ADVERTISEMENTS:
After reading this article you will learn about Anarchism:- 1. Definition and Origin of Anarchism 2. Basic Concepts of Anarchism 3. Aspects 4. Conclusion.
Definition and Origin of Anarchism:
The English word anarchism; it is said, is derived from the Greek word anarkhia. Or anarchia may be the root of anarchism. According to COD anarchy means “absence of government; disorder and confusion.”
Utter lawlessness or complete disorders are used to indicate anarchy. However, the term anarchy is used to indicate several situations all of which mean lawlessness or disorder. We, therefore, say that confusion or lawlessness is closely associated with anarchy.
The term anarchy has a special relevance in civil society or civilized society because it is generally believed that in every civilized society there shall exist rule of law which means that only law will control the society both ruler and ruled.
Its absence means the anarchy. It is thus obvious that the term anarchy is associated with law. The anarchical condition is never desirable and to this situation Hobbes first drew attention of his readers.
He imagined of a state of nature which was unfit for human habitation and in order to get rid of it, the inhabitants of the state of nature decided to build up a civil society in which law and its administration would prevail.
So administration of law is opposite to anarchical situation. But when the law and the authority of state went beyond certain limits some people advocated that anarchy was more preferable to the all powerful state system. Since then anarchism has managed a place in the vast field of political science. The term used in politics does no differ considerably from the above meaning.
Sebastien Faure defines it in the following way; “Whoever denies authority and fights against it is an anarchist.” To deny authority and to propagate it continuously is called anarchism. Anarchism may be said to be a faith or belief. It is sometimes called an ideology. Of course all do not subscribe to the last meaning.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Concise Dictionary of Politics precisely says that the specialized usage of the word differs markedly from common usage, which takes anarchism as a synonym for moral and political disorder. In general terms the word is used in a pejorative sense.
George Woodcock, a well-known authority on anarchism, has defined the concept in the following words; “Historically anarchism is a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of a desirable future society; and a means of passing from one to another” (Anarchism, The said authority further says that it is chiefly concerned with the relationship between man and society. When the normal, orderly and civilized relationship between man and society deteriorates or collapses it is considered as anarchy. Hence anarchy may be treated as an attitude to any particular situation.
Anarchy or anarchism is a normative concept because it is held that the prevailing condition about law and order and deteriorating condition between man and society in not desirable. Something better or different is desirable.
To put it in other words, anarchism indicates that people are dissatisfied with the prevailing situation and condition and they desire something better than the existing one. So anarchism speaks of difference between present and future.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Anarchism is also compared with nihilism. Nihilism means the abandonment of all current doctrines and faith. Anarchism believes that prevailing political situation is not conducive to the development of individual’s qualities and for that reason it is to be rejected.
Some critics have bracketed anarchism with terrorism on the ground that both have declared their strong opposition to the rule of law and apathy against it. Both believe that strict application of law or adherence to it is against the normal functioning of general public and human organization. But today terrorism is used in a different sense. It aims at destabilizing the prevailing system by means of armed struggle or violent means.
Anarchism openly declares its apathy to civil administration whereas terrorism does not do this. It is generally believed by a good number of scholars that origin of anarchism can be traced to the French Revolution. Though some think that the anarchical situation prevailed even before the French Revolution and people were acquainted with it.
In seventeenth century the term received wider circulation and later on it was discussed in both academic and political circles. During the revolutionary period common people squatted on the streets and agitated against the failure of the government to check the sky-rocketing condition of disorder, turmoil and food prices.
They also demanded the overthrow of the Girondins and the establishment to the Jacobin dictatorship. In fact, during the Revolution there was no normal condition of law and order and harmonious relationship between the ruler and the ruled. There was practically no authority to implement the existing rules and regulations because people lost their faith on these rules.
They believed that these could not serve their purpose and on that ground they violated the rules. In other words, people reached the end-point of their patience. To explain this situation the term anarchy was used. It has been observed by James Joll (The Anarchists) that the anarchist was the term adopted by Robespierre to attack those people on the left whom he had used for his own ends but whom he was determined to be rid of.
Originally the term anarchism was associated with the dismal economic situation. It was said that when ordinary men were deprived of day to day necessities and the prices of necessary goods were beyond their reach that could not be considered as a normal condition.
