Through the anarchism’s study of hierarchies, it attempts to expose the root of the conflict and hostility in society, or “status.”
Why is there often the appearance of a “war of all against all?”
This analysis doesn’t mean that people who are more adept at organizing and subverting hierarchy can change everything, but it does mean that any approach to ending inequality must begin from a radical understanding of the problem (though I use the term “radical” somewhat loosely here, as what is deemed radical often just amounts to logic).
Generic, conformist, ho-hum explanations just don’t work as well as the anarchic lens, and conformist ideology should mostly be examined critically, to understand how simplistic propaganda works.
There is a vast amount of mythologizing propaganda involved in promoting this system in idealized form, almost like easy-to-swallow pills.
For example, psychologist crybaby and right-wing darling Jordan Peterson laughably said: “The number one predictor of accomplishment in Western societies is intelligence. What’s the number two predictor?: Conscientiousness. Well, what’s that? It’s a trait marker for hard work. So, who gets ahead? Smart people who work hard.”
Now, honestly, those are a bunch of generic and see-through claims, but people embrace them because they employ feel-good mythologies about accomplishment, using a bunch of words that sound nice and virtuous, such as intelligence, conscientiousness, and hard work, etc. However, anyone who’s lived any kind of life knows it’s more complicated than that. Not all “accomplished” people are necessarily deeply knowledgeable, nor do they universally do the greatest job, work the hardest at it, etc. In fact, if we are talking about success, wealth, power, and fame, some people are practically born accomplished due to nepotism. Or, even if that’s the case, they had tons of resources available to them that others did not. It’s not just “smart people who work hard” that get ahead, Jordan.
Now, obviously what I just said is not even particularly radical. It’s something practically anyone with real-life experience could note, and I think even someone like Jordan Peterson knows that. However, real-life explanations for how the world actually works are less likely to fit on a bumper sticker.
Just People Doing Jobs, and Certainly Not Always Well
It often makes sense to approach issues rather conditionally, in the form of “If we are to have this, it should be used in this way.”
For example, police and military organizations supposedly exist to protect and serve people, and not the other way round. However, because of the nature of authority and authoritarianism, there are endless examples of it being the other way around, where we protect and serve these institutions, or are even sacrificed at their altar. In fact, that is arguably actually the norm.
And that is often allowed through mythologizing what could otherwise be seen as jobs. So, what is The Secretary of Defense? It is a cabinet-level position, a job, defined as “the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD [Department of Defense] and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.”
But notice how it does not include language like “ordained by God” or some other idealistic imagery. If anything, the language there is a little bit too dry, too uninspired. But, in a way, that is preferable. Either way, it perfectly illustrates the difference between myth and reality, emotion vs. fact, simply doing a job versus serving a divine purpose, and how different a job looks from any other over-inflated myth of national greatness.
The military and police are not merely positive social forces that inherently protect us but often serve as war-making institutions.
Clearly, these institutions don’t necessarily need to be destroyed, but they need to be described and faced as such. Similarly, we should not want to glorify schools, school officials, or any number of institutions of society. We should see them primarily as jobs people do, and recognize that people within them can be flawed, if not sometimes “evil.” Sometimes these institutions can be improved upon or, if enough people will it, be done away with.
They are sometimes, in themselves, social problems with social solutions – and change can sometimes come from within the institutions themselves, or from some outside force (and, particularly if an institution is violent enough, people may be quite literally forced to rebel against it, if they wish to survive it).
The Individual vs. Society
Some have always blamed struggle on the individual, and lament them as losers and failures. Sociologist C. Wright Mills, on the other hand, noted way back in 1959 that “the very structure of opportunities has collapsed, ” adding that “Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.”
And it’s especially strange how often those speaking about “individual responsibility” still favor status quo institutions as their go-to example of how things ought to be. Well, are these institutions really that much about individual choice or judgment? No, they are about conforming to the ways and guidelines of those institutions, typically subverting one’s individual will to them, playing by their roles and rules, and working for their outcomes. And, of course, these institutions (typically) end up serving functions and purposes far greater than the concept of individual responsibility.
In fact, even these institutions typically don’t act all that individually.
The police, army, and other government institutions are, in fact, interlinked, and it is through analyzing this interdependency and intersecting institutions that anarchist analysis can be used to understand the root of the conflicts between the powerful and the oppressed.
In other words, anarchism means a little bit more than “without authority.” The anarchic lens is actually an intellectual framework, and it can technically even be applied within a system of authority.
What About Specific Anarchist History and the Anarchic Lens?
Anarchist theories and movements have always existed, even if they were not identified as such. In fact, although it’s not often acknowledged, anarchism used to be harder to avoid and it pissed authorities off.
Anarchist Communism became very influential in the Spanish Revolution, especially with the 1936–1939 Spanish Anarchist movement, while the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) took the revolutionary syndicalist theory further and experimented with a range of strategies and organizational forms that are still used by revolutionary unionists around the world (though, for better or worse, the “propaganda of the deed” aspect of anarchist history has often been cited by its critics as indicating anarchism simply means political violence…though, of course, anarchists are not the only people in human history who have employed violence, including perhaps hypocritically).
In the last quarter of the 20th century, anarchism underwent a resurgence in influence, with various international anarchist federations and autonomous social centers being established, and publications like Socialist Review (at least marginally anarchic) appearing.
Explaining Anarchism
Anarchist communities, clubs, and informal collective living patterns have also been documented worldwide and will be in the future. Why? Plenty of the precepts are appealing to people, including even conformists, who inevitably end up abiding by at least some anarchist ideals at some point in their lives.
Political thought shouldn’t just ask “how should we be governed?” but also simply “should we be governed?”
Anarchism may seem like a political philosophy that developed in the 19th century out of a primarily English-language movement. Some think it began with the works of English writer William Godwin, or that it was a Luddite-like reaction to industrialist overreach.
However, it goes back further than Godwin (though, if you allow me to digress, I would like to mention that Godwin wasn’t just considered a father of modern anarchism, but also the father of “Frankenstein” author Mary Shelley).
If you want an example of an anarchist movement that goes back a ways, check out the Digger movement of the 1600s.
As the Encyclopedia Brittanica notes, its de facto leader, Gerrard Winstanley, was “a dissenting Christian” (yes, not all anarchists are atheists) in 1649, urging his countrymen “to manure and work upon the common lands,” and his movement was called the True Levellers (or Diggers, as they are called today, for whatever reason). Animated by a perceived injustice, Winstanley and the True Levellers tried to revert privatized land back to common ownership, fighting England’s “Enclosure Acts” that ended up privatizing land that had been previously available for common use.
So, when people such as myself refer to capitalism as a legal system, this is a very solid example of exactly what I mean. The Enclosure Acts are also a plain example of laws being used not to benefit the common good, but to forcer property and class distinction, allowing land and resources to become a tool of exploitation, benefitting one class at the expense of another. In reality, it is “the system” itself that ends up radicalizing some people, and this will continue to be the case so long as there are still people.
Anarch-ish 