|
|
The neutrality and factual accuracy of
this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. |
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without
ruler") may refer to any of the following:
- "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to beliefs that people are inherently good and can organize themselves
without government or bureaucracies; another type of political order."[1]
- "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute
liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
- "Absence or non-recognition of authority in any given sphere."[3]
or, simply, (from Greek: an-, "without" and
Greek: -archy, "leadership")
- Without leadership. Hence, the common use of anarchism as a system of organization without
leaders.
It should be noted that "ruler", used in this context, has no explicit connection to the term "rules". In an anarchy, as
defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the
participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority). Some Languages, such as
Norwegian[4] have two separate words for the two meanings.
This lack of separation causes problems of understanding in a similar way that the word "free" in English causes
misunderstandings when relating to open-source software.
Anarchy after state collapse
English Civil War
-
The tumult of the English Civil War led the term to be taken up in political philosophy. Anarchy was one of the issues at the Putney
Debates of 1647:
- Thomas Rainsborough: I shall blow up your buildings a little more and be less
open with you than I was before. I wish we all truly wanted to change this cesspool we live in. If I did mistrust you I would not
use such asseverations. I think it doth go on mistrust, and things are thought too readily matters of reflection, that were never
intended. For my part, as I think, you forgot something that was in my speech, and you do not only yourselves believe that some
men are inclining to anarchy, but you would make all men believe that. And, sir, to say because a man pleads that every man hath
a voice by right of nature, that therefore it destroys by the same argument all property -- this is to forget the Law of God.
That there’s a property, the Law of God says it; else why hath God made that law, Thou shalt not steal? I am a poor man,
therefore I must be oppressed: if I have no interest in the kingdom, I must suffer by all their laws be they right or wrong. Nay
thus: a gentleman lives in a country and hath three or four lordships, as some men have (God knows how they got them); and when a
Parliament is called he must be a Parliament-man; and it may be he sees some poor men, they live near this man, he can crush them
-- I have known an invasion to make sure he hath turned the poor men out of doors; and I would fain know whether the potency of
rich men do not this, and so keep them under the greatest tyranny that was ever thought of in the world. And therefore I think
that to that it is fully answered: God hath set down that thing as to propriety with this law of his, Thou shalt not steal. And
for my part I am against any such thought, and, as for yourselves, I wish you would not make the world believe that we are for
anarchy.
- Oliver Cromwell: I know nothing but this, that they that are the most yielding
have the greatest wisdom; but really, sir, this is not right as it should be. No man says that you have a mind to anarchy, but
that the consequence of this rule tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy; for where is there any bound or limit set if you take
away this limit , that men that have no interest but the interest of breathing shall have no voice in elections? Therefore I am
confident on 't, we should not be so hot one with another.[5]
As people began to theorise about the English Civil War, Anarchy came to be more sharply defined, albeit from differing
political perspectives:
- 1651 Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) describes the Natural Condition of Mankind as a
war of all against all, where man lives a brutish existence. For the
savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust,
have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner [6].Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of
nature: competition, diffidence and glory, The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the
third, for reputation. His first law of nature is that that every man ought to
endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and
advantages of war. In the state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body but the
second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down
this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.
This is the beginning of contracts/covenants; performing of which is the third law of nature. Injustice, therefore, is
failure to perform in a covenant; all else is just.
- 1656 James Harrington (The Commonwealth of Oceana) uses the term to describe a situation where the
people use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of either solitary land
ownership (absolute Monarchy), or land in the ownership of a few (mixed Monarchy). He
distinguishes it from Commonwealth, the situation when both land ownership and governance
shared by the population at large, seeing it as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government
and the form of property relations.
French Revolution
-
The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789
- See also: Reign of Terror
During the French Revolution, the period of brutal violence in which many members of high-ruling families were killed has been
described as anarchy. The reign of terror was mainly conducted by the radical
egalitarian wing of the revolution. Targets were not only aristocrats but also fellow revolutionaries who were deemed too
moderate, and were sent to guillotine. Thomas Carlyle, Scottish essayist of the Victorian
era known foremost for his widely influential work of history, The French
Revolution, wrote that the French Revolution was a war against both aristocracy
and anarchy:
Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace
alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind.
Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it
through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end
of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general
Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there
be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- It
remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by
gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends.[7]
Armand II, duke of Aiguillon came before the National Assembly (French Revolution) in 1789 and shared his views on the
anarchy:
I may be permitted here to express my personal opinion. I shall no doubt not be accused of not loving liberty, but I know that
not all movements of peoples lead to liberty. But I know that great anarchy quickly leads to great exhaustion and that despotism,
which is a kind of rest, has almost always been the necessary result of great anarchy. It is therefore much more important than
we think to end the disorder under which we suffer. If we can achieve this only through the use of force by authorities, then it
would be thoughtless to keep refraining from using such force.[8]
Armand II was later exiled because he was viewed as being opposed to the revolution's violent tactics.
Professor Chris Bossche commented on the role of anarchy in the revolution:
In The French Revolution, the narrative of increasing anarchy undermined the narrative in which the revolutionaries were
striving to create a new social order by writing a constitution.[9]
Jamaica 1720
Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor of Jamaica, wrote to
John Robinson, the Bishop of London,
in 1720:
- "As to those Englishmen that came as mechanics hither, very young and have now
acquired good estates in Sugar Plantations and
Indigo& co., of course they know no better than what maxims they learn in the
Country. To be now short & plain Your Lordship will see that they have no maxims of
Church and State but what are absolutely anarchical."
In the letter Lawes goes on to complain that these "estated men now are like Jonah's
gourd" and details the humble origins of the "creolians" largely
lacking an education and flouting the rules of church and state. In particular, he cites their refusal to abide be the Deficiency
Act, which required slave owners to procure from England one
white person for every 40 enslaved Africans, thereby hoping
to expand their own estates and inhibit further English/Irish immigration. Lawes describes
the government as being "anarchical, but nearest to any form of Aristocracy". "Must the
King's good subjects at home who are as capable to begin plantations, as their Fathers, and themselves were, be excluded from
their Liberty of settling Plantations in this noble Island, for ever and the King
and Nation at home be deprived of so much riches, to make a few upstart Gentlemen
Princes?."[10].
Spain 1936
After General Franco declared war on the Spanish government in 1936 (Spanish civil
war) the government largely collapsed. Much of the resistance to the rebels was organised throught the confedaration of
anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and the Iberian Anarchist Federation,
the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI). The Spanish Revolution occurred almost immediately after the failed coup of Franco, leading to the
formation of worker's collectives all over Republican Spain. This has been hailed as the best example of a functioning anarchist
system. The anarchists were able to keep the country running and hold back the francoists, until they were attacked by the
Republican government and their Communist allies. The government were subsequently defeated by Franco, leading to 40 years of
francoist dictatorship in Spain.
Somalia, 1991—
-
Before the Islamic Courts Union took control, Somalia was the only country in
the world without a functioning state. Abdo Vingaker, a Somalian living in Sweden, was quoted in
an article by BBC as saying: "I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous
system." The article went on to discuss the abject poverty experienced by the citizens of this country.[11] An economic survey by the World Bank found
that the distribution of wealth was more equal, and the extent of extreme poverty
lesser than in governed West African nations.[12] Scholarly research indicates that living standards in Somalia increased — in absolute
terms, relative to the government era, and relative to other African nations — during this period.[13]
Anarchist communities
-
Political philosophy
Liberalism
Bertrand Russell wrote on how liberalism aims
for a golden mean between despotism and
anarchy:
Every community is faced with two dangers, anarchy and despotism. The Puritans, especially
the Independents, were most impressed by the danger of despotism.
Hobbes, on the contrary, was obsessed by the fear of anarchy. The liberal philosophers who
arose after the Restoration and acquire control after 1688, realized both dangers;
they disliked both Strafford and the Anabaptists. This led Locke to the doctrine of division of powers and of checks and balances.[14]
Anarchism
-
Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow for people to come together
in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or
principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th
century, with its notion of freedom as being based upon political and
economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale
industrial capitalism, and the corruption that
came with their successes.
Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would
prevail in a stateless society, ranging from complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of
private property and free market competition. For example,
most forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-primitivism not only
seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, wage labor,
and private property. In opposition, another form known as anarcho-capitalism argues
that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is voluntarist in
nature. Most anarchists reject the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism as it is marked by authoritarian
structures.
The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a
negatively chaotic environment. Because of this, some activists have self-identified as libertarian socialists. In more recent times anti-authoritarian has offered another similar self-identification. However, anarchists still argue
that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total
absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous
order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and
direct action.