It was definitely an anarchical situation. Anarchy also meant the absence of law and order in every sphere of life and that was clearly evident during the French Revolution.
In eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many people (some call them misguided) came to believe that the absence of government and strict application of law were far better than the prevailing system of governance with the help of law and police.
Basic Concepts of Anarchism:
It is very difficult to state in a precise form the basic tenets or concepts of anarchism because of the fact that there is no single exponent of the theory.
Woodcock has rightly said:
“To describe the essential theory of anarchism is rather like trying to grapple with Proteus for the very nature of libertarian attitude its rejection of dogmas, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory and above all its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of individual judgment creates immediately the possibility of a variety of viewpoints inconceivable in a closely dogmatic system.”
Several exponents of the doctrine have stated the theory in their own ways which have created a lot of confusion about it. In spite of this primary problem certain basic concepts have been devised.
In the first place anarchism states that individual is the sovereign and he is the sole determiner of everything. Any sort of intervention in his affairs will be treated as harmful and undesirable.
So anarchism may be regarded as an extreme form of individualism or liberalism. Both these do not recognize the importance of state or any other organization.
Secondly, anarchist theory of individualism is a different one. It never says that individual is a completely isolated unit and selfish. Rather he is cooperative minded. Like Bentham’s utilitarianism he does not think of his own good at the cost of other’s good. He gives priority to both and affects a compromise.
Thirdly, anarchism believes that development of the inherent qualities of the individual is possible only through the recognition of his sovereign status. The meddling of any other authority or organization can achieve this goal. This is because of the fact that according to the anarchist thinkers the individual is quite reasonable and he understands what is good and what is bad. So the individual should be left alone and, if done so, that will generate the greatest welfare in the society.
Fourthly, there are some extreme anarchists and Max Striner (1806-1856) is one of them. He says that each person should be given unrestricted freedom to do whatever he likes because in this way he can develop his own intellectual capacity.
He is the centre of all activities and he is responsible for everything. Max Stirner rules out any sort of state interference in the affairs of the individual. For this reason he is called an extreme anarchist.
In the fifth place, a thorough study of anarchism reveals that it is in strong opposition to collectivism and communism because they do not recognize individuals’ worth and freedom. Collectivism does not say that individuals are capable of making remarkable contribution to the progress of society. This view has been held by Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939). Tucker advocates no compromise with collectivism or communism.
In the sixth place, anarchism has laid great confidence upon the reasonability of individuals. The doctrine stresses that there shall be laws and regulations in any society but the individuals will on their own accord obey these laws.
Seventhly, it envisages an all-round social progress but the only actor of this process will be the individual and not the state.
Aspects of Anarchism:
1. The Concept of State:
The most important aspect of anarchism is its attitude to state. It has thrown its vitriolic tirade against the all pervasive character or affairs of state system. Its attack against the state is so vehement that it is not prepared to make any compromise.
It has been observed, “While supporters of the state see it as necessary to solve problems of security and order (and in many cases, to provide other services), anarchists reverse the argument”.
The anarchists believe that the so called problems of security and order are chiefly due to the concentration of power in the hands of few persons who are members of the state government.
If there were no government the problems of law and order as well as of security would never arise. The authority has deliberately created the problems and in the name of solving these problems it demands unconditional obligation from people. It accumulates power.
William Godwin (1756-1836) was the earliest anarchist thinker whose writing An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (published in 1793) contains that it is the state power which corrupts and misleads the people.
The authority of state dwarfs individual judgment and reasoning. It is not necessary at all for individuals to show obligation to the state. On the contrary, they can defy the state authority which will ultimately benefit them.
It is generally believed by the anarchists that the state is the manifestation of supreme coercive power and violence and the sole usurper of individual liberty. The anarchists have asserted that the coercive power of state destroys the spontaneity of individuals, their urge to perform constructive work and not only this has the authority of state imposed various restrictions that discourage people to work spontaneously.
The result is the progress of society is halted. Hence the authority of state can reasonably be regarded as a great enemy to human progress as well as the progress of society. This view of anarchism should not lead one to conclude that anarchism is supporter of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire supports restricted state activity, anarchism talks about abolition of state.
