrary authority that can so often go unquestioned. We are born and raised in a system and thus can find it hard to look at it through a critical lense and consider other options, as it may be all we know. Anarchists generally come to aim for a world with direct democracy, with society becoming less centralised so that communities of people who know each other can rule themselves in the best way for the citizens. I would question the extent to which an anarchic society would be sustainable. Charismatic individuals typically come to the fore in most groups and exert growing influence over it, regardless of systemic authority. You might notice in your friend group that an individual exerts more control over the others. Perhaps there are effective checks and balances that could be put in place to prevent this, or it may be seen simply as a lesser of two evils. An individual you know personally would be more easily questioned and limited than an authority figure ruling over massive groups with no intimate connection. Regardless I think it’s important to engage with these ideas based on their reality, as it can so often be misconstrued.

ACAB

With the current protests surrounding police brutality going on I want to talk about one of Anarchists most famous and controversial opinions. All Cops Are Bastards (ACAB) or police abolition. I will admit this statement leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I think that is true of a lot of people. However there is a distinction that helps clear this up. Whilst some use this to say all members of police forces are bad people, having power trips and brutalising the people they are meant to protect, what I have found is this is missing the point. The criticism of anarchists is not about the individuals, but rather the institution. Whilst the police do perform important functions such as investigating violent crime and protecting people, they are primarily seen as the defenders of capital to Anarchists. Anarchists argue that there is a disparity in the way that the average people (and especially the poor and minorities) are treated, and the treatment of the wealthy and their interests. Compare the difference in response to a burglary and a bank robbery. The difference in response to the possession and dealing of drugs, and the crashing of the housing market in 2008. Compare tax avoidance by the rich (shown to its full extent in the Panama Papers) and tax avoidance of an individual. The youtuber “non-compete” brings up that people are arrested for sleeping/squatting in vacant homes wherein nobody was harmed, whereas near Waco Texas, the West Fertiliser Plant exploded in 2013, leading to the deaths of 15 people, and none of the owners of the plant faced any chargers despite the plant having been found to have been undermanned and overworked. The police and legal system are seen as another institution of corrupt power that prioritizes protecting capital rather than people, leading to crimes that harm no one or very few being prosecuted harshly, but crimes or negligence by the rich which cause huge harm or even death to vast numbers of people are often not prosecuted at all. This institutional critique I think is fair. Police reform is an issue and is less egregious than claiming all cops are terrible individuals.

Anarchists argue that without a state and the systemic problems contained therein, many of the root causes of crime could be removed. They see reform as just putting a plaster on the wound. They don’t argue that all crime would disappear, but argue that without poverty and oppression people would be less inclined to crimes such as robbery. Furthermore decriminalising drugs, and treating addicts as human beings with a medical problem would prevent associated criminal activity. This links to their critique of punitive justice. Anarchists promote restorative and rehabilitative justice, with a focus on helping criminals becoming functioning members of society again and helping make victims whole again rather than seeking revenge. I think their critiques hold merit. Our current prison system does not work, as evidenced by high recidivism rates. Criminals face restricted employment opportunities and social rejection which pushes them back into crime.

Ultimately this leads to two responses to policing in our current way of life. First is to defund the police. Taking money away from their budgets and investing it in the communities. These would leave some level of policing in place, but with less power and responsibility. Police often have huge budgets, and this money could be spent on housing, social programs, mental health services and education which would increase public safety and help bring down crime rates, thus making police less necessary. Abolishing the Police wouldn’t be a case of removing police overnight but would be a long process of redistributing their funding and responsibilities, and encouraging people from within their own communities to help sort issues out, rather than strangers. These two ideas are being increasingly discussed at the moment, especially in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.

As previously stated anarchists hold numerous different view and stances, but I want to give a couple ideas I have heard from the youtubers I mentioned at the start regarding policing in an anarchist society. Thought Slime suggests a rotating police force that could be recalled if citizens felt they weren’t acting in their best interests. This would eliminate the accumulation of power and stop the creation of a class of people ostensibly outside the law as they are the distributors of it. Essentially making the police more like firefighters along with social workers to help prevent crimes. Non-Compete proposes highly trained social workers who know their communities well with an emphasis on harm prevention, mediation and de-escalation combined with a volunteer civil defence force with strict rules on the escalation of violence as well as a forensic group for serious crimes such as rape and murder.

Anarchist views on policing come from their critique of hierarchal power and the evident systematic problems we see around the world. Their views are more complicated than we might want to reduce them to. From my research it is disingenuous to present them as hating cops as individuals, although there are of course those that do feel that way, and statements such as ACAB do not help paint them in a positive light.

Could It Work?

This is the biggest question. Anarchism is often written off as a totally impractical political philosophy. However this may not be the case. There are small scale examples such as hippy communes and communal gardens. There are also historical examples such as some groups of Indigenous Americans living more egalitarian communal lifestyles. I want to talk about perhaps the most famous example, although it is also rarely talked about. It is the example of Catalonia

From 1936 to 1939 the Catalonia formed itself into an anarcho-syndicalist society. Farms became communes, factories became cooperative, churches were demolished and direct democracy increased. Up to 75% of the economy was run by syndicates and it thrived. It is often toted that if people have access to what they need for free they will become lazy. In reality the people of Catalonia contributed with fervour and pride to the new society.

George Orwell commented in his book Homage to Catalonia that

“here was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."

“the members of the syndicates are their own masters and carry on the production and distribution of the products of labour under their own management with the advice of technical experts in whom they have confidence”.

Catalonia was largely a success story for Anarcho-Syndicalism. Society was radically changed and flourished to an extent, although it was hampered by war. It is certainly an interesting case study and it would have been fascinating to see how it could have developed. It was destroyed from the outside rather than within. Fascist Spain were aggressors to it, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist society was undermined by the Communist Party of Spain who withdrew aid as they believed war was not the time for revolution. With aid cut off many reverted to pre-war society and Catalonia collapsed.

8 million people managed to form a new type of society, showing that there are different successful ways in which we can live. I am waiting on further books on this piece of history so may do a follow up article when I am better informed.

Concluding Thoughts

Anarchism is substantially more lucid than I had thought before looking into it. One can of course debate its effectiveness, and with so many different branches it is hard to agree with all of them. I think it is a fascinating take on the world and I would be interested to see it in practice. I sympathise with their rejection of arbitrary authority and hopes to build a better society, especially when it seems alien to us. I would urge readers to not write it off out of hand. It has a bad reputation but there is an intellectual core which has interesting critiques and comments that merit attention.

Sources

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

https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-happens-when-anarchists-run-a-country-history-has-an-answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2V6A6WEHNE – Step Back History has an interesting youtube video on Catalonian Anarchism

Thought Slime - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9_wxEzA41o&list=PL2NllTmgLDPs10puhaUTwbgVdy7q-QjAB (Check out his series Q&Anarchy)

Non-Compete -

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkZFKKK-0YB0FvwoS8P7nHg/videos