Anthropology
- See also: Anarcho-primitivism
Some anarchist anthropologists, such as David Graeber and Pierre Clastres, consider societies such as those of the Bushmen,
Tiv and the Piaroa to be anarchies in the sense that they explicitly
reject the idea of centralized political authority. [15]
However, others point out that tribal societies of the past have often been more violent than modern technological societies, on
average.[16]
For example, more than a third of the Yanomamo males, on average, died from warfare.[17] Men who participated in killings had more wives
and kids than those who did not.[18] Some
Yanomamo men, however, reflected on the futility of their feuds and made it known that they would have nothing to do with the
raiding.[18] These findings, originally
reported by the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, have been empirically replicated
several times.[19]
Some more recent antropologists, such as Marshall Sahlins and Richard Borshay Lee, have defied the notion of hunter-gatherer societies as being a source of
scarcity and brutalization, describing them as - in the words of Sahlins - "affluent societies". [20]
However the evolutionary psychologist Steven
Pinker writes:
Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we
debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a
few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in
anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other
men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world
that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the
sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate.[16]
Some anarcho-primitivist thinkers[21] do not share this vision of evolution, where man was able to reinvent himself in the last ten
thousand years, to better fulfill his needs. They believe that this concept represents a way that current culture justifies the
values of modern industrial society and as a manner in which civilization was able to move individuals further from their natural
necessities.[22] Besides the consideration of authors,
such as John Zerzan, to the existence in tribal society having less violence
altogether[23], he and other authors such as
Theodore Kaczynski talk about other forms of violence on the individual in advanced
countries, generally expressed by the term "social anomie", that results from the system of monopolized security[24]. These authors do not dismiss the fact that man is changing
while adapting to his different social realities[25], but
consider them an anomaly, nevertheless. The two end results being that we either disappear or become something very different,
distant from what we have come to value in our nature. It has been suggested by experts that this shift towards civilization,
through domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor and psychological disorders[26][27][28]. On the other hand,
concerning the necessity of violence in the primitive world, anthropologist Pierre
Clastres expresses that violence in primitive societies is a natural way for each community to maintain its political
independence, while dismissing the state as a natural outcome of the evolution of human societies.[29]
See also
References
- ^ "anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004
- ^ "anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004
- ^ "anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004
- ^ The Ecoanarchist Manifesto on anarchy.no. Accessed 2007 Sep 23
- ^ The Putney debates
- ^ Chapter
XIII
- ^ Thomas Carlyle,
The French Revolution
- ^ Duke d'Aiguillon
- ^ Revolution in Search of Authority
- ^ Jamaica: Description of the Principal Persons there (about 1720, Sir
Nicholas Lawes, Governor) inCaribbeana Vol. III (1911), edited by Vere Langford Oliver
- ^ BBC News: Living in Somalia's anarchy, accessed on December 29th, 2005.
- ^ Nenova, Tatiana and Harford, Tim (2004)
Anarchy and
Invention (PDF) Public Policy Journal Note Number 280, Retrieved 12 August
2005
- ^ Benjamin Powell; Ryan Ford,
Alex Nowrasteh (2006-1-30). "Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?". Independent Institute.
- ^ Bertrand Russel's The
History of Western Philosophy, pg. 555.
- ^ Graeber, David (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist
Anthropology (PDF) (in English language), Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. ISBN
0-9728196-4-9.
- ^ a b See Steven Pinker's
The Blank Slate, Chapter 4, The Noble
Savage for a survey of the mainstream anthropological opinion.
- ^ Keeley: War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful
savage
- ^ a b (Chagnon 1998; Chagnon 1992)
- ^ (Ember, 1978; Keeley, 1996; Knauft, 1987)
- ^ Sahlins, Marshall (2003). Stone Age Economics.
Routledge. ISBN 0415320100.
- ^ Seven Lies About Civilization, Ran Prieur
- ^ Industrial Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski
- ^ Zerzan, John (2002). Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of
Civilization. Feral House. ISBN 092291575X.
- ^ Zerzan, John (1994). Future Primitive: And Other Essays.
Autonomedia. ISBN 1570270007.
- ^ Industrial
Society and Its Future, Theodore Kaczynski
- ^ Freud, Sigmund (2005). Civilization and Its Discontents. W.
W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393059952.
- ^ Shepard, Paul (1996). Traces of an Omnivore. Island Press.
ISBN 1559634316.
- ^ The Consequences of Domestication and Sedentism by Emily Schultz, et al
- ^ Clastres, Pierre (1994). Archeology of Violence.
Semiotext(e). ISBN 0936756950.
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)