The above reasons have induced the anarchist thinkers to challenge the authority of state and even to annihilate it. The modern state is nothing but an organization managed by very few persons. Minority imposes its rule and authority over the majority. Such a state can never be called a democratic one. In fine, it is a state controlled by elites and for the benefits of elites.
According to anarchism, the modern state is complex machinery. The machinery is so complicated that it is beyond the capacity of ordinary men to be acquainted with its functions.
Such a state cannot do any benefit for the common people. The state machinery is controlled by few intelligent persons. In this way alienation is created between different classes.
Anarchism emphasizes that the numerous functions are not alone performed by the state. There are many organizations and state-sponsored bodies who do the job on behalf of the state.
The state and all organizations exercise coercive power. The result is that individuals do not get any scope to exercise their initiative.
This is harmful for individuals. People hardly get any opportunity to exercise their reason and intelligence. In earlier stages of the development of state there were many associations, that is, the state had federal structure, but with the passing of time the federal character came to be lost.
The state became omnipotent and omnicompetent. It has been stressed by anarchism that in the Middle Ages ‘there were communes and associations but they were devoured by the gigantic nature of modern state.
Anarchists’ viewpoint is that two diverse tendencies went side by side. One is the rapid decline of the spontaneity and importance of the individual. Second is the meteoric rise in the importance of the state.
Anarchism has advanced an interesting argument in support of its contention. In the preliminary stages of social progress the mental development, ability and intelligence of individuals were not sufficient and because of this they were not capable of shouldering the responsibility of the management of state.
So they had to depend on the authority and guidance of state. But modern people have reached the highest stage of evolution and, at such a stage, the guardianship of state is not necessary at all. People do not require the power of state.
If state authority is accepted that will be to put the cart before the horse, to stop the progress of human civilization. This is not possible.
The modern state, according to anarchists, stands for uniformity. But the nature of individual prefers variety and abhors uniformity and regimentation. The state through its overriding power tries to destroy the variety of human nature, attitude and behaviour and in this way destroys the scope of development.
Neither in short term nor in the long term management or affairs of state do the individuals have no scope to exercise their judgment and reason. Even the state imposes taxes upon people without considering their ability to pay.
In the Middle Ages the kings or emperors did the same thing and they invited wrath and rebellion. If the state is replaced by cooperation and mutual association the system of taxation will no longer exist.
The above analysis reveals that the anarchist thinker has offered us a very gloomy picture about the very nature and function of state. For various reasons they came to the conclusion that the state was the enemy of individual’s overall progress and hence there is no reason to justify the existence of state.
It would be better if the state is destroyed. For this reason the anarchists strongly advocated for the annihilation of state structure. They were convinced that peace and progress could never be achieved so long there would exist a state.
Anarchists’ all attention was concentrated upon state versus individual and in this controversy they unhesitatingly took the side of the individual. They could not believe that state might come to any benefit of individual.
The utilitarian’s thought that by limiting the powers of state and keeping it at a desirable level the happiness of people could be maximized. On the other hand, for almost the same objective, the state system should be abolished. But the interesting point is that both the utilitarian’s and the anarchists were extremely concerned with the welfare of the individuals, though their scheme and approach were different.
2. Society:
The anarchists have been found to strongly support the federalization of society which visualizes that there shall not be any single authority in any society rather, there shall be multiple centres. This multiplicity of centres implies the decentralisation of power in all its manifestations.
State will be denied any sort of overriding control over society. The federalisation of society will facilitate individual’s participation in the affairs of society. It means that the society will be divided into small groups and all shall have scope to manage the affairs in their own way.
According to anarchists the federalisation scheme will ensure three things:
(a) Individual participation in the various affairs of society,
(b) Brotherhood among all the members of society and harmonious relation among all the groups, and
(c) Each group will have sufficient autonomy.
If the anarchist scheme of federalisation of state or society is implemented into practice the only consequence will be the state will invariably be deprived of its absolute power. This may be called a stateless condition. Because when a state is deprived or forced to be deprived of absolute power it no longer remains a state at all.
Anarchist suggestion finally leads to a type of stateless society. Again, there is doubt whether this condition can at all be called a state. Since human society is the product of a long process of evolution there is no role of human factor or human contribution in this evolution.
Simply stated, according to anarchism there is no human contribution to the origin of state. This view of the anarchists goes against the social contract theory which believes the contribution of human factor behind the origin of state or society. If so, every society shall be emancipated from the control of higher authority.
The anarchists have also dealt with the organization of society. They have said that the society will be organized in the line of mutualism. Proudhon has defined the term mutuality as involving and constituting economic right or the application of justice to political economy.
“In terms of organisation society would be composed of workers’ associations or cooperatives. Within each mutualist association the workers would be joint owners of the productive apparatus and entitled to a share in its product. Each mutualist cooperative would exchanges its product with other cooperatives. They would develop their skills and educate themselves”.
Anarchists have also dealt with the organization of society in which we find the following scheme. The whole society will be divided into several stages from bottom to top. The whole society along with all the stages shall be free from all sorts of control. They have suggested that the division of society will create communes. Marx also thought of such schemes.
The communes shall be free from external control and in several respects shall be self-dependent. This will nullify the state system. Social organisation is also called workers’ organisation.
In both function and organisation the principle shall always be cooperation and harmony. Each member of society will share a part of whole responsibility. The day-to-day administration will be conducted by the members of the society. Nothing will be imposed upon members of society.
It has been observed by an anarchist that if this self-management scheme is realized there shall be no necessity of a government of one set of persons which will rule upon the rest of the society. In social organisation there shall be no place of governmentalism. So anarchism once more rules out the guardianship and control of the government.
3. Revolution:
We shall now focus our attention on the anarchist theory of revolution. Almost all the anarchists were in favour of changing the society through revolution. Because they believed that compromise or reforms could not be relied upon for the purpose of changing society in a radical way.
Among all the anarchist thinkers perhaps Bakunin was the top so far as the idea of revolution is concerned. Aileen Kelly in his noted work Mikhail Bakunin has aptly said, “Through his battle against the state and authority in all its forms Bakunin has come to be regarded as one of the greatest champions of individual in the history of political thought. Few thinkers have been as uncompromising and extreme as Bakunin in their demand for the liberation of men from the bonds and constraints imposed on them by political, religious and philosophical systems”.
Bakunin thought that this emancipation could be achieved only through a revolution. Not only Bakunin, several other anarchists held the same view. Any type of compromise would spoil the purpose of the common people in their attempt for radical change.
The anarchists out of their experience came to the conclusion that the emancipation of the workers would never be possible without the destruction of state structure and revolution could do that.
First of all a revolution will destroy the existing structure of state and in that place will be set up autonomous units in the form of association. These units will be self-sufficient in all respects. In other words the existing state structure will be replaced by the autonomous association and they will discharge the functions of state.
According to anarchists in the present system of state what is prominent is that corruption has spread to every nook and corner of society and this situation cannot be remedied by piecemeal attempts such as reforms or parliamentary procedure or revisionary methods. A radical change of society is essential and only revolution can bring about.
The existing structure of society would be destroyed by a revolution. Compromise or parliamentary procedure would lead to adjustment with capitalists. Compromise means replacement of one exploiting class by another. So in ordinary change the emancipation of working class will remain a far cry. But anarchism envisages of a radical change of society. That is why the revolution has been so much emphasized in anarchism.
In the opinion of the anarchists the system of private property is the root of all evils and this system of property should be abolished to free the society from evils. Proudhon once called the private property as nothing but theft.
Marx and his followers were also against the system of private property. Apart from this the system of private property encourages and brings about inequalities. In ordinary way private property cannot be abolished, for this is required a revolution.
Who will be at the helm of revolutionary struggle? This is a very piquant question. The Marxists have held the view that mass participation in revolutionary struggle is an essential pre-condition of the success of revolution. But party shall be at the leadership. Leadership of party means leadership of very few persons. Both Proudhon and Bakunin were against this approach to revolution.
Strongly opposing the Marxist approach to revolution the anarchists have observed that common people will have full control over management and leadership of revolution and this will ensure their participation.
The anarchists have also considered the ends and means of revolution. Emma Goldman, a noted anarchist, has said that in launching a revolution both ends and means must be given due importance. The Russian Revolution gave priority to ends and this is improper.
The means used by the revolutionaries must be duly considered. She has said that “no revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the means used to further it is identical in spirit and tendency with the purposes to be achieved”.
Emma Goldman has further said that in a revolution, means cannot be separated from purposes. This implies that a revolution must be very straight-forward in its approach and method.
Bakunin held the same view. He advocated for an honest and real revolution. In such a revolution both means and ends are properly emphasized. If purpose is given priority that will make a revolution dishonest. Ultimately such a revolution cans never the successful.
There was controversy in regard to the techniques or methods of revolution. Some anarchists have been found to suggest terrorism or terrorist ways for running or conducting a revolution. But many anarchists have been found to disapprove terrorism.
However, under special circumstances, terrorist means may be resorted to but not in all cases. Schwarzmantel has said “Where an autocracy pushed oppression to its extremity and the hopelessness of the political situation drove people to despair, as happened in pre-revolutionary Russia, anarchists resorted to individual acts of terrorism and assassination… Such tactics were also tried by some anarchists in France from 1892 to 1894”. But these terrorist methods could not achieve desired results. Terrorism was foiled by more oppressive measures adopted by reactionary power. Some anarchists have advocated “direct action”.
4. Utopianism:
Schwarzmantel in his Structures of Power makes the following remark…“anarchist theory contains Utopian elements and is of little relevance to the practice of everyday politics”.
This is a very remarkable observation and this requires to be explained. There was a time when anarchism drew a good deal of public attention.
Superficially, the anarchist doctrine is attractive, but if we enter into its details we shall find that it is purely Utopian and full of impractical ideas.
There are three stages of anarchist theory – the state as a political organization is oppressive. It forces the individuals to show their obligation to the state and any refusal is followed by punishment.
The state is the source of all sorts of corruption and evils. Such an organization is to be abolished. Secondly, the state is to be abolished by means of revolution. So long the state exists there cannot be any emancipation of people.
If the state is forcibly abolished capitalism will not be the source of any evil and individuals will be in a position to enjoy full freedom. Finally, after the abolition of state, there will be set up a new society based on harmony and cooperation among all individuals. The new society will be free from all evils, bondage and corruption.
Let us explain the utopianism or Utopian aspects of anarchism in details. There is nothing wrong in the anarchists’ argument that state, the ownership of private property and capitalism are the main sources of evils and misery of the working class.
Anarchists’ argument is also not wrong that only revolution can emancipate the people. But their contention is that only masses of men can make revolution a reality. The anarchists have ruled out the question of leadership.
They were apprehensive of the appearance of the elitist element. We do not contradict this viewpoint. But it is Utopian to think that common people will be able to provide the adequate leadership which will make revolution successful.
History does not record of any such incident. Furthermore, without party and leadership no revolution can be successful. Hence anarchism is Utopian. In no country of the world masses have been found to possess intelligence, capacity etc. necessary for managing or conducting a revolution.
By advocating that in the future society there shall be cooperation and harmony, anarchists have dismally failed to understand the proper nature of man. Basic tendency of individuals is selfishness and, in this content, a harmonious society cannot be set up.
To ignore the basic nature of man is an indicator of utopianism Utopian socialists also wanted to build up a socialist society on the basis of cooperation and harmony. But from the records of history we gather that Utopian socialists attempt to construct a harmonious society based on goodwill, cooperation, rationality and harmony never came into existence though there was no flaw in the attempts of Utopian socialists.
The anarchists rule out any type of authority which is another side of Utopian thought. How is it possible that in future society no conflict will ever arise? If conflict arises and it is bound to arise there must be an authority to settle the conflicts.
If there is no authority who will settle the disputes? Even for the management of any factory or organization the existence of an authority is a must. The simple fact is that in all forms of human organisation there must exist an authority. Even in a family there is head of family and he guides the whole family.
Both society and civilization are progressing. But it is unfortunate that the anarchists planned for creating a society of primitive type. For example “Proudhon envisaged a society in which men’s products would be directly exchanged for the other goods they needed, and in which such institutions as might be required for this purpose would be provided by negotiations between the groups concerned”.
The contemporary society of anarchists was quite advanced and in spite of this they particularly Proudhon suggested that a primitive type of society would be established.
How could they succeed we do not know?
Could they convince people that the modern society could be replaced by an old society based on exchange?
In spite of the shortcomings of the existing state system, its indispensability is beyond any doubt. Modern life is practically impossible without a state. The anarchists failed to realize this fundamental aspects and importance of state.
No other organization can act as an alternative to state. Marx and Engels also predicted the withering away of state. But in no part of the world, and even in a socialist state, the state has withered away.
It is a fact that importance of state is increasing day- by-day. Hence the plan to destroy state is simply a Utopian thought, nothing else.
The Utopian character of anarchist thought is revealed in a statement of Kropotkin:
“Common possession of the necessaries of production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits of common production…an equitable organisation of society can only arise when every wage system is abandoned”. This picture of a future society is absolutely Utopian in nature.
Marx and Engels as well as their predecessor Utopian socialists also imagined building up such a society and it is needless to say that such a society has never been set up and will not be set up in future.
One of the Utopian ideas of anarchism is that anarchists strongly argued for the abolition of all laws and regulations because all these tend to curb human freedom.
The anarchists have further argued that instead of laws there shall exist harmonious relation and cooperation.
These will rule and manage society. Such an approach is impractical from top to bottom. Laws are essential for the proper management and administration of society.
Conclusion to Anarchism:
Though anarchism, like Marxism, failed to create a lasting impact upon the mind of the academics, it cannot be said that as an ism it completely failed. In the earlier decades of the 20th century the revival of anarchism does not surprise us at all.
“Gandhi (1869-1948) and his followers responded to Kropotkin’s populist message and his ideas of natural village communities spontaneously springing up. Oscar Wilde was impressed by his personality and message”.
This is an indication of the fact that the main tenets of anarchism did not die down. In several West European countries we witness the continuity of anarchist thought.
The most important aspect of anarchism that has impressed quite a very good number of men of the academic and political world is the freedom of choice and the absence of central coercive authority in a society.
Gustav Landauer was a German non-violent anarchist. He said that social revolution must come through the voluntary cooperation of all people. He opposed the existing state structure and party system. In the first three decades of the 20th century Gustav Landauer participated in revolutionary activities of several European countries.
The countries which have not yet experienced the European or American type of industrialization have been found to be under the impact of anarchism. But this conclusion cannot be treated as a general one. In many countries of Asia and Africa anarchist thought regarding state and economy has found a large number of supporters.
James Joll writes:
“In India Gandhi herself and subsequently Jayprakash Narayan and Vinoba Bhabe have dreamed basing Indian society on self-sufficient, self-governing village republics.”
Gandhi, Narayan and score of other thinkers did not support the prevailing state system with supreme sovereign power because all of them thought that absolute power of state was inimical to individuals’ freedom of action and thought. To all of them individuals’ liberty was of utmost importance and this cannot be dispensed with.
They have denounced the Western type of absolute sovereignty and, in support of their contention; they recommended decentralization of power to the grassroots levels. Both Gandhi and Narayan viewed state as embodiment of violence and coercion. For that very reason they have strongly advocated for the establishment of village republics or gram panchayat system which will ensure people’s participation in all affairs.
James Joll concludes:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“The 1960s and 1970s were marked by number of episodes and movements which showed that the anarchism was not dead”. The student movements of the sixties and seventies of the 20th century and the terrorist movements of several countries show that anarchism is still popular among a section of people. It is true that there are variations of anarchism, but it is also true that the core idea of anarchism freedom of choice and absence of absolute state authority has not yet lost its appeal to the both educated and politically conscious people of many parts of the globe.
The first decade of the twenty first century may be said is at crossroads. The growing importance of state is being strongly felt. But at the same time it is being emphasized by many that the freedom of individual must be properly protected. It is a time-old idea that the state is for the individuals and not the opposite.
The absolute power of state had certain amount of meaning and relevance in earlier centuries, but with the passing away of time the absoluteness of power has lost importance. Today we look to the state as friend, philosopher and guide. In the light of this thought we have come to think the entire idea of anarchism anew.
There shall remain the state but, at the same time, the freedom of people must be given utmost priority. When the anarchists revolted against the state they had reason because the state was omnipotent and omnicompetent.
Even persons like Robert Nozick admit the importance of state. He has clearly stated it in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. We think that there shall exists a harmonious relationship between state and various organizations that exist within the jurisdiction of state.